Talk:List of unrecognized countries/Archive 2

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Archive 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.

Contents

East Prussia

East Prussia was never an unrecognized independent state. In ancient times, there lived Old Prussians, who were independent, but were not organized in any state. Later, they were conquered by Teutonic Knights, who estabilished a Monastic State, which was independent until 1466, but not named East Prussia. 1466-1657 it was Polish fief, in 1657 it became independent, but also recognized state, in personal union with Brandenburg.

Puntland

What about Puntland? It's de facto independent, although it does not lay claim to independence from Somalia.  OZLAWYER  talk  18:27, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

Puntland hasnt declared independance. They want to remain apart of Somalia. See Puntland for details. -- RND   talk  09:47, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

What about the other breakaway Somali states (Somaliland, Southwestern Somalia)?

Only Somaliland is seeking international recognition. They lodged a formal request with the African Union in 2004. - Mauco 00:57, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

Assyria

The Assyrian independence should be placed under Unrecognized states with partial control over their territory which encompasses parts of Syria, Turkey, Iraq and Iran. ILLeSt 12:33, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

3RR

I notice a couple of disputes on this page have both come very close to breaking the Three revert rule within the last few hours; please use the talk page constructively to discuss changes. --Robdurbar 09:27, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

TRNC/Northern Cyprus

Can we have a discussion of this dispute here please? At least give a full explanation for the reverts being made, rather than using talk boxes? Even if you feel the proposed changes are pov or deliberatly in bad faith - note I'm not saying that they are or not, its not an area I know about - at least give a rationale here; it makes a mockery of the talk page if you do not --Robdurbar 15:27, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

The dispute is whether we should mention:

The map of the Republic of Azerbaijan that includes it's exclave Nakhichevan (bottom left).
The map of the Republic of Azerbaijan that includes it's exclave Nakhichevan (bottom left).
  • Nakhichevan which is an exclave (ie. non-bordering province, NOT a country) of Azarbaijan (which has not recognised TRNC as a federal government), and is bordering Turkey (possibly threatened for its continuous sovereignity)! If we start including exclaves, provinces, oblasts, perfectures and municipalities to the list, then it's ok by me.
  • Organization of the Islamic Conference which recognises only the Muslim Community of TRNC (as if anybody wouldn't); NOT the pseudo-state of TRNC. The source is within the official site, to which Erdogan (sorry) User:Erdogan Cevher was kind enough to provide us (OIC), but it is not linkable. Evidently in every conference, there's a list of members (that excludes TRNC) and a separete heading (titled Muslim Communities), that includes Muslim Community of Kibris (Cyprus). Also, please check the members-list in the WP article.
  • Turkish Peace Action in the wording to replace Turkish invasion. Had it been a "peace action", Turkey would have taken the Nobel Peace prize, instead of international non-recognition.
That's about it. Any comments?  NikoSilver  (T) @ (C) 17:05, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
  • The Above is wrong: Reference: "Alithia" Newspaper of Greek Cypriots, 16/17 May 2006 (Author: Andreas Fantis, Title of the article: "Is there any hope about the solution of Cyprius Issue"). Andreas Wrote:

Turkish Cypriot State was honorized by the decision of the last meeting of OIC and will participate the meetings of OIC not with the title "Muslim Community of Cyprus" but with the title "Turkish Cypriot State" from now on.

NikoSilver, please read newspapers of your own country. Also, use your real name and surname. Don't hesitate doing this. Stay behind your ideas (even if yours are false). —Preceding unsigned comment added by Erdogan Cevher (talk • contribs)

The fact that people were being killed by Greeks does not stop it being an invasion; as noted before, D-Day was an invasion; the US/Brits invaded Iraq, rightly or wrongly, even if it was to stop Saddam's killing, even if it was for oil, or revenge, or whatever; its still an invasion. Robdurbar 15:36, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
D-Day analogy is false: United States and its allies had no legal right to enter France even for the purpose of helping to Frenchs. But in Cyprus the situation is different: According to Cyprus's 1960 Constitution there are 3 guarantor countries that can intervene the situation in Cyprus whenever they wish. Still today in 2007, this guarantorship continues!! and one of the issues discussed in Annan Plan once more. Hence, Turkish interference directly comes from the constitution of Cyprus Rep. and that's why that is not an invasion but an interference. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 83.66.22.10 (talk) 14:39, 24 April 2007 (UTC).


Peace action does seem a very odd word for an invasion... even if you're looking from a Turkish pov. OIC seems a civil society body (though your WP:BEANS link confuses me somewhat). And as for exclaves - well we've not included them up to now so unless it makes claims to countryhood, again, I'd be inclined to agree (though this is all without knowing or going into the situation in detail, so don't take my view as too comprehensive). --Robdurbar 19:39, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
Ha ha! The WP:BEANS has to do with someone inserting some kind of information is some article... Sorry for thinking that the above was self-explanatory and not getting in the trouble to discuss...  NikoSilver  (T) @ (C) 20:16, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
Yeah...what he said. ;) Khoikhoi 20:30, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Flag of the Turkish Republic of Northern Cyprus The Turkish Republic of Northern Cyprus was set up in northern Cyprus after the Turkish Peace Action on Cyprus in 1974 due to a local Greek Cypriot coup d'etat to overthrow the government and to unify the island with Greece. It was proclaimed the Turkish Federated State of Cyprus in 1975. This state later declared independence under the current name in 1983. It is recognized by Turkey, and the Nakhichevan Autonomous Republic. TRNC was accepted as "Turkish Cypriot State" by the Organization of Islamic Conference. TRNC and Republic of Cyprus are on the threshold of being separated like Checkoslovakia = Check Rep + Slovak Rep after the rejection of United nation's Annan Plan by Greek Cypriots. Note: Annan plan aimed at reunification of island.


"Turkish Cypriot State" by the OIC.(Ref:Web of OIC: http://www.oic-oci.org/), click “About OIC”, then click “Observers” to see that TRNC is under the “States” heading with name “T. Cypriot State" 2. Nakhichevan recognizes TRNC. Ref: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nakhichevan under the “Disputes” heading.

The issue of Peace Action / Invasion? How many Turkish Cypriots killed by Greeks and Greek Cypriots killed by Turks before 1974? Answer: Thousands of Turkish Cypriots (more than 100000) and hundreds of Greek Cypriots before 1974. (That is why the population of Greeks in the island well exceeds that of Turks in the island)

How many Turkish Cypriots killed by Greeks and Greek Cypriots killed by Turks after 1974? Answer: Total number does not exceed 5 from both sides.

Then, How a man having brain can claim that Turkish action is an invasion? That action is certainly a peace action and stopped deaths from both sides.

