Talk:List of unrecognized countries/Archive 1

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Nagarno-Karabakh is not officially recognised by the Republic of Armenia. Bilateral political relationship is practiced on a de facto basis. So I've changed the status of Nagarno-Karabakh from "Partially recognized state with de facto control over their territory" to "Unrecognized state with de facto control over their territory".

Shouldn't Somaliland be included in the list?

It is. Ambi 15:57, 27 August 2005 (UTC)

"broken off from their home country" doesn't really explain Taiwan. Should there be a new section? how should we deal with this? --Jia ng 06:24, 16 May 2004 (UTC)

I'll try and rewrite it when I get home. I don't think an area needs to be a secessionist region to be listed here - Taiwan still counts as an unrecognized country in my book. Ambivalenthysteria 04:12, 17 May 2004 (UTC)

Shouldn't Kurdistan be listed on this page? MK 05:11, 30 Jun 2004 (UTC)

No, because it's not de facto independent. Ambivalenthysteria 11:08, 25 Jul 2004 (UTC)

What about Kosovo? It's arguably so, but it's a hard call. Ambivalenthysteria 11:08, 25 Jul 2004 (UTC)

WTF is going on?

I mean I put Sealand on the list or soveriegn countries, it doesn't fit there. So I put it here, someone adds Seborga, which is a very good canidate. Where are all these going? What are the qualifications for listing here? It seems to me that it is a group that claims to be a country but is not regognized by anyone. Both Sealand and Seborga should be listed if my definition is true. So if this is not explained then I will put a disputed sign here too. --metta, The Sunborn ☸ 05:07, 2 Oct 2004 (UTC)

No, it's not a list of any random yahoo who claims that they're an independent country. It's a list of mostly functioning independent states that lack either total or partial international recognition. Go off and play with your micronations somewhere else. Ambi 05:25, 2 Oct 2004 (UTC)

I agree, Sealand is not a more or less functioning independent state. Though I added Seborga, it was a reaction on Sealand to be on the list. The best is not to add any of these micronations. Furthermore, one could say that Sealand lacks a people, it is not more than a small bunch of individuals. -- Gangulf 08:07, 2 Oct 2004 (UTC)

So other than size there would be no problem with listing then? Size is the only contention? I just want it to be clear. --The Sunborn

No, not size, as you full well know. All of these are functioning nation-states, with the sole exception that they lack international recognition. They have a real population (not five crackpots), a real culture, a real army (not five crackpots and a cannon), a real parliament, and a real identity. None of which micronations have. All of those on this list have fought wars and serious battles in the diplomatic arena to survive as a country. The only reason that Sealand and Seborga maintain any sort of "independence" is because they're so insignificant it's not worth the expense to send the police in. Ambi 00:20, 3 Oct 2004 (UTC)

I have no real opinion on the Sealand issue — I just found this discussion very amusing. Some guy claims that size is the only contention, and then someone else replies that it's not about size, it's just that the population is only five people. Can talk pages be listed on WP:BJAODN? Factitious 05:10, Oct 10, 2004 (UTC)

Everything you mentioned is directly correlated to a small population. By the way, functioning nation-states, includes Autocracies. You should know that a parliament not requirement for sovereignty. Parliaments are only new contraptions we had countries long before parliaments. All of those on this list have fought wars and serious battles in the diplomatic arena to survive as a country. Has Sealand not fought in the British and European courts for over 30 years and won every case? Has Sealand not had a coup and counter-coup? The only one of your points that bears merit is the one of culture/identity. If anything this could support your entire claim. I will get back to you on what problems it could get you into though.

For the last time, I am not pushing micronations, I am pushing the inclusion of two special cases that have strong legal basis. You say that listing would dishonour Cyprus and the Taiwan. Well calling Sealand and Seborga mirconations dishonours them. Mirconations by definition have no legal basis. Besides honour shouldn't be a criteria in an encyclopedia anyway. We deal with facts, not personal opinions and honour. --metta, The Sunborn ☸ 02:00, 3 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Indeed, you highlight another point. Abkhazia and Taiwan don't fight in the Georgian and Chinese courts respectively for their sovereignty - they just have it. They don't recognise any jurisdiction of the courts over their territory. All the others here are in the same boat. Ambi 02:28, 3 Oct 2004 (UTC)

That is utter nonesense. If a country is born out of dimplomatic circles and not military would it be any less? Would Quebec not have been a separate nation had its referendum on separation been more than 50%? I doubt that very much, you should too, as your arguement depends on the culture idea. Stick with the Culture/Identity, it is the only thing holding your argument up. --The Sunborn

Of course, if a country is born out of diplomatic circles, it is legitimate. There's a difference between a country being born out of legal circles, and a country that fights in the courts of the country it claims has no sovereignty over it. You'd never see any of these doing the same. Ambi 21:06, 4 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Honestly I don't see it, and I doubt you do. However, I am willing to agree with you that the status quo is correct with restpect to the article with one minor addition. This addition would be the Culture/Identity requirement you talk about, if you make it official and mention it on the aritcle, everything should be fine. I have found no way to argue it and if made a full requirement for listing as you claim that it is already, everything should be fine and I will bugger off this argument. If you don't mention it on the article and claim that it is a requirement for listing then we have resolved nothing. --The Sunborn

I have no objection to this being included in the article. Ambi 12:44, 5 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Poll on Sealand and Seborga (5/13)

Even if this poll fails to be in my favour, it is clear that the Sealand and Seborga are more than the defintion of microntations. So if it is decided that they don't belong here, they should be listed separately from micronation and linked to separately.

