Talk:Flags of active autonomist and secessionist movements/Archive 1

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

< Talk:Flags of active autonomist and secessionist movements

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.

Archive 1

| Archive 2 →

Out of place?

I am perfectly fine with the title, but some of the flags in this list are completely out of place. Rather than discuss the title, the content should be discussed. Was there ever any substantial demand by the group of people whom the flag is supposed to represent for any independent statehood? Surendra Singhi

The List of national flags and Gallery of national flags include semi-autonomous dependencies such as Hong Kong. If we want to include these nations in a gallery, then give it a non-controversial title. See Talk:List of active autonomist and secessionist movements. Otherwise, it's already part of list of flags --Jia ng 21:55, 9 Jul 2004 (UTC)

I'm open to speak of a "more non-controversial" title. However, with the section adressing the controversial aspect of this, I beleive it is sufficient. No title or description is fully non-controversial.

For example, saying that Bill Clinton is left-wing or that Lionel Jospin is a socialist could be disputed. This is why articles give information so that the reader can, as a free individual, make his own mind on the subject. This is what *this* article is doing by issuing a statement on the controversial aspect AND providing links to the said communities' articles so the reader can read upon the history and culture of the people and make his own mind.

If we buckle and trash an article like this, would this be saying that powerful and sometimes imperialistic nations have the right to be discussed with dignity while other, often conquered in blood and hate, should be hidden in shame and forever lasting ignorance? --Liberlogos 22:27, 9 Jul 2004 (UTC)

What's here that's not at List of national flags or Gallery of national flags? If the intent is to list the "nations not fully sovereign", then why made a gallery of flags?

I removed the opening paragraph because we shouldn't permanently ask people to refer to the talk page. Sometimes the talk page is unavailable. Lead them to the definition of nation instead. --Jia ng 22:32, 9 Jul 2004 (UTC)

This title is controversial. Liberlogos, you are being overly dramatic in your opinion by using phrases such as "often conquered in blood and hate, should be hidden in shame and forever lasting ignorance." In the case of Europe, as a civilized continent, European minority groups and languages withing larger states often have sufficient autonomy to use their own language. While this may not be the case in other continents, to use such an article title is inflammatory and hardly appropriate for a neutral encyclopedia.

Therefore, I am going to change the title to "List of Flags of Subnational Entities."

Peter Wye

i want to clarify. i am am an american national. i owe aliegiance to the present Bush ad ministration, but i clarify that i am not in the thrall of this 'wrong' administration. i am a Cynthianian Indianaian (am inhabitant of Cynthiana, Indiana, U.S.A) i want to make clear that i personally fly the continental jack or grand union and the bonnnie blue to signify my indepedant nature. some people believe that the presant american government will not last beyond the next 25 years. i stand by my cynthianan bretheran in the event. Christopher W. Wilke, Cynthianaian

How is List of Flags of Subnational Entities not inflammatory?

The problem comes from the ambiguity of the word nation. Most of the time it seems, people give it the meaning of "independent state". Others will use it to refer to "a human community characterized by the consciousness of its historical or cultural identity, and often by it linguistic or religious unity." These entities may or may not have the luxury of governing themselves freely, ie, they may or may not be independent. These two definitions should ideally not be associated to the same word, but they are. The political organization a people has and the political organization itself are not the same thing.

One way to get out of this mess is to avoid the ambiguity of the problem word. I propose we name this article List of flags of non-sovereign states and the other List of flags of sovereign states. A sovereign state is one that is not subjugated to any other state, that currently is (or theoretically could be) a member of the United Nations.

Another way would be to state the meaning that is given to the word "nation" at the beginning of the list. As it can already be predicted that a concensus will not be attainable on this, I don't really think it is an option.

If you support the List of flags of sovereign states / List of flags of non-sovereign states dichotomy, add your name below. If you believe you have a better solution, feel free to propose it. Thanks. -- Mathieugp 18:10, 26 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Thanks a lot for your input, Mathieugp. Of course List of flags of subnational entities is, in a way, inflammatory. I do agree. The nations on this page are not to be called subnations like women are not to be called submen, black people subwhites or the Irish sub-british.

Now, the word state would bring a whole other problem. Some of these people are not only deprived of full sovereignty, some of them have no state power whatsoever. Examples: Acadia does not have a state, nor does Kurdistan. The Basque people is not covered by the Spanish autonomous region, for its other half is on French territory where such a prolongation of the state does not exist. For some Catalan nationalists, the Catalan nation covers, not only the autonomous region of Catalunya, but also els Països Catalans in other parts of Spain (and a small part of southern France). Also, where does the idea of State stop? The list should NOT become a list of any state, like Nebraska and New Hampshire. This should be about Peoples.

I suggest the simple term of List of non-sovereign peoples & List of flags of non-sovereign peoples. One cannot say they are not peoples... and one cannot say they are truly, fully sovereign. ...and the word people is indeed less politically charged than nation. If the inclusion of the word sovereign still *really* ticks the opponents of the original name of this page (List of flags of nations not fully sovereign), we'd have to concoct something like... List of flags of peoples within larger countries. But it shows that desperately running away from the simple, clear terms creates heavy and clumsy phrases. List of flags of peoples in minority would not be applicable to the Flemish people, for example.

To guide our judgement of what should be here if the title were to change to List of flags of non-sovereign peoples, I suggest we base ourselves, in part, on the definition of a nation according to the United Nations.

"A group of experts meeting under the auspices of the United Nations has identified seven objective indicia of peoplehood [...]:

A common historical tradition.
Racial or ethnic identity.
Cultural homogeneity.
Linguistic unity.
Religious or ideological affinity.
Territorial connection.
Common economic life.