—Preceding unsigned comment added by Erdogan Cevher (talk • contribs)


Thank you for your input. Your complains can be addressed to Kofi Annan.  NikoSilver  (T) @ (C) 13:57, 12 May 2006 (UTC)


Interstingly Nachkivan did reciognise North Cypriot sovereignty [1]; now whether it has the right to do so or not is highly debatable under international law as only other sovereigns are allowed to recgonise sovereignty; but these rules are not set in stone of course. I feel that this might be worth a mention. The OIC is a civil society actor with even less right to recognise sovereignty; this one is more disputable I think, especially as some appear to claim that it is the people who are represented here, not really a state.
  • An invasion is an invasion whatever its purpose. Peace action is a modern euphamisim – we didn’t have a Peace action did we?
  • I think talk about coup d’etats etc. is a bit over the top and uncalled for here; let the TRNC page deal with that itself.
  • Not quite sure about the Czech Republic analogy… this is opinion this bit.

So how about:

Flag of the Turkish Republic of Northern Cyprus The Turkish Republic of Northern Cyprus was set up in northern Cyprus after the Turkish invasion on Cyprus in 1974. It was proclaimed the Turkish Federated State of Cyprus in 1975 and declared independence in 1983. It is recognised only by Turkey, though the non-sovereign Nakhichevan Autonomous Republic has also recognised it. UN proposals to unify the two Cypriot states have since been unsuccessful.ط


Robdurbar 14:38, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

Thanks Rob for your kind attempt for a compromise in this. Though not necessarily disagreeable, I think that:
  • Nakhichevan is legally a province or something analogous.
  • OIC we agree (thanks)
  • UN mentioning is ok by me, --added.
I strongly believe that extensive analyses are not applicable in this "List of..." and strongly suggest that further details are covered in the respective articles (which is already true).
Fmore, keep in mind that there is only one user doing these reverts lately, who turns out to be a revert addict.  NikoSilver  (T) @ (C) 14:50, 12 May 2006 (UTC)
Agreed entirely; the TRNC entry was preivously much shorter than the others anyway and I don't see a need to add more than we have now; it can be tempting sometimes to ignore the contributions of those who refuse to play ball with the wikipedia process but a couple of interesting points were raised, even if it was from a pov manner. --Robdurbar 23:33, 12 May 2006 (UTC)
Thank you. To add to your point, if we start elaborating the Turkish POV (on exclaves, civil society orgs, Turkish Peace action etc etc), then under WP:NPOV#Undue weight, imagine what the emphasis/size of the Greek POV and the International POV should be. After that, we'll need to rename the article to [[Turkish invasion of Cyprus and tiny details about unrecognized countries]]...  NikoSilver  (T) @ (C) 23:58, 12 May 2006 (UTC)
And btw, I agree to this change of yours too.  NikoSilver  (T) @ (C) 16:37, 13 May 2006 (UTC)
I just saw that there were three more attempted reverts by User:Erdogan Cevher, despite the talk, despite the sources, despite the agreement of the other editors and after 3 or 4 blocks for WP:3RR. I don't know if the rest of the editors agree, but I think that this behaviour has crossed the border of WP:POINT. Waiting for your comments and possible action.  NikoSilver  (T) @ (C) 15:48, 15 May 2006 (UTC)
I seriously considered obtaining a Wikipedia:RfC on his behaviour; I thought I'd let him get himself banned for antoher 3rr first, however, in the hope that an extended ban might show him how to edit / put him off the topic. In the event of an extended period of 2 reverts a day, then I think we could go further with this. --Robdurbar 21:40, 15 May 2006 (UTC)
Ok. Just check also this in the intro par of Cyprus...  NikoSilver  (T) @ (C) 22:24, 15 May 2006 (UTC)
FYI, I've reported Erdogan for 3RR again - that'll be the fourth 3RR block for him within 5 days. Guess they'll make it a longer one this time. Fut.Perf. ☼ 06:53, 16 May 2006 (UTC)
Wanna bet a beer he's gonna do it again?  NikoSilver  (T) @ (C) 09:50, 16 May 2006 (UTC)
Hey, weren't you the guy who recently complained you didn't get to perform enough justified reverts? ;-) Fut.Perf. ☼ 09:58, 16 May 2006 (UTC)
Ha ha! Everybody needs his dose here I guess! Oh, and we have a second attempt in Cyprus in case someone is collecting evidence for that WP:POINT vio. And how about that name Erdogan?  Karamanlis! (T) @ (C) 09:50, 16 May 2006 (UTC)
Eh, let's be fair to the guy - "Erdoğan" is just very common in Turkish, both as a first and a family name. Let's not make fun of that, it may very well be his real name. And I'm not quite getting what you mean by WP:POINT? He's just edit-warring, that's a different kind of thing, isn't it? Fut.Perf. ☼ 19:26, 16 May 2006 (UTC)
Sorry, I don't know that many Turks to have encountered the name before. I always thought it was a surname and it seemed to me like it wanted to sound more like the PM of Turkey. Point stricken.
Now for the other thing: He's not just edit warring. We have invited him repeatedly in the talk, but appart from the somewhat irrelevant comment above, we have received no further response to what 4 editors here (and a couple more outside the talk) seem to consider logical and obvious. We only communicate through edit-summaries, where we reply that OIC is a civil society org, and that Nakhicevan is a province, and that peace action (!!!) is peculiar wording for invasion, but he responds with the same irrelevant argumentation. He further expanded his POV to Cyprus. What can we do after 3-4 3rr blocks he's already had? I am sure there will be more, and that there won't be any comment whatsoever here, because the thing is so obvious (even for blind or uninformed) that at first I and the other counter-reverters didn't even want to discuss it formally. I don't know how you call this, but I definitely think it is disruption of WP.  NikoSilver  (T) @ (C) 23:10, 16 May 2006 (UTC)
Ah, no doubt that the blind edit warring is disruptive, absolutely. After all, that's why we're getting him blocked all the time. But WP:POINT is really about something else in my understanding, it's about subtle ways of disrupting by doing something you don't really mean, like AfD'ing good articles in order to demonstrate how other people's AfD criteria are wrong, that kind of thing. Fut.Perf. ☼ 06:38, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
Ok Mr."Syntax Error", maybe you're right. Let's see where that goes... NikoSilver  (T) @ (C) 11:23, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

Re-birth of the TRNC/Northern Cyprus debate

Wiki contributor Rebecca changed the text in the TRNC entry so I sent her this meesage, which I quote again below. If anyone wishes to change the text again, will he (or she) be kind enough, please, to first address the points I'm raising? Thanks in advance.