Please add a suggestion how to do that. Gangulf 14:24, 8 Jan 2005 (UTC)

For listing

All qualifications for listing are met. The only reason for not listing would be size. Maybe we should have a list of minute unrecognized countries :p --metta, The Sunborn ☸ 19:35, 2 Oct 2004 (UTC)
Of course they should be on that list:
- They are entities that a non-trivial number of people regard as countries. This warrants mention of the "country" label (which should however be put in context) .
- They are also not officially recognized by any other relevant entities. This makes them "unrecognized" -- so the list title aptly describes exactly what they are: "unrecognized countries". The word "unrecognized" clearly and appropriately puts the term "country" in context. How much more obvious can you get?
  I would add however that they should be listed neither under the "partially recognized" nor under the "de facto control of territory" heading, as these claims are debatable. In Sealand's case, I would tend towards yes, they do have de-facto control (as they have successfully defended their territory with arms against the British Navy). Still it's probably better to have them in an own section of "No recognition". Ropers 22:07, 2 Oct 2004 (UTC)
Sealand should be on the listing - if one accepts a manmade structure can be a territory, it's got a territory, and UK courts have rejected jurisdiction over it. It has enough existence to be on the list. Seborga's different and shouldn't be on the list Jongarrettuk 23:50, 3 Oct 2004 (UTC)
I beleive Sealand should be included because the British government doesn't seem to activly control anything on that piece of scrap metal. I also want some opinion on Hutt River Province as I think it has a more believable/less crazy claim to unrecognized statehood.--Wilson(cc) 14:31, 7 Jan 2005 (UTC)
per all the reasons listed above. freestylefrappe 01:09, 31 October 2005 (UTC)
support listing Sealand. --Irpen 09:29, 11 November 2005 (UTC)
Of course. KI 02:49, 27 February 2006 (UTC)
What if I declare independence in my car? Should it be also included to the list? Come on guys, get real!

Against listing

I will let Ambi and Gangulf add their own comments

I am against. I think no serious encyclopedia would include these states as unrecognized sovereign states. These countries are justly included in Micronations. -- Gangulf 21:12, 2 Oct 2004 (UTC)

You're making a mistake there. No one proposed listing them as unrecognized sovereign states. They are unrecognized countries, full stop. The word "sovereign" implies original authority or jurisdiction. Unrecognized countries frequently lack in that department. Ropers 22:21, 2 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Then move this to List of unrecognized sovereign states. You're confusing recognition with sovereignty. All of the countries on this list have full sovereignty - they are the final authority as to what goes on in their territory, except for the two under the partial header, which only maintain sovereignty over part of it. The only thing all of these lack is recognition. Ambi 00:23, 3 Oct 2004 (UTC)
I'm strongly against what is essentially micronation advocacy. There's an article specifically for that. And now, their proponents, in order to try and give them some legitimacy, try to tack on their cause to those of Taiwan and Northern Cyprus, which is horribly demeaning to the people of those nations. As I said above, there's a big difference between those currently on this list, and these two. Secondly, if we did list micronations here, we'd inevitably end up duplicating the list at Micronation, and if not, we'd have a bunch of edit wars between micronation advocates as to which ones go in. Ambi 00:20, 3 Oct 2004 (UTC)
Gzornenplatz 00:35, Oct 3, 2004 (UTC)
A village in Italy and a barge off the coast of England are not "states," "nations" or "countries" under any meaningful definition, and should not be included in any such lists or categories. Seborga deserves an article as an interesting historical anomaly, but it is clearly not a state now, if it ever was. Sealand is just a publicity stunt (one of many of this type, such as Hutt River Province) and should not be dignified by being treated as anything else. Adam 01:21, 3 Oct 2004 (UTC)
"recognition" itself implies sovereign state. these are not sovereign states. --Jia ng 03:16, 3 Oct 2004 (UTC)

That makes no sense whatsoever. We are talking about unrecognized nations not recognized ones. By your logic, no nations should be on this list because if they are sovereign then they should be on the recognized list. --The Sunborn