Peoplehood also necessarily includes subjective aspects which are not readily, if at all, subject to proof. Thus, a people combines objective characteristics describing a group's common historical, ethnic, cultural, religious or other background, with the subjective consciousness that the group has a common identity." [1]

So, what I suggest is List of non-sovereign peoples & List of flags of non-sovereign peoples. If you approve, please leave your name. --Liberlogos 04:08, 27 Jul 2004 (UTC)

I think I'll probably put my vote with this suggestion. "Peoples" seems both more specific and less offensive than either "entities" or "states". Aris Katsaris 04:21, 27 Jul 2004 (UTC)

People was of course my first choice, but it leads to at least 2 problems.

"People" is very imprecise ("white people", "black people", "5 people" etc.) . However, if we give a definition for people at the beginning of the article, it should be OK. There seems to be a problem with the criteria you found on the Tibet Justice Center's site because it says: "the United Nations has identified seven objective indicia of peoplehood for purposes of self-determination, no single one of which is either necessary or sufficient to establish that a group is a people". If we use this, then we will have to precise that a people is a people when it has MORE THAN ONE of these characteristics.
Determining which states are sovereign and which ones are not is easy. However, determining which people is sovereign is more difficult and subject to debate. I know that some people are going to say that the English people is not sovereign because there is no English state, only a British state. Some are going to say that all peoples living under a constitutional monarchy are not sovereign, but those living in a republic are. etc. What do we do with that?

Maybe List of flags by people , List of flags by sovereign state and List of flags by non-sovereign state ?

-- Mathieugp 13:26, 27 Jul 2004 (UTC)

I stand by my suggestion because... Is people imprecise? Yes. That can even be seen as a main advantage. Is it too much imprecise? No. It is the best compromise between other imprecisions and/or terms perceived by some as slanted. No term is absolute. And no term is absolutely clear. People can mean a national group, it can mean a gender, it can mean the people of an Optimist Club... it can mean the People magazine! ;) Every term on this encyclopedia can be debated by excessive purists. However, when one extracts oneself from purism and takes note of the context, one understands which sense is meant. And to make it absolutely clear, I shall write the clear sense of this page as the introduction of its Talk Page (when we agree on a title, of course). Such a thing does not belong in the main page, according to Wikipedia standards, but the controversial template invites the reader to the Talk Page. --Liberlogos 13:50, 27 Jul 2004 (UTC)

What we are trying to do is to completely avoid controversy by using good, proper, and accurate language. The problem raised by the difficulty of determining which people is sovereign and which one isn't cannot be just ignored. I don't see how we can go forward with "sovereign and non-sovereign peoples". -- Mathieugp 02:34, 3 Aug 2004 (UTC)

I saw in Lists of flags that there are List of flags by number of colors, List of flags by color. I think List of flags by people with a definition for people could be acceptable. -- Mathieugp 02:49, 3 Aug 2004 (UTC)

subnational?

Maybe to add to the confusion already present on this talk page, I've added the Korea unification flag to the gallery. I thought it fits well with the article/gallery, but not quite with the title. Subnational doesn't quite fit here, but neither does it for say Kurdistan... Kokiri 15:07, 15 Aug 2004 (UTC)

The above flag is that of a unification movement of the Koreas. Though it has gained semi-official status being used at the Olympic Games, I think we could have that on a page of its own. Zscout370 01:05, 9 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I've added the flag of provinces in Ireland, it's often used to represent a united Ireland (it's used by some sports associations - not just those making a political point). Again, "subnational" doesn't fit, though the flag fits in with the others. See suggestions below. zoney ███ talk 17:16, 18 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Move?

Could we move this to Flags of non-sovereign countries? (alternatively, Flags of non-sovereign regions - but I consider that much weaker in concept). zoney ███ talk 01:48, 17 Aug 2004 (UTC)

How about Flags of proposed states? Seems simpler to me, and easily and obviously includes things like a unified Korea and Kurdistan. Tuf-Kat 00:04, Sep 7, 2004 (UTC)

Contentious... What about places that may have been self-governing? What about Wales or Scotland? They are countries, not proposed states... (even those favouring independence would not be likely to use that term). zoney ▓ ▒ talk 00:44, 7 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Why wouldn't they use the term? By definition, if you support an independent Scotland, you support a proposed state. I think your proposed titles, flags of non-sovereign countries/regions, are too vague. The term country doesn't have a very set definition, I think, and there are plenty of non-sovereign regions that needn't be on this page.

Ultimately, the page needs a defined purpose, which I think is lacking right now. It appears to be supposed to be a list of flags of places which aren't states but could be according to some unnamed criteria. What criteria do we want? I think the obvious one is that there is an active movement to make the place a sovereign state. This page then would be a companion to list of active autonomist and secessionist movements. How about Flags of active secessionist movements? (autonomist-seeking countries aren't currently represented on this page, and probably shouldn't be). Tuf-Kat 01:00, Sep 7, 2004 (UTC)

I'm a long-time anon user, and thought I'd chime in. Aspirant states are my pet cause, kind of. Anyway, any of the proposed titles would be better than the current one, which really can't stand because it is misleading. I like flags of aspirant states, but could be persuaded otherwise. TheWhiteRussian 06:55, 7 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Exactly, it is better to have a more general title. Using the title "proposed states" or "aspirant states" is rubbing salt in a wound. Country may be vaguer, but it is a more accurate term for what we have here. (It ignores the status of statehood). Any non-Unionist (in general sense, not NI sense) from Ireland, Scotland, Wales, would usually consider their country to already remain an intact entity. Pointing out that it doesn't have statehood is to me, quite irritating. zoney ▓ ▒ talk 09:29, 7 Sep 2004 (UTC)

I'll move it to flags of non-sovereign nations, with the understanding that it may well be moved again. I'm in favor of splitting it out by region, but let me finish uploading the flags I made awhile ago, as it will be easier if they are all on one page, I think.