You removed almost everything from the entry for Turkish Republic of Northern Cyprus, with this comment : "Can we please just keep this simple? I'm sick of this page being used as yet another battleground for the Cyprus POV warriors".
Allow me to respond with some points:
(1) Contentious and controversial issues need not be keep "simple" in order to avoid conflicting points of view. If we were to do that, we'd have no more than a phrase under the entry for Palestine - or maybe we'd be disputing the use of the very word!
(2) The removal of text as irrelevant to the main entry is sometimes correct, sometimes not. In the case of the countries (or "countries"!) listed in the entry List of unrecognized countries, a small, concise description of their background seems to me to be essential. As a wiki user who's looking for information about the not widely or universally recognized countries, I'd be most certainly interested to trace common elements in their background (if any), the ethnic mix involved, the political/economic aspect, and so on. The full treatise is to be left, of course, for the entry of the specific country, of course, but general information must be provided in that article. So, IMO background is essential. Merely stating which countries recognize the TRNC, for instance, doesn't say much.
(3) The deleted portions of the text were as factual and as objective as possible. I'd challenge, in fact any Greek- or Turkish-Cypriot to dispute (with facts) anything in the text you removed. Flag of the Turkish Republic of Northern CyprusThe Gnome 13:07, 5 July 2006 (UTC)
I think the problem here is that the previous problems with Edrogan Cevehr have resulted in an over-cautionousness from some people on this issue. Whilst I have no real problem with the current one sentence, if you compare the TRNC to the Abkahzia entry, for example, its much smaller and less informative. I agree that we shouldn't allow one POV pusher to let us label everyone who changes the entry as such, or make us scared to comment on the TRNC.
At the same time, truths or facts about this that seem obvious or givens to people who have experience with the situation - such as The Gnome - may not seem so obvious or unquestionable to people with less knolwedge of the TRNC.
Thus, I would suggest that if we want to expand the current TRNC entry to the lenght of, say the Republic of China, then we need to decide the issues that are vital to a brief knowledge of the situation.
From my current understanding, these would be:
  • Turkish invasion in response to worry that Greece wanted to annex Cyprus
  • Declared independence in 1983
  • Recognised only by Turkey
  • Reunification plans failed, most recently the Annan plan in a referrendum
  • The whole island part of the EU, as the Republic of Cyprus (though TRNC is de facto outside of EU)
Robdurbar 19:25, 5 July 2006 (UTC)
The Gnome 10:15, 6 July 2006 (UTC)I agree with Robdurbar in most of the points made above. I find particularly important for Wikipedia the point that "we shouldn't allow one POV pusher to let us label everyone who changes the entry as such, or make us scared to comment on the TRNC". Wikipedia is open to everyone, so the potential for abuse and vandalism is virtually part of the project! But if we allow a small minority of vandals and miscreants to silence objective presentation of facts or stifle debate, then the whole Wiki project might as well fold - and become a restricted/subscription website.
I disagree with Rebecca's broad dismissal of my arguments, which I tried to present as clearly and sombrely as possible above, and her deletion of the text, once again. Rebecca only posted this aside: "While some context may be necessary, a very long paragraph which keeps being the subject of innumerable edit wars is simply unnecessary". Again, I beg to differ, for the reasons already presented. Rebecca does not suggest that the text was erroneous but she deletes it because it causes edit wars. I'm sorry but if I start maliciously editing Wiki entry XYZ for weeks on end, on account of some agenda of mine, should that mean that the text of entry XYZ must be amended or shortened because of my "edit wars"?
I expect a response in depth and not just casual comments, which moreover I find counter-productive. In the meantime, let's try and work towards the lines suggested by Robdurbar.
I've got no objections to Robdurbar's suggestions per se, but I'd be wary about making it much longer if for no other reason than this is meant to be a list. Every other entity on this list (with the exception of the probably-too-long ROC and Abkhazia) limits a description to about three lines, and I see no reason why we need to go into special detail for Cyprus. Rebecca 10:37, 6 July 2006 (UTC)


The thing too, is that a short un-descriptive entry only inivtes trolls/pov pushers to add their own view and claim 'well its too short, you're hiding the facts'. An agreed upon, fuller version can be defended as a consensus description of events. I agree that don't want to add too much - about 1/2 more lines max.
With that in mind, I would propose (approximately) the following as the full entry:

--Robdurbar 18:01, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

Fine by me. Rebecca 23:55, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
I think that there should also be a notice that the whole island is an EU member (under the name Cyprus, although the north is de facto out of it. in addition, the sentence although a fully fuctioning state, it has only been recognized by Turkey, seems a bit obscure: as if blaming the others who do not recognise a functioning state as Turkey did. talking about this, it is not a "fully" functioning state, since it depends on Turkey almost on everything!: monetary matters, economy, trade, diplomatique affairs, not to mention the turkish troops that form the 1/4 of the population... I am not asking to accept the greek POV and list it as occupied territory, but i would not agree in a version that pictures it as Taiwan... --Hectorian 02:15, 7 July 2006 (UTC)
OK; though bare in mind a number of states rely on others for certain matters such as defence and trade e.g. Andorra, though they would still be considered 'fully functioning'. Also, as for the EU, I noticed that when I went through customs at Luton Airport it said that 'all people from areas of Cyprus not in de facto control by the government of the Republic of Cyprus should enter as non-EU citizens' (or something to that affect). I think you make some good points, so:

--Robdurbar 09:16, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

Good job. I agree on that. About the Luton Airport thing u noticed, it's true, of course... de jure it has all EU privilleges, but de facto none! (e.g. the percentange of the EU budget that would be spend for TRNC, is not used by Cyprus. it is not spend till the dispute is solved...) --Hectorian 00:32, 8 July 2006 (UTC)
In order to be consistent with the mode of brevity and impartiality that has been adopted for these entries, I suggest that the bolded portion in the following phrase be removed : "...was set up in northern Cyprus in 1975 after an invasion by Turkish forces in 1974, who believed that Greece was attempting to annex the island". Anything that invites retort should be eliminated, if we are to stay firmly on the impartiality path.The Gnome 05:01, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
Hmm, I'm not sure. If I were to approach this from a Turkish viewpoint, I would feel that this is a rather important point. --Robdurbar 17:45, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
"From the Turkish viewpoint" ?! This is not how wikipedia entries are supposed to be judged by. I still find offering only one side's reasons/pretexts to be wrong. If we allow "...who believed that Greece was attempting to annex the island", then we must also provide the Greeks' and the Greek-Cypriots' POV. (Actually, having a balanced POV should be considered a given fact oof wiki!) The Gnome 08:39, 22 July 2006 (UTC)
It does not have to be removed. we have to mention the turkish invasion, since this was the beginning of the TRNC. but since we mention this, we also have to say why Tyrkey invaded. so, in order to be NPOV and accurate, we have to say the reason (pretext, from the greek viewpoint) about it, id est who believed that Greece was attempting to annex the island: maybe Greece had such intentions, but never actively tried. so, we just state the fact. --Hectorian 18:01, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

State of Palestine

What is the official status of Gaza strip after the withdrawal of Israel in 2005?