This is response to Ropers's comment above. This listing is for unrecognized sovereign states, not unrecognized "countries" in general. --Jia ng
there's already a link to Cat:Micronations Dysprosia 07:03, 3 Oct 2004 (UTC)
Seborga seems to be a fictional micronation, as far as I can tell from its somewhat unclear entry, and so shouldn't be on the list. Sealand's different and should be keptJongarrettuk 23:51, 3 Oct 2004 (UTC)
Looking at the current list, neither Sealand or Seborga fit in properly. There is a distinct difference between all of these nations and the two micronations. Ambi's list above is a good summarization of those differences. Lyellin 15:34, Oct 4, 2004 (UTC)
[[User:Poccil|Peter O. (Talk)]] 21:43, Oct 11, 2004 (UTC)
Ji ang 03:45, 9 Jan 2005 (UTC)
User:Koavf - For the several reasons listed. This would turn into a list of micronations and fictional entities with the inclusion of Sealand, and/or Seborga. There is a clear difference between Northern Cyprus - which functions as a state, and at least has the recognition of Turkey (for all that's worth), versus these non-entities. Justin (koavf) 03:49, Mar 22, 2005 (UTC)
— ナイトスタリオン _ㇳ–ㇰ — 09:09, 27 September 2005 (UTC)

Hutt Province

I do not see any reason to include Hutt Province, taking into account the vote on Sealand and Seborga. I will delete it from the list. Gangulf 21:28, 7 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Northern Cyprus

It's somewhat in dispute whether the government in northern Cyprus is a "functioning state" in its own right, as opposed to an occupied territory under the control of the government of Turkey, so I don't think we should state it as fact. --Delirium 03:44, Nov 1, 2004 (UTC)

According to Georgia, Abkhazia and South Ossetia are occupied territories under the control of Russia (well, it's more complicated than that, but that's fairly close to it). The same thing could be argued with Russia in regard to Transdniestria. It could apply to most of these, really. Ambi 05:50, 1 Nov 2004 (UTC)

I've vhanged the word "intervention" with the word "invasion". This is the word used in both the Cyprus dispute article and the Turkish invasion of Cyprus article and there has been a lot of discussion there about this issue. --Avg 02:18, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

About the recognition of a non-recognised state by a substate - i.e. of 'TRNC' by Nakhichevan; it is a good idea to remove it since only recognised states have the ability to recognise (or not) unrecognised states. So, yes, that is fine. Politis 16:27, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

Wa state in Burma

Does anybody know anything about the Wa state? Should it be added to this list? [1] — Insta ntnood 09:30, Mar 21, 2005 (UTC)

They don't seem to have any functioning independence at present, although they may have had some in the past. Ambi 11:40, 21 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I don't know what exactly is going on out there. It seems to be having rather stable control of their own territories, and is in good relations with the Rangoon government. Should it be considered historical unrecognised countries then? — Insta ntnood 21:24, Mar 21, 2005 (UTC)

Please present more info on the Wa state, I don't have a clue. Gangulf 10:51, 22 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Wa is a Mon-Khmer people of the Austroasiatic family. They are found along the PRC-Burma border. The Wa people in Burma has its own government, and uses Renminbi, the currency of the PRC. The place was not invaded by the British nor by the Japanese. Before the relocation to southern parts several years ago, those who reside in the northern part grew drugs, because the soil there are too poor for crops. This homepage that I searched from Google has some details (though it mistakenly says Kuomintang are communist). — Insta ntnood 20:16, Mar 22, 2005 (UTC)

I really doubt that Wa is a de facto state Gangulf 21:21, 22 Mar 2005 (UTC)

There are dozens of ethnic groups seeking varying degrees of autonomy and/or independence in various parts of the world. I would class the Wa (along with the Mon, Hmong, Shan and other Burmese minorities) amongst them. They really belong in an article dealing specifically with the issues of autonomy/secessionist struggles, not here. This article is about functioning but unrecognised nation-states as these are traditionally understood.--Gene_poole 22:14, 22 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I'm pretty sure we have a list of those somewhere, but I can't remember where off the top of my head - it's been a while. Ambi 05:33, 23 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Tamil Eelam

Does Tamil Eelam count as unrecognized countries?

I personally would guess not, but I don't know enough to make an argument otherwise. Ambi 11:08, 19 September 2005 (UTC)

According to the Annex to the list of countries, "Places under the control of secessionist or guerrilla movements (e.g. Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam)" do not count as de facto independent. 200.124.35.174 18:43, 19 September 2005 (UTC)

The article currently says that Tamil militias have exclusive control over the region claimed as Tamil Eelam but tha article for Tamil Eelam says: "However, Tamil Eelam is not recognized as an independent state by any de jure independent nation or by the United Nations. The government controls most parts of these regions. The LTTE has control over Vanni, Kilinochchi, Mullaiththeevu, most of Mannar and portions of the Eastern districts of Trincomalee, Batticaloa and Amparai."