Is there a way to make the flags display right without have to fiddle with the align tags every fourth flag, changing them all everytime a new one is added? It's quite annoying. TheWhiteRussian 18:56, 7 Sep 2004 (UTC)

I don't think so. zoney ▓ ▒ talk 19:50, 7 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Split?

With all the recent additions, I propose we split by continent. (E.G. Non-sovereign nations in Europe, Non-sovereign nations in Africa).

zoney ▓ ▒ talk 09:39, 7 Sep 2004 (UTC)

I'd say let's split first within the page, then let's see if we really need to split completely into different pages. Aris Katsaris 20:16, 7 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Northumbria??

Cornwall is ridiculous enough to have on page about non-sovereign nations, but why is Northumbria considered a nation on this page? It has no significant cultural differences with the rest of England, no independence movement, it just happens to have a flag. Anyone disagree if I remove it? Deus Ex 21:19, 7 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Read Northumbria, apparently there's some historical reasoning. zoney ▓ ▒ talk 21:53, 7 Sep 2004 (UTC)

It mentions uprisings in the Middle Ages because of loyalty to Catholicism in the history section and states some unique Northumbrian traditions (which are not really significant) in the culture section, but that is not enough to classify it as a non-sovereign nation today. I far as I know, no group has ever claimed Northumbria to be a nation in modern times. Deus Ex 17:52, 8 Sep 2004 (UTC)

If the "flag" of Northumbria was never actually flown in Northumbria when that was a kingdom, isn't all this essentially on an arcade-game level? If these flags start appearing in their respective entries, it will be a childish anachronism unsuitable for Wikipedia. Wetman 06:06, 11 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Quebec

Perhaps a flag of Quebec should be added. [[User:Colipon|Colipon+(T)]] 03:59, 8 Sep 2004 (UTC)

It's in there. Tuf-Kat 05:34, Sep 8, 2004 (UTC)

Moving pages

Whoever moved this page should follow up by fixing all the double redirects left behind.

Also, why are the continents ordered the way they are? Isn't alphabetical order more standard? --Jia ng 00:13, 9 Sep 2004 (UTC)

California, Vermont, Texas

Why are these states mentioned? Are they trying to seceed from the United States? Do they meet the wikipedia definition of nation

Presumably mentioned for historical reasons. They (along with Hawaii) were (briefly) independent republics before being annexed by the United States. See Vermont Republic, Republic of Texas, California Republic, Republic of Hawaii, to which it might be less mystifying to link than the corresponding states. - Nunh-huh 06:01, 11 Sep 2004 (UTC)

According to what I have heard, there are four states with active independence movements -- Alaska, Hawaii, California and Vermont. I dunno about Texas. Tuf-Kat 07:10, Sep 11, 2004 (UTC)

Again, you have to look at the definition of nation. Texas is definately a nation, with its own customs and national pride. Some Texans even joke about leaving the country to go to the United States. Now, being a nation that is not sovereign does not mean that the nation wants sovereignty (although I am sure some people do). This is a list of nation that are not sovereign; it is not a list of states that want to be sovereign. A key difference. Another example is the Cherokee Nation. They are indeed a nation, but I haven't heard of a big independence movement from them. I think that defining "nation" on the page itself would clear things up.

There is nothing on the Alaska, Hawaii, Texas, or Vermont pages about independence movements. Every state has its extreme minority that would like it to succeed. In fact, one extreme Christian group wants to turn SC into a theoracy and succeed from the US. These minority groups are so small, that I don't think it would justify putting every state on here.

I can see why there's a section for Texas and Hawaii, given that they have independence movements that are 'relatively' prominent. As for California, it used to have a pretty powerful independence movement before the Civil War (As in the Bear Republic, not the Mask of Zorro). As for Vermont, that's seriously questionable. There were a large number of semiautonmous independent countries in that region during the early 1800s (see Republic of Indian Stream and Republic of Madawaska, but notice how they're not listed. They aren't very relevant anymore. I think we need to make a clear distinction here between current and former non-soverign nations (define as you will), otherwise this article is going to be bloated to no end with every single indpendence movement in the history of the world.--Moki80 16:33, 25 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Vermont was independent for quite a while, 1777-1791, but once it entered the Union there was little desire to depart until the late 20th centrury. As of 2005 the "Second Vermont Republic" is a vociferous, if not populous, element sporting the flag pictured here (green with blue field and stars). It is highly doubtful that the flag pictured was the flag of the Vermont Republic 1777-1791. There is no record of the 1777-1791 Republic having an official flag.

I could see putting Alaska and Hawaii on here because they are unique regions with very different cultures from the rest of the US (which the top of the article states some the flags reperesent)

I think that the issue is that _ALL_ North American provinces or states that were at one time independent still have some kind of nationalist or soverigntist (to appropriate the Quebec word) consiousness. Not always a movement, but that the fact of that independence is a part of the culture of their society. It can be as subtile as Texas or Nova Scotia, not so much "we should be independent" but more like "we were independent once, which makes us better than you non-independents, and remotely, its an option if we need it." It is interesting that the historically strong independence movements in Canada are ALL in places that had strong, pre-confederation, cultural and social identities. Nova Scotia was self governing for about 25 years before Canada, had movements as late as the 1920s, and in fact voted to leave confederation 1 year after being forced into it by the British Empire. Newfoundland voted to join in 1947 but whenever the economy gets tough, like the Cod crisis, it resurfaces as something to be undone, reconsidered. It seems that the US state flags on here are all from states that were, for a period, self governing. It is interesting to see how that becomes a part of the fabric of the state/provinces own myth and lore about itself.WayeMason 13:07, 14 August 2005 (UTC)