I believe that the both the PNA and the UN take the official position that Gaza is still under Israeli occupation. (Israel controlls the water supply, airspace, and territorial waters, for instance). The West Bank and Gaza aren't universally recognized as being under anybody's legal sovereignty. I'm pretty sure that Egypt never officially annexed Gaza, and nobody but Britain recognized Jordan's claims to the West Bank (which Jordan has now renounced anyway).
As somone said above, lists aren't places of in-depth analyses, but I do think the Palestinian issue needs a bit more of an in-depth treatment here. The "State of Palestine" declared in 1988 was in essence a "government in exile", as all of the territory it claimed was under Israeli control (and much of it under UN-recongized Israeli sovereignty) at the time. My understanding was the that PLO assumed the role of this government in exile at this point. The Palestinian National Authority was set up in 1994 to administer areas that have varied in scope after the Oslo Accords. The PNA was clearly intended to be an embryonic Palestinian state, but as we all know the agreements that would have been necessary to bring that state to term never happened. Instead, the PNA started acting more and more like a state (it has elections, government ministries, issues passports, accredits ambassadors) but never declared itself to be such. I think that there is a distinction between the Palestinian National Authority on the one hand and the PLO and the notional "State of Palestine" on the other. Up until this year, this distinction was largely theoretical, as the same people were running both entities, but it became less so when Hamas, which I believe is not part of the PLO, won the legislative elections there.
Anyway, the whole thing's a mess, and I'm not sure of all the details. Still, the current blurb doesn't even explain the situation on the grown in Gaza or the WB, which I know is a contentious subject, but still. How about the following?

--Jfruh (talk) 14:47, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

Sounds about right. --Robdurbar 23:30, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

Messing with the system

This talk-page has been vandalised in order to justify an allegged consented version of the article! A relevant note has been posted at WP:ANI#List of unrecognised countries for further investigation.  NikoSilver  (T) @ (C) 10:43, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

39 Nations That Do Not Recognize Israel

Where it says that 39 Nations Do Not Recognize Israel, there is a link to Israel's foreign policy page. There should be a list of those nations either under the Israeli foreign policy page, the unrecognized nations page, or a seperate page altogether. The statement should also be referenced.

Edits by Nixer of July 28th

The above user made the following two important changes on July 28th. I have a few qeustions for her/him or any others who can clarify:

Palestine

  • Moved Palestine to the section of partially recgonised states with de facto control over their territory. Do they have control or not? Most results from a google search claim that Israel still enjoys de facto control over Palestine. --Robdurbar 18:14, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
    In fact most claimed territory of this entity is not occupied.--Nixer 17:00, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
    • I don't think we should consider Palestine as a partially recognised state with de facto control over its territory. In fact, Palestine has no effective control over its territory. Most of West Bank and Gaza are under Israeli occupation and the external borders of Palestine are heavily guarded by the Israili army. Am I wrong? --Wikiturk 17:48, 30 July 2006 (UTC)
    • I believe, also, that the Palestinian state and the Palastinian Authority, the latter of which control the 'Palestinian lands', are seperate entities? --Robdurbar 09:18, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

Georgia

  • Put a neutrality tag in the 'Unrecognized states with de facto control over their territory' section. Why?--Robdurbar 14:52, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
    It seems that some portions in this section reflect views of Georgian nationalists, which cannot be called NPOV.--Nixer 17:00, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
Please, could you be more clear? Most of the editors here are not familiar with each paticular case. Which parts do you think reflect a Georgian POV? What do you think the reality or alternative points of view are? --Robdurbar 18:14, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

Palestinian Authority and State of Palestine

The State of Palestine is grouped under the section for states of de facto and at least partial control over their territories. Should the State of Palestine be seen as the same vehicle as the Palestinian Authority? If not, in what way is the State of Palestine having de facto control over any part of its claimed territory? — Instantnood 04:32, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

See the above talk which is trying to establish why this change occured! --Robdurbar 19:52, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

Democratic Republic of Bakassi

This seperatist "nation" was mentioned here: [2]. Might be worth considering.

"The people have declared their own republic, known as the Democratic Republic of Bakassi. We will no longer have anything to do with Nigeria, since Nigeria does not want anything to do with us," said Tony Ene, the interim head of the movement. -- RND  T  C  09:26, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

Another article here [3] about it, looks a bit amateurish imo. -- RND  T  C  19:03, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
Yeah; the bodies on this page appear to be far more established than this lot. --Robdurbar 21:53, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

Azad Kashmir

I'm pretty sure the adminstration of Azad Kashmir is loyal to Pakistan. Some Kashmiris want to be part of India, some part of Pakistan and some to be independent. However to my knowledge those wanting to be independent do not control any territory. Azad Kashmir is under the firm control of Pakistan. Therefore can I remove this entry? AndrewRT 21:55, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

Not only they do not control any territory, but also they have not declared independence in the international or regional fora. i think it should be removed. --Hectorian 22:05, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

Shan?

I don't think Shan should be listed on this website. I went to the Shan entry in wikipedia and the site says nothing about the state breaking away from the Myanmar central government. A previous version of the website mentions a government in exile, but there was no indication that this exile government held any territory. I would doubt that a breakaway state could exist in Myanmar considering how strict the military government is. I say Shan should be deleted.Inkan1969 19:50, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

I agree there appears to be little evidence for it. Suggest that people are given 48 hours to defend its inclusion... --Robdurbar 22:01, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
The Shan State is a well-known legitimate, violent secessionist attempt that has been ongoing for at least half a century in Burma. They are a member of the Unrecognised Nations and People's Organisation (see this entry). They should certainly not be deleted. --Gene_poole 08:15, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
Wrong list. They don't appear to have any sort of functioning separate state, so they need to be on the list of secessionist groups, not here. Rebecca 10:19, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
I agree with Rebecca. The link provided by Gene does not mention any territory that Shan resistance groups could be holding, unlike the case with the Tamil Tigers. The situation to me resembles that of Tibet. There's a very active secessionist movement but it holds no territory. Inkan1969 13:39, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

Israel

It appears that Malaysia and Indonesia do not recognise Israel's right to exist, however Israel is not listed here. Should there be unrecognised countries that are exempted from this article like Israel, and are there more exempt nations? —Tokek 14:22, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