Since the Sri Lankan government controls most of that area I assume it will be okay if I remove it from this article. 211.27.101.55 09:31, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

Hiranland

There might be one more historical de facto independent state in the territory of Somalia named "Hiranland". However, I did not manage to find more information about this state on Internet. User:PANONIAN

Where did you hear of this place? Ambi 11:08, 19 September 2005 (UTC)

I searched for some information about Puntland state, and I found this:

http://flagspot.net/flags/so-punt.html

Quote: "Since things are still not going better and Somalia is still a no-state country, Puntland can be considered actually independent since 1992 (1998 for the declaration of "no seccession"...) like other "States" in Hiranland, Jubaland, etc."

So, it mention the state of "Hiranland". I do not know was this state actually de facto independent or maybe somebody just proposed its creation.

Google search do not provide much information about "Hiranland":

http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&lr=&q=hiranland&btnG=Search

This address is maybe interesting:

http://www.hiiraan.ca/2003/july03/op/fatah.htm

Quote: "So, what is the solution? For starters, Somalis must stop all attempts to give artificial respiration to the brain-dead state government. That would allow each province, be it Somaliland, Puntland, Hiranland, Middle Shabelland or (yet to be born) Makhirland, etc. time to organize and manage their respective affairs independently, up to secession."

So, here you have two more: "Middle Shabelland" and "Makhirland". Somalia is a fertile ground for the creation of such states. It would be interesting to research whether they really existed or not. User:PANONIAN

Anjouan

To the best of my knowledge, and according to the History of the Comoros page, they three islands constituting the country are now in a confederation, and therefore, neither of the three is independent currently. Consider also the World Factbook entry, which states: Unstable Comoros has endured 19 coups or attempted coups since gaining independence from France in 1975. In 1997, the islands of Anjouan and Moheli declared their independence from Comoros. In 1999, military chief Col. AZALI seized power. He pledged to resolve the secessionist crisis through a confederal arrangement named the 2000 Fomboni Accord. In December 2001, voters approved a new constitution and presidential elections took place in the spring of 2002. Each island in the archipelago elected its own president and a new union president took office in May of 2002. While the CIA WFB is of course not independent or neutral, I think we can trust them on this... Can we consent to move Anjouan to the historical section? — ナイトスタリオン _ㇳ–ㇰ — 09:11, 22 September 2005 (UTC)

Feel free - I knew the current situation with Anjouan, but hadn't realised that it was still listed there. Ambi 09:30, 22 September 2005 (UTC)

Disputed

Reasons for deletion in the section "Historic unrecognized states with de facto control over their territory":

1. The regions are not historic. Other than short lived or recently founded they have no historical grounds for suggesting independence.

2. They are not countries, states and some are not even regions. Republika Srpska is a political entity whose territory is stipulated by a peace agreement and still disputed.

3. They were largely founded by thugs and war criminals all of whom are either in jail, on trial or at large with an indictment hanging over their head.

4. 3 of those (Republika Srpska, Western Bosnia and Herceg-Bosna are unconstitutional per constitution of Republic of Bosnia and Herzegovina which was in force at the time of their creation)

5. Stating these entities is wishful thinking of nationalist fringe who want to instigate their own people and make them fight for a lost cause.

6. If the category here is as broad then you would need to expand a list to well over 1000 regions, countries and entities in Europe who probably have more historical grounds for suggesting independence. To my opinion the whole category is a joke. --Dado 18:15, 26 September 2005 (UTC)

The entities you've deleted are all "historic" (ie they have a documented existence preceding the present day, and are no longer extant) and maintained de-facto control of their territory by force of arms. Who they were founded by, what their constitutional status was, and whether they were promoted by any "fringe" groups or not is irrelevant - they actually existed, and the therefore should properly be documented within this article. If we removed every "unrecognised country" from this article based on your criteria the article would contain no content at all.--Gene_poole 23:49, 26 September 2005 (UTC)

I also see no reason not to list them. —

ナイトスタリオン _ㇳ–ㇰ — 09:09, 27 September 2005 (UTC)

I also see no reason not to list them. I understand you have ideological objections to these entities, Dado, (frankly, so do I), but they nevertheless were de facto independent for a period, and thus belong on this list. Ambi 14:32, 27 September 2005 (UTC)

It is ambigious what you may consider historic as this term is generally used for events that took place in time long enough ago so that a significant research can be done to place those event into a historical context. The section in its title calls for the list of states and the teritories that I deleted do not qualify as states or countries. They were(or are) teritories within a state of Bosnia and Herzegovina and Croatia. Again if you still want the list to be based on a broad categorization than the title needs to be changed and other regions need to be added. --Dado 01:09, 29 September 2005 (UTC)

Historic in this context simply means that the entities no longer exist in any de facto independent manner - we're not making any judgement as to their significance, which would be a POV violation. All three of those areas are now territories within the states of Bosnia and Herzegovina and Croatia. We're not arguing otherwise, nor are we arguing that these entities should have existed. What we're arguing is that they did exist - whether you or we like it or not - and thus that they belong on this list. I'm removing the POV warning - this seems to be more a question of your dislike for the three entities having existed than any question of whether they were de facto independent. Ambi 01:36, 29 September 2005 (UTC)