Texas was the only one of these states that was ever its own sovereign nation. Disputing this fact is a waste of time. Vermont had some "joke republics" within its borders, but there never was a "Vermont Republic." Bear Republic my ass. (Unsigned comment by 70.185.146.37) 17:10, 23 October 2005 (UTC)

That is simply not true, not just on Wikipedia, but factually, Vermont Republic was not admited to union until 1791. I think you need to do more research. WayeMason 19:00, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

Coats-of-arms of fictional corporations

I see a great future along this present tack... Wetman 06:10, 11 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Removals

Considering the fact that Montenegro and the Bosniaks can be classified as nations, and there are those who like to believe they are, and the fact that the areas in question are not fully sovereign in the sense of being a separate independent state, I'm restoring them again. I consider the other cases to be likely to be similar. Some may not like the situation, but the page does point out the area is controversial. zoney ♣ talk 15:09, 22 Sep 2004 (UTC)

It is true that Bosniaks may be classified as a nation, but that nation has a fully sovereign country, which is Bosnia and Herzegovina. See Nations of Bosnia and Herzegovina for more information. It is true that Montenegro was a sovereign nation, and that there is movement for it again to be; but there is no difference in language or culture between Montenegrins and Serbs, and so it does not fall under the scope of this article; change article caption if you think that it should. And it is true that there is a movement for bigger autonomy in Vojvodina but it is not tied to any nation -- if it is, to which, Vojvodinians? :))) Nikola 15:20, 22 Sep 2004 (UTC)

I do not consider that these flags cannot be on this page. The subject area is rather vague, and most flags here have much more dubious claims. It's a particular type of collection, to provide a gallery of these interesting flags. Unfortunately, the inclusion or not of some is controversial, as is the title, but a quick browse of what here should clearly show that these three flags also belong on the page. I can only surmise that Nikola objects to the concept of these areas as nations, considering as much as been said. That is something subjective, as with most entries here. I suggest we include them again, they are shown below. zoney ♣ talk 15:38, 22 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Image:Bosniaks.JPG

Flag of Bosniak People

Flag of Montenegro

Flag of Vojvodina

I understand that you do not consider that these flags cannot be on this page, but you should. The subject is somewhat vague, but case of this flags is not, and if there are flags here with more dubious claims (which I find unlikely), they should be removed also. Finally, point by point:

Vojvodina is a province of Serbia. There is some movement, currently rather weak, for it to gain more autonomy. However, it is not centered around any nation. If this flag should be in the article, then each flag of each province in the world should. To contrast this with a Western example, the flag of the province of Quebec, where there is relatively strong movement for complete separation from Canada, and linguistic and cultural difference with the rest of Canada, might make it to this article, while the flag of Alaska, where movement is rather weak and there is no linguistic or cultural difference with the rest of USA shouldn't. Vojvodina is more similar to Alaska in this respect.

Flag of Bosniak people: this is a flag of a people, not of a teritorry. That people has a state in which it is a sovereign nation, namely Bosnia and Herzegovina. See nations of Bosnia and Herzegovina. That is why its flag doesn't belong here, in a list of flags of non-sovereign nations.

Montenegro is a strongest case here. There is a relatively strong movement for full sovereignity of the state. It could be argued whether there is any linguistic or cultural difference. See Montenegrin language for an example.

Nikola 08:55, 25 Sep 2004 (UTC)

In the case of Montenegro, it is not a difference in language, but more of a cultural difference, since Montenegrin culture is actually closely identified with the northern Albanians, since the Montenegrin tribes(Note:Serbs did not have tribes) used to intermarry with north Albanian tribes and they shared much culture.

Finished 03:02, 30 Sep 2004 (UTC)

I want to discuss these flags of Vojvodina, Montenegro and Boaniak People. Nikola is right about 2 things: Bosniaks are fully sovereign nation; they are largest ethnic group in sovereign country Bosnia-Herzegovina. Vojvodina is province of Serbia and there is no such thing as nation of Vojvodina (65% of citizens of Vojvodina are Serbs, and there are also 25 other ethnic groups in Vojvodina). So, I do not understand by which criteria Vojvodina could be declared to be a nation. So, these 2 flags (Bosniak People and Vojvodina) do not belong here. However, I do not agree with Nikola about Montenegro. Montenegrins are nation, which is not fully sovereign, and Montenegrin flag should to stand here. One more thing, Serbia is also a nation, which is not fully sovereign, so, flag of Serbia should to stand here too. Both nations (Serbia and Montenegro) are not fully sovereign, but parts of Serbia-Montenegro State Union. Also, Bosnia-Herzegovina is a Confederation consisted of two not fully sovereign states: Federation of Bosnia-Herzegovina and Serbian Republic. So, my proposals here are: 1.Montenegrin flag should to remain here. 2.Instead of Vojvodian flag, flag of Serbia should be included. 3.Instead of Bosniak People flag, we should to include flags of BIH Federation and Serbian Republic. PANONIAN

Cantabria a nation? There are parts of Spain in which nationalist claims exist, but in some of the regions of the country such claims do not exist. I have not heard of any political group declaring Cantabria to be a nation. My proposal is to remove that flag from the list

--alfanje 16:49, 22 Oct 2004 (UTC)

I strongly suggest removing the images of the former South African homelands (bantustans), i.e. Bophutatswana, Ciskei, Transkei, Venda, Gazankulu, Kwandebele, Kwazulu, Lebowa, Qwaqwa. These homelands were artificial constructs of the apartheid era, and therefore these historical flags do not currently constitute any symbolical value for the people living there or the ethnic group for which the respective homeland was set up.

---mevsfotw 1:00, 11 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Maybe, but they should be listed somewhere, if only for historical purposes. This page currently lists even flags of areas without a single living soul in permanent residence (e.g. South Georgia, the Antarctic lands), so the label "nation" is ludicrous.