That is an interesting point. However, I think this page is just for those countries not recognized by the majority of nations. However, we could open up another section...? --Robdurbar 15:46, 19 August 2006 (UTC)
Agree interesting point. I think a new section would be good - Countries not universally recognised? I wouldn't want to expand to countries which are only not recognised by, say, one or two other countries. AndrewRT - Talk 20:39, 19 August 2006 (UTC)
I really don't think countries that are members of the UN fit on this list. Rebecca 02:46, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
Doing a quick and dirty research, it seems like it is more than just Indonesia and Malaysia. While Jordan and Egypt recognises Israel, it seems like other Arab League nations, plus Iran, Afghanistan, and Pakistan do not, which turns out to be about 2.5 times the population of the United States. But lets say that some partially recognised nations should be exempt from this article, because they are a member of the UN, or for any other such reasons. Are there other partially recognised nations besides Israel that are currently exempt from the article? Where can I find a list of such nations? —Tokek 03:54, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
The Peoples Republic of China springs to mind with 24 countries that don't recognise it (they recognise the Republic of China instead). Apartheid-era South Africa also springs to mind. The Holy See only has diplomatic relations with 174 nations. The more I think about it the more I'm coming round to the view that only countries where most of the world doesn't recognise it should be included here, or else we are gettign away from the point of the article. AndrewRT - Talk 14:21, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
I don't know, it could make an intersting addition to the page. Alternatively, we could farm out some of the entries to List of partially recognized countries and add them onto there? At the moment it would be controversial - to say the least - to have Israel on a page called 'list of unrecognized countries'. --Robdurbar 19:53, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
Ah, I forgot about PRC, the Vatican, & apartheid South Africa. There are several former apartheid homelands listed in the article, btw. I don't know, but it sounds somewhat counterintuitive for a country to be not listed because it's not insignificant enough. —Tokek 12:34, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

Tamil Eelam Restored

I restored Tamil Eelam after an anonymous editor deleted it. The editor sounded like he/she did this motivated by personal dislike of the Tamil Tigers, which is not a valid reason to delete the entry.

Also, a bot deleted the image of the Flag_of_Tamil_Eelam over at its Wiki entry. Could someon please restore that flag image, so that we could use it for this entry as well? Inkan1969 21:02, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

Osgoodelawyer posted a new T.E. flag. Thanks. Inkan1969 22:07, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

Islamic Emirate of Waziristan

I changed the Wziristan link to connect with the new Islamic Emirate of Wziristan entry. Inkan1969 22:39, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

Greenland

Should Greenland be mentioned on this page? I think the fact that Denmark is part of the EU, but Greenland is not, and that Greenland conducts its own international relations, indicates that it is moving ever closer to independent statehood. Is there some criterion that Greenland does not fulfill to be on this page?

No declaration of independence. If they don't recognize themselves that they are a separate country, neither can we. - Mauco 22:24, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

Asia - Tibet

I removed the contents about the Nepalese Mission in Tibet and the alleged Tibeto-Mongolian Treaty of 1915:

  • [1] The Nepalese representatives, namely Vakil, stayed in Tibet even after the region formally became part of Communist China and, therefore, has nothing to do with recognizing Tibet's independence.
  • [2] Tibet and Mongolia are said to have sign a treaty in 1915 recognizing each other's independence; however, according to his British advisor named Charles Bell, the 13th Dalai Lama denied that he has signed or ratified any treaty with Mongolia and, most importantly, no official publications regarding the said treaty has ever been released. - 219.73.9.169 14:22, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

Asia / Europe

Last time I checked, the Caucasus region was included in Europe, not Asia. That would mean the references to Ajaria, Nakhichevan, the Talysh-Mughan Autonomous Republic and the Transcaucasian Democratic Federative Republic should all be placed in the Europe section of the Historic unrecognized or partially recognized states with de facto control over their territory list, rather than the Asia section. Pedrocelli 00:28, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

That region is included in both the Europe and Asia entries. Some people do consider Georgia/Armenia/Azerbaijan part of Asia. Inkan1969 05:51, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

Recognized States not really existing

This is a very good and very interesting page, but I suggest a little changement to list the countries which are (fully or partially) recognized, but which have no control of their territory. I'd list: 1) Palestine, recognized by many States (also by UNO?), but whose territory is under Israel's military occupation; 2) Western Sahara, recognized by many States and by African Union Organization (also by UNO?), but whose territory is under Morocco's military occupation; 3) Afghanistan, recognized by UNO and all States, but whose territory is under USA's military occupation; 4) Iraq, recognized by UNO and all States, but whose territory is under USA's military occupation; 5) Somalia, recognized by UNO and all States, but whose legitimate government lives in exile (in Kenya), while the country is de facto divided into different States (Somaliland, Puntland, Jubaland etc). Val>>>>>>

Pontus

I WOULD LIKE TO MENTION THE REPUBLIC OF PONTUS IN PRESENT DAY COUNTRY OF TURKEY.IT WAS REESTABLISHED IN 1917 AND IT WAS CEASED IN 1919 IN THE NORTHERN REGION OF TURKEY ALONG THE BLACK SEA COAST.THE PONTIAN PEOPLE LIVED THERE FOR 3000 YEARS,THEY WERE MOSTLY UNDER THE BYZANTINE EMPIRE,THEY WERE RENAMED EMPIRE OF TRABIZOUND,AND THEY WERE UNDER OTTOMAN EMPIRE OCCUPATION UNTIL 1917,WHEN THEY DECLARED THE REPUBLIC OF PONTUS.IN 1919 KEMAL ATATURK ORDERED THEIR GENOCIDE AS HE DID WITH THE ARMENIANS AND THE REPUBLIC CEASED TO EXIST.TODAY PONTIANS LIVE MOSTLY IN GREECE,USA,CANADA,AUSTRALIA,GERMANY,RUSSIA,GEORGIA AND EVEN PRESENT DAY TURKEY AS MUSLIMS WITH PONTIAN DESCEND.I BELIEVE THAT IT SHOULD BE MENTIONED SOMEWHERE HERE.GEORGE KOSMO

Hawaii

Why is the Kingdom of Hawaii on this list? It was as widely recognized as Siam. Septentrionalis 13:53, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

the Kingdom of Hawaii was widely Recognised as Siam?? hmm thats news to me... wasn't Thailand widely recognised as siam? Maku desu 08:29, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
Maybe you mean Hawaii was recognized by Siam? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 24.180.7.125 (talk) 03:56, 11 January 2007 (UTC).
  • No, Septentrionalis said the Kingdom of Hawaii was as widely recognized as Siam. That is, both Siam and Hawaii were widely recognized -- which, in fact, they were. I don't know what countries the Kingdom of Hawaii might have been interested in conducting diplomatic relations with that they were unable to do so -- they did have relations with the United Kingdom, France, the United States, and other major countries. --Metropolitan90 07:19, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

Manchukuo

Recognized by 23 states? List and source please; 3 is attested by contemporary sources. Septentrionalis 14:13, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

Unrecognized countries or secessionist teritories?