Maybe so but you are still not responding to the arguement that these teritories can be qualified as either states or countries as the title suggests. They simply do not fall under that category by any standards. Otherwise we will need to start naming regions and teritories that were conquered by various armies throughout history where temporary or permanent, war-time governments were established. The whole section will be a mess but if they are not included than there is an obvious effort being made here to push and emphasize teritories in question, for whatever reason, that cannot be viewed as NPOV.--Dado 02:27, 29 September 2005 (UTC)

All three of those entities were de facto independent from the nations that their land was internationally recognised as being part of. All three of those entities, at least for some period, had a functioning government independent of that in Sarajevo or Zagreb respectively. And none of those three entities were internationally recognised as being independent states. This is why they are on this page. We already do add the governments you describe to this page. Is there any we've missed? Finally, please stop throwing around accusations. I personally agree with you that many of their leaders were war criminals and that they should not have been states of their own, but that does not change the fact that for a few years in the 1990s, they were indeed de facto independent. Ambi 06:15, 29 September 2005 (UTC)

I am not sure what you are trying to say here but three entities were never internationally recognized nor were ever considered as sovereign states. Again they do not qualify as [[country|countries] or states either recognized or unrecognized. Would you call occupied Paris during WWII historic country or region of Third Reich which is now part of France.

Placing aside all moral considerations all I am saying, and I am not attacking anyone so chill, that either the teritories in question need to be removed or the title needs to be changed as it is completely misleading. It gives these teritories attributes of states which cannot be more removed from the truth.--Dado 17:33, 29 September 2005 (UTC)

"I am not sure what you are trying to say here but three entities were never internationally recognized nor were ever considered as sovereign states"

She just trying to tell you that this article is about entities, which were never internationally recognized nor were ever considered as sovereign states. User:PANONIAN

Dado, that is the entire point of this list. None of these nations on this list were internationally recognised (except for a couple which had a small number of states recognise them). They were, however, functioning as seperate, unrecognised entities for a while - which is why they are on this list. Ambi 00:00, 30 September 2005 (UTC)

This is the entire point. This is not list of countries. This is list of unrecognized countries. None of these nations are or were internationally recognised, and none were considered as states in the same way as, say, Bosnia or Croatia. That's why Bosnia and Croatia are on list of countries and not here. Occupied Paris during World War I was not a historic country. It was part of occupied France, which was. Whether right or wrong, these three entities made claims of being independent states. They laid claim to certain territory, and had somewhat functioning governments. These are characteristics shared by every entity on this list. We're not making any judgement of their legitimacy or whether they should have been internationally recognised, and I detested their existence just as much as you did. So I'm getting pretty frustrated that you keep confusing this list with list of countries. Ambi 04:51, 30 September 2005 (UTC)

I cannot believe that you do not understand what I am talking about. The entities in question are not countries they are not states either recognized or unrecognized, either having de facto control over territory or not. You simply cannot put them in that category and claim that they were merely not recognized (but otherwise they would function as states). All I did is changed the name of the section to clarify this. If other entities fall under the category of countries or states maybe we can have another section made for entities alone. Entities in question are exactly the same as what you consider Paris to be in WWII. They are (or were) part of occupied Bosnia and Croatia and they had no historical precedent before the war. In fact Herzeg-Bosna was also variously called as “Croatian nationalist supra-organization” created to protect Croatian interests during the war, and Republika Srpska originated similarly as well. Also if you are not taking legitimacy in consideration why are you removing “Federation of Bosnia and Herzegovina” and “Bosanska Krajina” entities which equally fall under the same category that you are claiming?--Dado 13:52, 30 September 2005 (UTC)

I removed the Federation because it is an internationally recognised state, and thus belongs on list of countries, and Bosanska Krajina because I've seen no evidence to suggest that it was in any way ever de facto independent (though if you can show any evidence to the contrary, I'll be happy to change my mind). I'm getting really sick of being accused of supporting these entities because I recognise that, right or wrong, they were de facto independent for a period. Right or wrong, they made the claim to be independent states, and had a functioning government and claims to territory. For gods sake - I personally agree with you entirely that these three entities should not have been created, but this is not the place to take out your grievances. Ambi 15:32, 30 September 2005 (UTC)