This needs to be re-organized.

Urhixidur 02:19, 2005 Jan 11 (UTC)

Proposed Disclaimer / Definition of Content

I think the biggest problem with this page is that there is no definition spelled out on the page of what this page is about. Simply adding a disclaimer or paragraph defining what this content is about would help resolve most of the disputes and also make it clearer what should and should not be on this page.

Suggested Disclaimer:

This page contains a list of nations that are not sovereign. A nation is an imagined community of people created by a national ideology, also known as nationalism, to which certain norms and behavior are usually attributed. A nation on this list may or may not have an interest in becoming sovereign, and may be perfectly happy being part of the state it is part of. Some nations on this list may have active autonomist and secessionist movements while others do not. You may also want to see the list of disputed or occupied areas and Unrepresented Nations and Peoples Organisation for related, but different information.

I would suggest that a precise definition would lead to *more* dispute, not less. It is better in my opinion to leave it reasonably ambiguous, and have a case-by-case decision of contentious additions. Apart from anything else, some flags here are more unusual cases. I would also point out that the page has not particularly suffered as a result of disputes, and is a fine and interesting addition to the encyclopaedia. zoney ♣ talk 16:22, 22 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Proposed Definition of Content / Split of Page

This page is showing flags of very different groups/entities. Not only the definition of nation seems to be very much ambiguous, but also the definition of "the" flag of the respective entity (in several cases there are different flags, for instance an official flag of the region, one flag used commonly by the population, one flag used by an autonomist/secessionist movement). Therefore most of these flags are not comparable to each other, and should not be shown together on one list. Of course I agree that they should be shown somewhere on Wikipedia, mainly in the entry for the respective entity. Another idea could be splitting this flag list in several pages according to the status of the represented entity and the status of the flag (several of the flags would show up on more than one page, though). Examples for these categories I will add later.

1. Official flag of a quasi-state (i.e. a government exerting de-facto independent rule of a territory and population, although not internationally recognized).

2. Official flag of an overseas territory.

3. Official flag of a region with some level of autonomy, currently not seeking a higher level of autonomy.

4. Official flag of a region with some level of autonomy, currently seeking a higher level of autonomy.

5. Unofficial flag broadly used by a population.

6. Flag of an autonomist movement/party.

7. Flag of a secessionist movement/party.

8. Historical flag of a region/former independent state, currently not used.

Of course, not in every case the categorization in one of the above categories is easy. Furthermore I would suggest removing official flags of subnational entities that do neither possess nor seek a special status different from the other subnational entities (e.g. US and German states, most Italian and Spanish regions).

---mevsfotw 12:06, 12 Jan 2005 (UTC)

I agree categorisation is needed, but I think this scheme is unworkable. The distinction between secessionist and autonomist is pretty thin sometimes. A region could be "seeking greater autonomy" off and on. Historical flags should not lose their categorisation in the preceding cases. Listing overseas territories contradicts the removal of "quiet" subnational entities (provinces, states).

All flags should have an historical dimension cited --date of introduction, date of obsolescence/withdrawal/replacement.

In the end, maybe all flags could be simply listed under the corresponding geographical entity...We need to mull this some more.

Urhixidur 22:30, 2005 Jan 12 (UTC)

The scheme might have its drawbacks (I am pretty aware of this), and I agree that one of the difficult distinctions would be between autonomist and secessionist movements. However, I think setting up several distinct pages with some defined categories would improve the whole thing a lot. The current page without any definition of its content and without any categorization is really unworkable! The main problem of this page is: the choice of the flags is totally arbitrary.

Of course the flags should also be shown (if not already the case) under their corresponding geographical/ethnical entity. However, this is one of several pages of flag lists, so I guess we should have pages listing these flags as well, but only in a categorized way.

---mevsfotw 9:41, 13 Jan 2005 (UTC)

It's a lot less controversial to keeep all definitions vague. The page title in fact should be more ambiguous - all we want to rule out are flags of sovereign independant states, and provencial flags that are unimportant (i.e. only cultural and nothing controversial about not listing them).

The page is difficult to manage but serves a useful and interesting purpose.

I would suggest splitting it by continent though.

zoney ♣ talk 11:08, 13 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Flag of New England??

Ok, does this even exist. More importantly, why would a space be put up for the flag if the user that added the space doesn't have an image of the flag? If someone can provide the image of the flag, the be my guest to add the space for it and put it back up.

Correction required, perhaps.

I know it seems a bit nitpicky, but the flag listed as the Confederate flag is technically not the Confederate national flag. The one shown, with the Saint Andrews cross, is actually a battle flag, carried by a color bearer in front of an assembly of soldiers.

The actual national flag is the one with 7 stars. It's similar to the Texas Flag.

Also, while I'd possibly list the Texas flag as being a non-sovereign nation (Texans are culturally a bird of another feather), I'd possibly move Vermont to a listing of defunct national entities, since Vermont is probably more a part of greater New England culture than it's own culture. I could be wrong.

Technically, Texas is an American State, and thus, the flag is put on the US State Flags page. If there is a page of historical nations, the flags of Texas can easily be on there (along with that of the USSR, East Germany, etc). Zscout370 19:43, 25 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Shouldn't the California, Hawai'i, and Vermont flags then also go on the 'historical nations' page? (again assuming there is one...) --Juicy 14:40, 9 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I replaced the (current) Vermont state flag, which doesn't belong on a site of nations, with the (proposed) flag of the Second Vermont Republic. --Sentience 02:28, 14 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Franco-Canadians

What's with all of those Franco-... flags? Are there really movements in every Canadian province to split the French speakers off into their own provinces/nations? Rick K 07:26, Apr 16, 2005 (UTC)

They are not irredentist movements, but rather community flags.