In my opinion, calling those entities as "unrecognized countries" is POV, this is why I believe that correct title should be "List of secessionist territories". They are not recognized as "countries", other enciclopedias don't list them as countries, if Wikipedia call them countries is like considering legitimate their demands, which contradicts WP:NPOV. "Secessionist territory" is a more accurate description (not for all cases, as Republic of China, for example, didn't officially ask for secession from China) and does not mean rejecting the legitimacy of their secessionism, is just a fact.

I believe that those who want to call those entities as "countries" instead of "territories" are pushing POV. Same person removed the correct clasification of Abkhazia, South Ossetia and Transnistria, which are controlling only a part of their claimed teritories (info which can be founded in corresponding articles in Wikipedia). I wait for explanation from the other side, to defend their edits.--MariusM 21:46, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

Calling them "territories" is just as POV, since it rejects the fact that they are de facto independent (and therefore countries). They are also not "secessionist" (at least the first group of them), since they have already seceded. Finally, minor territorial disputes are not enough to move entities from "control" to "partial control" since this means practically no entity which is unrecognized is going to be considered to have full control. As long as the vast majority of the territory is controlled, it should be considered controlled. └ OzLawyer / talk ┐ 23:57, 9 November 2006 (UTC)
I did not want to be the first to comment on MariusM's proposal, because I don't want him to feel that I am singling him out for abuse. But the proposal IS of course POV, despite the fact that MariusM will never admit it. This editor (MariusM) is involved in some very nasty content disputes with me on a large number of Transnistria related articles. I accuse him of pushing his POV and he accuses me of the same. His position is that Transnistria is best described as a rebel region which is almost not even secessionist since, in his eyes, the founding fathers behind the declaration of independence were not the people of the region but outside forces. He has been taken to task over this by a number of editors, including one who is a U.S. based specialist on the history of Transnistria, and his proposal to change the title of this list must be seen in light of his own personal POV. I am not saying that he is right or wrong, I am merely pointing out what he has not done: That he has a POV and a vested interest which he has not disclosed here. Finally, may I suggest a Google check: The phrases "unrecognized states" and "unrecognized countries" rank higher than other alternatives, and seems to be the commonly accepted denomination. On this basis alone, I would not change the current title of this list. - Mauco 00:13, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
De facto independence of those teritories is debatable. Transnistria, Abkhazia and South Ossetia may be independent from Moldova or Georgia, but not from Russia. All of them want to join Russian Federation, their secesionism is in fact an expression of Russian expansionism, and was created with the help of Russian Army. Big number of people leaved those regions as result of separatist regimes (they "voted with their feets") - is about 50% of pre-war Abkhazian population and 20% of pre-war Transnistrian population. In other territories situation can be different, however calling them "countries" is not accurate, as they are not recognized as countries by the vast majority of nations. Mauco, your POV was rejected not only by me, but by the majority of people involved in the article Transnistria. I am suspecting pro-Russian expansionism POV here, as I see the same persons who want to list Abkhazia, S Osetia and Transnistria as countries are refusing the same thing for Chechenia.--MariusM 00:32, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

Well, independence from the host country and being someone else's puppet regime are too different things. There are plenty of recognized states which are still foreign puppet regimes. As such, the heavy dependence of these territories from the Russian support does not affect their eligibility to be listed here. They de-facto evicted the gov within whose internationally recognized borders they belong. --Irpen 03:01, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

In my opnion it should be called List of seseccionist territories, as the wording like “unrecognized country” opens a discussion about the definition of the word country. What is a country and can an unrecognized self-proclaimed entity be called a country in a legal sense of this term, if there’s a legal definition of it at all? “Seseccionist territory” allows to avoid such controversial terminology. Grandmaster 07:16, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
Well without bandying about accusations of bias straight away, I'm sceptical about the move. Although I'd appreciate Grandmaster's comment about the word country - it is a vague term which though origianlly meaning sovereign state has been used in a number of other ways (Scotland) and often as a synonym for nation.
However, if we look at this rationally, I would actually propose a new move to List of unrecognised states. This is because:
  • Country is used in a number of ways (as mentioned above). What's to stop me adding Wales or Waloonia or the Basque Country to this list, under the wording of its title? Nothing. The list is actually of breakway-states or entities which operate as states
  • Sececcionist territories doesn't really cover all the entrys of the list e.g. Western Sahara or Holy See.
Obviously, state has its issues too - it will be just as unpalatable to those who don't want to see the word country in the title - but it does reflect what these entities are, or at least trying to be more. More importantly, it reflects the criteria that we are using to decide what should be on the page and indeed the article's first line which reads: 'Several geo-political entities in the world have no general international recognition, but are de facto sovereign states.' --Robdurbar 09:19, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

Maybe the article should be separated. It's biased (this is a fact) to refer to Transnistria etc as "countries" as it implies legitimacy. Even the BBC refers to Trnasnistria, Northern Cyprus etc as "teritories". Franky, I wouldn't mind "separatist regimes" as a title for the split article.--Tekleni 10:34, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

Then again, is it correct to call an entity that does not exist de-jure a state? That’s why I think the word “territory” is more preferable, it is more neutral. Grandmaster 10:36, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

This move made in a bad faith attempt to force the POV without consensus reahced at talk needs revertred as per an ArbCom ruling about such dirty tricks move with addition of artificial history. ArbCom ruled on that in AndriyK case. Tekleni (talk • contribs • page moves • block user • block log) should be warned in strongest possible terms for bad faith multiple times moving of the articles. Just today, he moved this one twice! --Irpen 10:41, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

Sorry, I was not aware of that. I was just doing what Ghirlandajo did here.--Tekleni 10:45, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

You did not know what? Ghirlandajo returned the article to its stable name which, if you want changed, you need to propose the change and wait for consensus. As yours and MariusM's moves were made in defiance of consensus he wars right to revert it. Yours and user:MariusM's moves are unacceptable. Such practices are likely to add entries to the user's block log. --Irpen 11:00, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