Ambi, I am not accusing you of supporting any of the entities in question so relax. We are having a simple conversation here. Federation of Bosnia and Herzegovina was never internationally recognized. You are probably confusing it with (Republic of) Bosnia and Herzegovina which is curetly divided between Federation of BiH and Republika Srpska political entities, which got their status as a result of a peace agreement and their teritories are largely based on the military conquests from 1992-1995 and later agreement in 1995. I think we agree that teritories in question should be called entities as that is their official name. I am objecting to call them states or countries as that suggests an attribute which is incorect. We could put them in the separate category and call them “Unrecognized entities with de facto control over their territory” Otherwise I will need to get counterarguement why should we call them countries or states. It is irrelevant if they claimed to be independent states as they cannot be given that status (dependent or independent). It is as if I proclaimed an independent state of “My living room” . I would have full governing and legal claims to that teritory. It would be rediculous but so it is what this section is currently claiming. I will talk about Bosanska Krajina at a later point. Let’s resolve this first. Please think about this logically--Dado 16:47, 30 September 2005 (UTC)

If the Federation did claim to be independent of Bosnia itself, then I have no objection to including it here. The official status now of any of these, however, is irrelevant. As Panonian described below, they fulfilled many characteristics of states (government, armies, territory, etc, claiming to be seperate from Bosnia or Croatia). They were, in effect, countries - that they were de facto independent while not being internationally recognised, which is why they are on this list. Some of the currently existing ones are equally mad - such as Stalinist Transnistria, but that doesn't change their status as an unrecognised state. Oh, and as for your living room argument - if you did that, it would be a micronation, and you could go list it there. Ambi 02:06, 1 October 2005 (UTC)

Dado, stop this nationalistic crap. You very well know that Republika Srpska, Herzeg Bosnia and Western Bosnia were the proclaimed states of local people who lived there. They simply were not occupied by any foreign army. Also, you very well know that Bosnia and Herzegovina also illegally declared its independence from Yugoslavia. According to the constitution of Bosnia and Herzegovina, for such political change was necessary to all 3 nations which lived there (Muslims, Serbs and Croats) agree to this. You also very well know that Serbs did not agreed with independence of Bosnia, thus the Bosnian independence was completely illegal according to its own constitution. User:PANONIAN

Also, whether you like this or not, Republika Srpska, Herzeg Bosnia and Western Bosnia were de facto independent and had de facto control over their territory. They were not occupied by foreign armies, but they were established by local people who lived there. On the contrary, Bosanska Krajina is an geographical region which never was de facto independent. Federation of Bosnia and Herzegovina was created in 1994 as to say "legal" or "recognized" entity, thus, it do not belong in the "List of unrecognized countries". User:PANONIAN

Panonian. Are you at all able not to invoke nationalism when the situation does not suit you. Entities in question were not proclaimed states by people who lived there. Republika Srpska never legally proclaimed independence or statehood. Bosnian Serbs have proclaimed that they as a nation want to live in Yugoslavia in a referendum that only allowed Serbs to vote. That does not mean they get to take half of the sovereign country with them. Putting all nationalism aside here is a short Yugoslavian history for your reference: Yugoslavian constitution called all Republics (including Bosnia) sovereign to the point of independence which is what made Slovenia and Croatia legally secede after Serbia has tipped the power balance to their own side. Vojvodina along with Kosovo was given an autonomous status (I believe) in 1950’s so that this balance can be maintained. In 1991 Serbia illegally abolished their autonomous status’ which off-set the powers and gave Serbia dominance in former Yugoslavia. They further illegally subjugated and overthrew Montenegrin government in 1991 and installed their henchmen. Bosnia wanted to stay in Yugoslavia but not in Yugoslavia where Serbia was a dominant power. Their position was that if Slovenia and Croatia are seceding Bosnia will be merely a Serbian colony (case point Montenegro) or have their sovereignty abolished or jeopardized in a similar way Vojvodina and Kosovo were. This was particularly the concern of the Croatian part of Bosnian population. Bosnian independence was legal and recognized. Personally I wish that Yugoslavia did not fall apart but reasons for that you should start looking for at your own end and quit attacking others for your grievances.--Dado 17:19, 30 September 2005 (UTC)

Listen Dado: can you at least try to understand about what this article speaks? Can you deny that the governments of Republika Srpska, Herzeg-Bosnia and Western Bosnia were in de facto control of their territory? No, you can not! They had every attribute as one de facto independent state - army, police, government, currency, etc. However, they were not internationally recognized as a sovereign states, and that is what qualify them to be included into this article. I think you should learn the difference between words "state" and "sovereign state". There are many states today, which are not sovereign, like Texas or Bayern for example. You also should learn the difference between "de facto" and "the jure" independent states. One state can be "de jure" part of one recognized sovereign state, but "de facto" it can be entity (or state) itself, with "de facto" control over its own territory, but with no international recognition as such. As for your claim that I attacking you, well, the one who observe your edits in various articles can conclude that your primary goal on Wikipedia is a "crusade" against Republika Srpska. I have right to post my observations here, of course. User:PANONIAN

Europe, Asia

I do not think that Abkhazia, Nagorno-Karabakh, South Ossetia and Northern Cyprus are geographically located in Europe. These regions have certain political ties with Europe, but geographically they are clearly located in Asia. Opinions about this? User:PANONIAN

Since Cyprus is generally agreed to be in Europe, so's Northern Cyprus. I, personally, think that all three states in the Caucasus (and by extension the ones you mentioned) are geographically (according to some definitions) and culturally (most certainly) European. If there is a consensus to list them as Asian, however, I'll accept that.