Urhixidur 15:23, 2005 Apr 16 (UTC)

- And these flags has legal standing, since most have been consecreated due to legal codes. We can try to put them in the Flags of Canada Gallery, if such thing exists. Zscout370 03:15, 17 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Suggested definitions

I suggest deviding into these categories.

Autonomous regions. Regions with some level of autonomy.
Sub-state nations. Nations not recognized internationally as states.
Local entities.
Historical flags.

If some of these categories were on the same page, it would be easier to make sure that no flag is in more than one category.

Autonomous regions are such ones as Quebec and Texas. They have a level of control over own affairs that are somewhat state-like.

Sub-state nations are culturally nations, but are neither autonommous nor internationally recognized as states. Such as Korea and Kurdistan.

Local entities could be on a seperate page. These are neither nations, autonomous regions nor states. These are just regions who happen to have a flag.

Historical flags probably should be on a seperate page.

Of course flags can be moved, but they should'nt be in more than one category. --JJ-Hammer 12:38, 19 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Tuscany?

May I remove tuscany?

No, you may not. Many Italian regions have independence movements. --Node 3 July 2005 09:30 (UTC)

Taiwan

I removed Image:ROC_flag_large.png, listed under the heading "[[Flag of Taiwan|Flag of]] [[Taiwan]]" because:

the existence of a Taiwanese nation is in dispute
whether Taiwan is already sovereign is in dispute
the image is question is never called the "flag of Taiwan" in Chinese; it is always referred to as the "flag of the Republic of China" because extreme supporters of Taiwan independence see the flag as foreign in nature (having been brought over from the mainland) and seek to replace it was a Taiwan-designed version
- a proposed flag is at the Republic of Taiwan article, but it is not in widespread use and therefore not appropriate for listing here. --Ji ang 3 July 2005 10:23 (UTC)

Point of this article?

This is essentially just a list of non-sovereign nations, with associated flags. What exactly is the purpose of this article? When is any reader ever going to find this useful, versus visiting List of active autonomist and secessionist movements? It just seems an unnecessary source of controversy and a complete waste of time. There are so many other areas of Wikipedia that need improving. I would vote for deletion if it were vfd'd. Rd232 23:09, 17 August 2005 (UTC)

Then VfD it. This article should not be merged into List of active autonomist and secessionist movements, as it's not about active autonomist and secessionist movements, it's about flags of nations that don't exist whether there's an autonomist or secessionist movement involved or not. siafu 23:14, 6 September 2005 (UTC)

Don't VfD it. The top of the article says that the article is being divided into smaller articles, so it will soon be gone. --Hottentot

The point of this article is to have links to all those flags in one place, which is rather handy. Rather than splitting and re-splitting what I would do is merge this with other lists such as flags of fully sovereign nations, states, provinces, etc., etc. (OK, maybe split alphabetically or something). That way we wouldn't have to trawl half a dozen lists to find where somebody has decided to put the flag you're looking for according to some controversial criteria of whether the thing in question is called a sovereign state, nation state, stateless nation, multinational state, semi-sovereign nation, dependent territory, dependent semi-sovereign half-autonomous partly nationless piece of land, etc., etc.--81.42.165.32 20:57, 14 September 2005 (UTC)

Seborga?

What about adding Seborga?

Osgoodelawyer 01:54, 15 September 2005 (UTC)

Be bold. siafu 02:36, 15 September 2005 (UTC)

Okay, I'm bold. Seborga and Sealand added to Europe. Osgoodelawyer 16:05, 15 September 2005 (UTC)

Article totally irrelevant

This article is just too political to be relevant in Wikipedia. I found and remove flags of Alsace, Britanny, Burgundy and Occitania (in France) which are obviously not considered nations, but correspond to regional flags. I chose to let the Corsica flag which could be controversial, but as long as you're not defining exactly what is a nation, this article doesn't make sense. You'll find good arguments saying that people from Corsica are part of the French nation or their own nation. The fact is this article is saying which people is a nation and which is not. In other words, and even while stating the opposite, this article is saying who and who isn't a nation and deserves independence.

And that's not Wikipedia's goal. Furthermore, I can argue that people from Corsica are definitely sovereign as part of the French nation. So, this article reflects an American way of thinking which is definitely too rough to be intelligent. For example, I could add the flag of Iraq because for many reasons Iraq isn't yet a sovereign nation !!!!

Poppypetty 07:35, 18 September 2005 (UTC)

Someone added Brittany back, and I agree with that decision. It refers to the Celtic people who live in that region of France, and who are certainly a nation. Although whether the flag is a proper represenation of those people, I do not know.

Osgoodelawyer 14:05, 21 September 2005 (UTC)

Let me explain my point. I quote :Often, the flags listed below have two meanings.

Criterion #1:In one instance, they represent a nation (and/or national government) that is distinct in language and culture from the rest of the sovereign state to which the nation is affiliated, or which perhaps has autonomy or dependency status.
Criterion #2:In a second instance, these regional symbols may be used by separatist groups as a banner for rallying support for the independence or autonomy of a given region. Some of these flags have official status from some authority, while others are purely informal; in some cases, informally adopted flags can vary.