He did the same thing as me, only it has now been deleted [4]. Also, threats aren't allowed.--Tekleni 12:04, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
As far as I'm aware, arbcom cases are generally specific and do not provide guideline rulings. As far as I'm concerned, re WP:BOLD, Tekleni had the right to move the page; but equally, other users should retain the right to move it back. Per WP:MOVE, WP:3RR and WP:TALK, the page should then have been left as it is and the discussion on the matter moved to here, as has happened. --Robdurbar 12:27, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
Arbcom cases are specific as long as they don't contain rulings to the contrary. Please check the case in question before posting general observations. --Ghirla -трёп- 12:39, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

As you've noticed, I have move-protected the article to stop the move warring, and I've also cleaned up all three soiled redirects. Please all parties refrain from using that trick, this goes both for Tekleni and Ghirlandajo (and yes, I think the Arbcom ruling is pertinent). The article is now at the stable version it used to be in for the last few months; like Robdurbar I think it should have been left there by all parties once it was clear there was dissent about the moves. Please work out a consensus and then do a clean WP:RM. Fut.Perf. ☼ 12:48, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

OK, taking on board some of the ideas mentioned above, if users are serious about this move, we could have a straw poll to see where the land lies? I'm not a massive fan of votes, but I think one could be indicative here? --Robdurbar 18:35, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

No, please don't start down that road. This is a politically heated issue. There is bound to be vote shopping, socks, and all kinds of other abuses (from both sides). Why don't you identify the 3 or 4 alternatives and then do a Google test, for starters? Another thing to keep in mind is that this list includes quite a few historically unrecognized states, but not all of them were secessionist territories. The headers "unrecognized countries" or "unrecognized states" would be all-inclusive, but the header "secessionist territories" or "secessionist regions" would be misleading for many of those. - Mauco 23:11, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
But equally, all of the entities on this page are 'notable', or at least colatable as a group, due to their secessionist aims. I wouldn't have a problem with states and think it would more actively reflect what we're including in the article - there are a number of 'countries' - or entities that take that vague term - that are not recognised politically and are not here. I have no massive problem with countries and think that it may be the best of a bad bunch. --Robdurbar 00:28, 11 November 2006 (UTC)
I voice agreement with either 'unrecognized countries' or 'unrecognized states'. Both are used widely, and both are fairly all-inclusive. The alternatives are neither widely used, nor are they all-inclusive (especially when it comes to the historical situation). - Mauco 00:58, 11 November 2006 (UTC)
It is best to use 'unrecognised countries' rather than 'unrecognised states' as 'State' can imply an internal county such as New York State. Mark us street Nov 28th 2006.

Osgoodelawyer

I'm afraid I don't know what the bias was. Moldovans are now considered an ethnic group separate from Romanians, and I don't think the Moldovans in Transnistria identify as Romanian (just like those in Moldova do not). To continue to call them Romanians is actually the bias—it rejects a designation that the people themselves hold. └ OzLawyer / talk ┐ 16:26, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

They they self-identify as Romanians, despite pressure from the puppet administration to repress that. For an example, see Ilie Ilaşcu's case. Why do you think they self-identify as "Moldovans"? As an ethnic designator, "Moldovan" seems to be more of an exonym.--Tekleni 16:37, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
Why? Because they live in the "Trans-Dniester Moldovan Republic" and they speak Moldovan (which is an official language of Transnistria—not Romanian). I don't think that link to an article proved a thing. └ OzLawyer / talk ┐ 16:58, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
Are there any linguists on Earth which say that Moldovan ≠ Romanian? I'll answer that, no, there aren't. Also, the word "Moldovan" in the title of the pseudo-state simply refers to geography, not ethnicity. Moldovans is undue weight (recognized only by the CIS), see the article.--Tekleni 17:05, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
I understand that they are essentially the same language, but the fact that it is called Moldovan speaks volumes about the identity of the people. I'm Canadian, but I do not speak Canadian, I speak English. As for your assertion that "Moldovan" in the name refers to geography, that may be so, but, again, that's not evidence against identity being displayed in the name. If there was no identity as Moldovan, there would be no need to note Moldova in the name. Finally, the census numbers in the Transnistria article are of Moldovans, not Romanians. If the data says "Moldovan", we are not in a position to say "Romanian"—that's putting our own point of view in, and undertaking original research. └ OzLawyer / talk ┐ 17:12, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
Look, I'm just saying that the concept of Moldovan language doesn't seem to exist outside the CIS, ergo using it here is undue weight. Anyway, let's see what everyone else thinks.--Tekleni 17:45, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
But language and ethnicity are different things, and we're talking about ethnicity here, not language. People can feel they are Moldovan ethnically and still speak Romanian. └ OzLawyer / talk ┐ 18:10, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
Exactly. Also, saying that all/most "self-identify as Romanians" needs to be backed-up by sources, or else it would be original research. For example, I knew a Moldovan guy who mentioned Romanians as "close", but not the same. Furthermore, isn't one of the most important factors in what determines an ethnic group being "whatever they want to be"? I could have something like this: Austrians (Germans), but I don't because they don't want to be called Germans. I'm not saying it's the same for Moldovans, but we can't just assume that all/most Moldovans call themselves Romanians. That would be POV-pushing. Khoikhoi 19:17, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
Tekleni, I happen to know quite a bit about the Ilie Ilaşcu's case. He is in no way representative of the general population of Moldova, nor is he representative of the general population (or even the 31.9% minority) in Transnistria. He is an advocate of the unification of Moldova and Romania, which is a position not shared by the majority in neither Moldova nor Transnistria. Today he has Romanian citizenship. Before he got that, however, he still called himself Romanian in order to demonstrate a political point: He feels that there is no such thing as Moldova or a specific Moldovan ethnicity, and that it should be part of Romania. We can agree with him or disagree with him on that, but the point to be made is that we should be aware that he does not approach the issue objectively and specifically introduces his own bias in order to further the cause which he advocates. - Mauco 23:08, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

The partial and full control revert war

The issue isn't even about whether they have de facto control over the claimed territory, it's whether they have de facto control over the occupied territory. That is, while Transnistria may not occupy everything it claims, it controls everything it occupies. Tamil Eelam, on the other hand, only has partial control over what it occupies—it does not have a firm grasp on its occupied territory. That's the issue here, not whether one occupies all the land claimed. That's why Taiwan is in the total control category, even though it claims all of China. I'll leave this for some commentary for now, but it seems like recent edits are going to have to be reverted again. └ OzLawyer / talk ┐ 18:24, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