ナイトスタリオン ✉ 08:58, 29 September 2005 (UTC)

Well, I am only talking about geography. Caucasus mountain is a border between Europe and Asia. South of the Caucasus is Asia, and north of the Caucasus is Europe. Abkhazia, Nagorno-Karabakh, and South Ossetia are located in the south Caucasus in Asia. Cyprus is an island closer to Anatolia (Asia) than to Europe. I am just asking: should we use the geographical or political criteria for this list? Also, is Greenland part of Europe too? It is part of European Union, but it is located in America. How would we define borders of Europe here? User:PANONIAN

- This has already been a subject of long discussion, I think it was at transcontinental nations... And BTW, Greenland has not been part of the EU since 1985. ナイトスタリオン ✉ 10:04, 30 September 2005 (UTC)

How about Europe-Asia as a compromise? It doesn't matter that much. freestylefrappe 00:40, 30 September 2005 (UTC)

Okay.

ナイトスタリオン ✉ 10:04, 30 September 2005 (UTC)

Flags

It is good idea to post flags in the article. However, Kosovo officially do not have flag. This "Kosovo flag" in the article is actually flag of Serbia and Montenegro. Instead of this, I think that flag of United Nations should be posted since Kosovo is UN protectorate. Also, since I do not know how to post more flags into article, here are some other flags, which should be added to the article (if somebody know how to post them, he should do this):

http://www.crwflags.com/fotw/flags/so-punt.html (Flag of Puntland)
http://www.crwflags.com/fotw/flags/so-sws.html (Flag of Southwestern Somalia)
http://www.crwflags.com/fotw/flags/lk-tamil.html (Flag of Tamil Eelam)
http://www.crwflags.com/fotw/flags/uno.html (Flag of United Nations, should represent Kosovo)

User:PANONIAN

More countries

See this article:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_extinct_states

There is list of the "Secessionist states" there and some of them should be included here too:

Cartagena Canton - the haven city of Cartagena, Spain seceded from the First Spanish Republic in 1873.
Cruzob, achieved independence from Mexico in 1856, but was reannexed in 1901.
Ezo - declared independance from Japan in 1868 after the defeat of the forces of the Tokugawa shogunate during the Boshin War until it was reincorporated into Japan in 1869
The Italian Social Republic (Repubblica Sociale Italiana in Italian), also known as the Republic of Salò, was a fascist puppet state in German- occupied northern Italy.
Manitoba - short-lived republic led by Thomas Spence, declared after the Hudson's Bay Company gave up Rupert's Land and before the government of Canada took control (1867).
Red River Rebellion - provisional government in Rupert's Land, led by Louis Riel in (1869–1870).
Rio Grande declared independence in 1840, brought back into Mexico by force less than a year later, encompassed the land of the Mexican states of Tamaulipas, Nuevo Leon, and parts of the USA state of Texas.
Rose Island - A tiny island seceded from Italy.
Tacna and Arica - Disputed territories by the Pacific shore of South America.
Ukrainian People's Republic - declared independence after the Russian Revolution of 1917, but fell to the Soviet Union in 1920.

Should we include some of those into article as a historical unrecognized states or not? Of course, there is question were these countries recognized or not, but the title "Secessionist states" might indicate that they were not. User:PANONIAN

Yes. The Republic of Minerva should also be included. See Micronation and List of micronations. freestylefrappe 15:37, 12 October 2005 (UTC)

Not again... ::sighs:: There's a difference between actual secessionist states and micronations.

ナイトスタリオン ✉ 18:20, 12 October 2005 (UTC)

What is your point...? Either way they are unrecognized countries. freestylefrappe 18:23, 12 October 2005 (UTC)

No, they're not countries. Read the lengthy discussion about this above - and the overwhelming consensus to keep micronations in Micronation and related articles. Ambi 14:00, 13 October 2005 (UTC)

Removal. Explanation

I removed an entry from Europe, the "so called" Catalan Countries. The reasons are following:

This is a list of "de facto" countries, and AFAIK, there isn't such an entity with control over an square inch of territory. So it ought to go to the List_of_active_autonomist_and_secessionist_movements.
According to the dates entried (up to 1714), I suppose it refered to the entity that historians (and called themselves ) usually know as Crown of Aragon", which never has been coterminous with the "so called" Catalan Countries. The Crown of Aragon was clearly, in their times, an full international subject. In this case it belongs to a list of extinct states (How and when it was extinct is just another discussion ...)