Now lets examine every one of the four deletions which I think are necessary :

Burgundy : Burgundy have been part of the kingdom of France since the 14th century. People from Burgundy are not considered a nation (just to remind you that the title of this article is Flag of non-sovereign nations - they are almost in the centre of France), nobody is using their language anymore (we are talking of about 1% of people living in Burgundy (basically, old people who are going to die in the next couple of years (I'm not kidding)) and are somewhat considered as true French (if this expression can make any sense)). Burgundy doesn't have autonomy or dependency status. So, Criterion #1 doesn't apply for them. Lets have a look at Criterion #2. The flag which is there is the flag of the admnistrative region of Burgundy. But, where it becomes funny, is that there is absolutely no discussion about independence and autonomy there. So, this second criterion can't be used because otherwise I could put the flag of U.S. Confederacy (Civil War) because it's a regional symbol which may be used by the few southern extremists who still want to separate from the North (does it make sense ? No, so neither it is for Burgundy). None of the two criterion can apply, so I propose to remove this flag.
Alsace : Burgundy have been part of the kingdom of France since the 17th century. People from Alsace are not considered a nation (just to remind you that the title of this article is Flag of non-sovereign nations), a few people are using their language anymore (we are talking of about 4 to 5% of people living in Alsace (basically, old people who are going to die in the next couple of years (I'm not kidding)). Alsace doesn't have autonomy or dependency status. So, Criterion #1 doesn't apply for them. Lets have a look at Criterion #2. The flag which is there is the flag of the admnistrative region of Alsace. But, the only autonomist movement is an extreme-right group which should be close from 50-75 members (out of roughly 1 or 2 million inhabitants). So, this second criterion can't be used because otherwise I could put the flag of U.S. Confederacy (Civil War) because it's a regional symbol which may be used by the few southern extremists who still want to separate from the North (does it make sense ? No, so neither it is for Burgundy). None of the two criterion can apply, so I removed this flag.
Occitania : Occitania have been part of the kingdom of France since the 13th century. People from Occitania are not considered a nation (just to remind you that the title of this article is Flag of non-sovereign nations), a few people are using their language anymore (we are talking of about 7 or 8 % of people living in Occitania (basically, old people who are going to die in the next couple of years (I'm not kidding)). Occitania doesn't have autonomy or dependency status. So, Criterion #1 doesn't apply for them. Lets have a look at Criterion #2. The flag which is there is the flag of the admnistrative region of Languedoc-Roussillon (historical flag of region around Toulouse). But, where it becomes funny, is that there is absolutely no discussion about independence and autonomy there (Occitania different from Basque people). So, this second criterion can't be used because otherwise I could put the flag of U.S. Confederacy (Civil War) because it's a regional symbol which may be used by the few southern extremists who still want to separate from the North (does it make sense ? No, so neither it is for Burgundy). None of the two criterion can apply, so I removed this flag.

Poppypetty 09:19, 25 September 2005 (UTC)

You're wrong. If you read the 1st paragraph of this article, you can see that it is not only a list of flags of non-sovereign nations, but a list of people or regions who are looking for greater autonomy or independence. If Occitania and Alsace aren't, why are they listed on List of active autonomist and secessionist movements? --Hottentot

Dear Hottentot,

this is all the difference betweeen a real knowledge and a wikipedia knowledge. Wikipedia is without any doubt a great project but there are still important issues in it. Among them, we can quote mistakes and voluntary unaccurate affirmations. For example, I have been fixing the Pedophilia page : It was written that French were "open-minded" on pedophilia !!!!! Then, you likely no that Internet and Wikipedia are places that small groups really liked because they can affirm everything without being contradicted.

As of now, I have more than 3000 edits on the French wikipedia in 2 months, so I don't consider myself as being a vandal and there I have fairly few disagreements on page edits.

I begin to be really upset by the tone you are using with me. Reading an Indian who has likely never been to France or even in Europe affirming without any doubt that I am wrong on this edit is astonishing. Furthemore, when I saw that before I arrived there were 5 flags of parts of France in this article but not a single one on Kashmir, I understand why you have this page on your watchlist. Good job Hottentot, you manage to change the truth.

On the presence of Alsace and Occitania in the List of active autonomist and secessionist movements, here is my answer. I quoted on my paragraph on Alsace that the only autonomist movement is an extreme-right group which should be close from 50-75 members (out of roughly 1 or 2 million inhabitants). Alsacian are not looking for greater autonomy or independence. That's what you obviously have some problems understanding. As for Occitania, I have been living in France for 23 years, I consider myself well informed, reading multiple world-known French papers and I have never heard of this group before. We have been discussing this issue on the French wikipedia here(because even in it, the French article on Occitania has multiple problems) and the common opinion is that WP is really exposed to small groups who seek to expand their ideology on the web. They have more means to mobilize their members (I can't translate the pejorative word) than us to mobilize our wikifiremen (WP est très exposée à la convoitise de groupuscules qui cherchent à se tailler un fief idéologique bien visible sur la toile. Ils ont plus de moyens pour rameuter leurs sectataires que nous pour mobiliser des wikipompiers. N.B : the traduction isn't really good but I manage to keep the full sense of it). The group which is mentioned in the page you quoted is without any doubt one of these. There is no real revendication of autonomy or independence in Occitania and that's something you can't know. After engaging this dispute, I have been interested myself in the page on WP english on regional parts of France and it's really bad because they are still a long way to be right and when you are French, the influence of small extremist groups which tend to largely overstimate themselves (and more dangerous, to impose their truth) is amazing.

According to what I have said before, I am reverting.

Poppypetty 17:52, 9 October 2005 (UTC)

Ok, you may remove them. Sorry about that. --Hottentot

Thanks. Sorry if I overwhelmed myself. 02:50, 11 October 2005 (UTC)

I don't understand on what basis is Poppypetty allowed to decide which human group is a nation and which is not. Brittany is as much a nation as Wales or Galicia : so why don't you erase the flags of Wales and Galicia? There is an Occitan nationalist movement, there is an Occitan language, etc. and we don't have to decide for the occitan if they are a nation or not. Obviously they have a flag, which is used in the demonstrations, etc. and which should therefore be shown here. Benoni 21:57, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

Secessionist Groups?

What of secessionist groups such as Aryan Nations that want a seperate homeland in North America? Yes, they are nasties, but surely their classification fits somewhere. WolframSiever 05:00, 20 October 2005 (UTC)

Well, I think that's the real problem with this page. It's really hard to determine "non-sovereign nations" (in other words, there is no NPOV). As of the Aryan Nations, I don't think they are relevant, it's just totally irrealistic. Poppypetty 05:48, 20 October 2005 (UTC)

Tibet

I'm not pro-China or pro-Tibet, but I was sure I would see the flag of Tibet in here, but I didn't. I'll let somebody else post it, lest I cause trouble. --64.114.103.210 18:03, 24 October 2005 (UTC)

Should I add..

Should I add new information here or the article will be deleted?--Nixer 02:40, 27 November 2005 (UTC)

Nova Scotia

Look, this whole page is stupid, I have said it here before. But IF we are going to have this page, and IF non-soverign nations includes Newfoundland and Hawaii, then it has to include Nova Scotia. Ignorance of my homes history is not an excuse for being factually incorrect. Read the NS page, history section. NS was self governing country from 1848 to 1867 and actually voted against Confederation with Canada, and fought to get out for 7 years. WayeMason 18:52, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

Ok, first of all, Newfoundland was a previously independent Dominion, and the flag of that is still flown by newfoundlanders today, Same with the republic and kingdom of Hawaii. you need to do more research, Nova Scotia, was a Colony from until 1867, in 1848 it was granted responsible government. meaning the executivcouncil was responsible to the legislative assembly. but it was still a colony. Not, By any means, a Country. in addition the anti-confederation party only ran for 1 election, and after Britain refused to let them secede, Howe accepted it as a fact and joined the Liberals. and in the provincial elections they only called themselves the anti confederates in one election and barely progressed with it anyway. where as newfoundland remained a colony and eventually achieved dominion Status in 1907 on the same day as New Zealand. And hawaii was kingdom, and then a republic before being annexed by the united states. either way they should belong in formerly independent nations. but Nova Scotia was never a country in its own right.

Here is a quote from the Journal of the Nova Scotia Legislature from 1868, basically laying out the reasons for independence, this was the first of three waves of talks on seperation from Canada "the scheme [confederation with Canada] by them assented to would, if adopted, deprive the people [of Nova Scotia] of the inestimable privilege of self-government, and of their rights, liberty, and independence, rob them of their revenue, take from them the regulation of trade and taxation, expose them to arbitrary taxation by a legislature over which they have no control, and in which they would possess but a nominal and entirely ineffective representation; deprive them of their invaluable fisheries, railroads, and other property, and reduce this hitherto free, happy, and self-governed province to a degraded condition of a servile dependency of Canada."(Excerpted from the Address to the Crown by the Government, from the Journal of the House of Assembly, Province of Nova Scotia, 1868) Key words are independence, rights, liberty... the language was different because it was a self governing colony inside the Empire, but you can see that the Province had all the self government at that time that Canada had when Confederated. WayeMason 13:31, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

Missing

There a reason so many of the images are missing? 68.39.174.238 01:54, 30 December 2005 (UTC)

Flag of Guangdong

This must surely be a joke? Palmiro | Talk 21:52, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

--Ben2003 00:31, 23 July 2006 (UTC)== Proposed merger - 30 January ==

Oppose--A Y Arktos 19:14, 30 January 2006 (UTC)
Oppose I believe it in error to refer to American Indian Nations as non-sovereign, but they get erased off of the Flags of Sovereign Nations page, by editors who take a policy of only acknowledging those sovereignties recognized by the United nations, or such, so the Flags of Indigenous Peoples is the only article where they will easily fit, at this time. --Aaron Walden 09:30, 19 February 2006 (UTC)
Oppose - there are sovereign first nations of indigenous peoples as mentioned by Aaron Walden and also indigenous peoples who have no problem with their perceived lack of sovereignty. Indigenous peoples should stay separate - this page here (especially by using the word nation in its title) is surely more politcal in nature. Iancaddy 22:26, 16 May 2006 (UTC)
Oppose - Agree that sovereignty and indigenousness are quite separate concepts. Furthermore, merging would seem at cross-purposes to the goal to split this article into separate more focused pages. ScottMainwaring 14:30, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

Oppose!It's erroneous,to assume that Native Americans are not soverign,they are nations within a nation,with their own Constitutions and Governments.If you go to a Reservation,and proclaim that these people are not sovereign,you'll most likely be ejected,with an admonition not to return![Bdennis]

manmasseh

Since when were the manmasseh a nation, non-sovereign or otherwise?-- Neal

Autonomous lands

Areas like the Azores and Puerto Rico are, to an extent, autonomous and self-governing, and could proclaim their independance if they wished to. Not fully soveriegn, but self-governing. Do they really belong here? On a list of flags of autonomous states I could understand, but here? Only if you want to include the like of Jersey, the Isle of Man etc. This definition used for this page is far to vague --Indisciplined 22:38, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

I would be very surprised if Azores could proclaim independence. On the other Puerto Rico is a commonwealth (or Estado Libre Asociado as they prefer to call themselves), which is much closer to sovereignity. The Channel Islands are not part of the UK but the crown, therefore there is a difference. E Asterion ^{u talking to me?} 10:55, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

Getting ready to move all flags off this article

I have gone through all flags in this article and marked them where they should be moved. Flags that already exist in one of the replacement articles have been commented away and marked with "MOVED". -- Himasaram 03:56, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

I don't really understand what you have done. There are no "Flag of" articles for most of the flags you commented out. Can you explain the criteria further, please? E Asterion ^{u talking to me?} 10:51, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

My mistake. I just realised you are not moving flags one by one but grouping them into categories. Thanks, E Asterion ^{u talking to me?} 12:15, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

That's right. I'm also researching the flags that has been removed and drawing shiny new SVGs for several entries. This phase is now more or less complete and I will commence the final move in a few days. -- Himasaram 05:41, 20 August 2006 (UTC)