--Wllacer 09:02, 19 October 2005 (UTC)

Re Hutt River, I put this in before I noticed that it had already been handled before. However, I think that 'micronations' should be included if some criteria are applied, such as size, population, lenght of 'existance' etc. Aslo, any form of pseudo-acceptance should play a part in deciding, eg, do any of the relevant stamp and coin authorities consider its issues legitimate. (My understanding is that they don't in the case of HRP). --Dmol 21:08, 31 October 2005 (UTC)

Criteria for inclusion in this list

In the articles List of sovereign states, List of unrecognized countries and List of active autonomist and secessionist movements I think it would help the reader a great deal if a clearer distinction is made between these categories:

a recognized state controlling most or all of its territory

a de facto sovereign state that lacks general recognition, but still maintains most of the attributes of a functioning state

an aspirant state, i.e. a group of people concentrated in a singel territory that want either a sovereign state or an autonomous sub-state within another state

Otherwise, it will be difficult to reach a consensus about what to properly call all these entities that may variously either want or have actual control and/or partial recognition. Then there are all those territories that don't want either sovereign statehood nor political union with or incorporation into another state, as well as disputed territories that don't seek independence. --Big Adamsky 19:13, 28 November 2005 (UTC)

Abkhazia and South Ossetia

Not sure how to use this yet, but I got a message saying that I should explain my changes here. I have edited Abkhazia and South Ossetia entries to be consistent with the corresponding articles. Hope that provides enough explanation. -- User:Irakliy81

Khoikhoi, please be so kind to point out where exactly did you see Georgian POV in my revisions? The fact that independent Georgia was occupied by Red Army in 1921? This is just a historic fact. Please read the article on Democratic Republic of Georgia if you are not familiar with this period. Previous version simply misrepresented some historic facts and I corrected it slightly (actually IMHO more revisions are necessary). Before making any changes please have the decency to explain what you have against my version. (PaC 07:07, 27 February 2006 (UTC))

First off, Abkhazia is not "in Georgia". Quite the contrary, it, along with South Ossetia is de facto independent. Secondly, you removed information w/o explanation, such as the fact that Abkhazia was independent during 1921, as well as South Ossetia. --Khoikhoi 07:18, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

Well thanks for this attempt for explanation, but why turn to lies? I removed "the fact that Abkhazia was independent during 1921"? I could not have possibly done this since it was never stated in the article in the first place. Moreover your statement "the fact that Abkhazia was independent during 1921, as well as South Ossetia" is simply not true. Did you not read the article? Did you not see the map? Please refer me to any source that supports your statement. As to my changes... Your version makes an impression that Abkhazia and South Ossetia never had anything to do with Georgia and only first merged with it during Soviet times. This is a blatant POV. I repeat: everything that I added is true and you can't argue with it.

As for "Abkhazia is in Georgia" I simply brought this part in complience with others. Take a look: in the version that you keep reverting to do you see "Nagorno-Karabakh in Azerbaijan", "Somaliland ...Located in northwest Somalia", "South Ossetia in Georgia", "Transnistria is the part of Moldova"? Did you see all that? Why then did you not like it only in case of Abkhazia? This is clearly a POV. Either explain yourself more argumentatively or stop reverting. (PaC 08:05, 27 February 2006 (UTC))

Alright, thanks for explaining yourself. I'm very sorry that I didn't take a closer look, as you are correct on these things.

Once again, thanks for you reply. --Khoikhoi 08:16, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

Oops, he was right. My apologies too :-/ --Latinus 08:43, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

I was just in the middle of my fiery reply :) I also appologize if I wasn't very polite or broke some of the Wikipedia rules. Does this mean I have to revert it myself? (PaC 09:11, 27 February 2006 (UTC))

Or do I wait until your report about "suspected sockpuppetry, block evasion and general abuse of editing privilege" comes back? (PaC 09:31, 27 February 2006 (UTC))

Heh, you can revert if you are sure that you won't violate the 3RR. I can't check the revision history now (technical reasons). If you've made three reverts already, don't revert again for the next few hours. --Latinus 12:35, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

Well, I actually meant that since you are saying that I am right and even apologizing (for the revert?) shouldn't you correct your own mistake? Or I should interpret the apology somehow differently?(PaC 17:27, 27 February 2006 (UTC))

Do internationally unrecognized regimes in otherwise recognized states belong in this list?

I was thinking that the last section Historic unrecognized or partially recognized governments with de facto control over their territory does not list two states whose soverignty was ever widely disputed, but rather it was the regimes that were in place there that the international community did not overwhelmingly acknowledge diplimatically. But their legitimacy as independent states per se was already solidly established. Right? //Big Adamsky 21:01, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

TRNC

I removed Nakhichevan's recognition of TRNC. It has no reason to be mentioned. the only reason would be in order to show a wider recognition, without such a recognition existing. As long as Azerbaijan has not recognised it, talking about Nakhichevan is ridiculous! just an example: we never say that Transnistria, for example, is not recognised neither by Russia nor by the Autonomous Oblast of Amur!--Hectorian 16:29, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

Categories: Talk archives