I've bumped this one up to full protection now. Perhaps the simiplest solution to this would be to insert some text under each header but above the list of entities stating what we mean by each grouping. --Robdurbar 18:33, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
Osgoodelawyer is correct. Otherwise we must move Taiwan down to the "partial" list as well. - Mauco 23:02, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
Osgoodlawyer, please don't impose your own definitions. Abkhazia, South Ossetia and Transnistria don't control the entire teritorry they claim - this is a fact (even in Wikipedia you can find it). Taiwan only formally claim entire China (and Mongolia as well), but didn't really made any attempt to occupy this teritorry.--MariusM 13:11, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
I see that Osgoodlawyer started again the revert war with his definition "de jure governments of the areas in question have no influence in the areas under question". What is influence? I am sure the People's Republic of China has some "influence" in the Republic of China, for example. The home-made definition of Osgoodlawyer is not acceptable. We can diferentiate between entities which fully control the territory they claim and those who don't.--MariusM 20:10, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
Marius, you're the one who's been attempting to change the article from what it was prior to the revert war. My suggestion above which was agreed to by Mauco, and likely also by Robdurbar, seems a way to actually make sense of this list. Your version is ambiguous and plain out wrong. ROC must be moved if your definitions are to be the ones accepted (and if they are accepted, you have to explain what your definitions actually are, since it's not apparent by the section titles). └ OzLawyer / talk ┐ 20:46, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

I agree that the fastest way for us to piss people off and get revert wars is if we don't explain what we mean by our titles. --Robdurbar 11:43, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

I wonder if 3 people (Osgoodlawyer, Mauco and likely Robdurbar) are enough to impose a definition in Wikipedia. ROC don't control the entire teritorry it claims, I think ROC should be alone in a separate category, as this particular case, while being de facto independent, never officially asked for independence. Anyhow, in the last >50 years ROC never made an attempt to expand the teritorry it control, it has stable borders. On contrary, Transnistria's borders are not clear and its government made attempts to increase the territorry, not only through having something written in its "Constitution" which nobody take seriously. See attempt to take control on village Vasilievca, attempt to take control in Varnitsa. We should make a distinction between seccesionist teritorries about which everybody agree on their geographical extension, disagreement being only if they have or not the right to separate, and those territories which, even if agreement is done about seccesion, there is still a debate about the borders of a future state. I suppose that Tamil Tigers have some villages in which they have 100% control.--MariusM 21:58, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
How on earth can you claim that they nobody takes Transnistria's Constitution seriously? 555,000 inhabitants do. In terms of size, a full 10% of U.N. member states have populations that are smaller than that. There is a Supreme Court which takes it very seriously indeed. It even overturns laws from parliament and the president which it finds unconstitutional. Besides, Transnsitria controls some 99% of the area which they claim in their constitution. The section title is very precise now so stop reverting if you do not know what you are talking about: Transnistria's constitution is highly respected by the unrecognized country, and prized as one of their symbols of statehood. - Mauco 23:18, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
Indeed, they take Transnistria's constitution seriously, contrary with Taiwan, which has defined in its constitution borders including the entire China and Mongolia, but never take it seriously. Transnistria don't control its entire teritorry, this is my point, and "Taiwan" argument is not valid.--MariusM 23:30, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
Anyways, which part of Transnistria (Dniester's left bank +Beltsy) is not controlled by its government? --Illythr 11:52, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
First time I heard that Beltsy is part of Transnistria. Villages not controlled by secessionist government are: part of Dubăsari district (33810 inhabitants according 2004 Moldovan census), Varniţa town near Tighina and I think some areas in Basarabian part of former Slobozia rayon. According Transnistrian constitution, PMR should include former rayons of Slobozia, Grigoriopol, Dubăsari, Rîbniţa and Camenca. Camenca rayon also had a part which is geographically in Basarabia, that part is not controlled by Transnistria and, contrary with Slobozia rayon, AFAIK it seems it even didn't try to controll it.--MariusM 02:50, 2 December 2006 (UTC)
This is more or less correct. The 33810 figure is highly misleading, the vast majority of these inhabitants are part of Transnistria and don't want to have anything to do with Moldova. The Moldovan villages only number a few hundred inhabitants, on average. Transnistria's constitution says that the territory is all of what is on the left bank + Bender and suburbs. But they have those villages near Dubossary which they do not control, as well as Varnitsa (suburb of Bender). They are keen to control Varnitsa but they are not worried about the villages. At any rate, if you look at a map, you will see that this is a case of "splitting hairs" and can under no circumstances be a determining factor in the inclusion criteria for this list. - Mauco 23:05, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
Er, mixed up Beltsy with Bender, sorry. --Illythr 11:30, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
Not true what Mauco told about transnistrian constitution, about the 33810 figure and the will of vast majority of those inhabitants. In general, not true what Mauco tell about Transnistria.--MariusM 13:59, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
Please supply a source that states how I am wrong. - Mauco 00:58, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

add Bangsamoro and The Gay and Lesbian kingdom.

Both are countries with de facto controller over some territory. Zazaban 03:04, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

The Gay and Lesbian Kingdom of the Coral Sea Islands controls no territory whatsoever. Bangsamoro, as far as I can tell, is just the land claimed by the Moro, the Autonomous Region in Muslim Mindanao is what is "controlled" by them, but it is an autonomous region within the Philippines, and thus is not a country. └ OzLawyer / talk ┐ 14:47, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

The Gay and lesbian kingdom does in fact control territory. It even has an administative capital! Zazaban 15:22, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

From the article: The kingdom's claims are not recognised by any state, and as no permanent settlement has been established, the Coral Sea Islands remain uninhabited. – If you have no people on the territory, you cannot possibly control it. └ OzLawyer / talk ┐ 15:36, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

please update Transnistria

Whether it's an unrecognized "country" "state" "territory" ... is another discussion. I request the following update be made in order to be factually accurate:

  1. Transnistria did not declare itself an independent state in 1990. Transnistria declared itself a separate republic within, and subject to the rule of, the USSR.
  2. It also does not make sense to list Russians, the least populous group first, and the Moldovans, the most populous group, last and seemingly as an afterthought.
So is the statement "roughly equal in numbers" not accurate? Also, I don't agree that listing Moldovans third is "an afterthought." If it said "two ethnic groups, Russians and Ukranians. Oh, also Moldovans" that would be an afterthought.--Dmz5 02:52, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

Please also note that the flag icon for Transnistria is currently missing the hammer and sickle which is mandatory under Transnistrian law for any official use. Thank you. —Pēters J. Vecrumba 20:04, 10 December 2006 (UTC)Pēters J. Vecrumba 19:55, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

  1. It later declared complete sovereignty. Perhaps just change 1990 to 1992 instead?
  2. I think that whoever added that sentence intended it to be a short explanation of the "problem", i.e. that Russians and Ukrainians outnumber the titular nation and want to secede. I guess it can be changed to ...three major groups, roughly equal in numbers: Moldovans, Russians and Ukrainians, with the two Russian-speaking minorities outnumbering Moldovans., but I'd rather just remove it altogether... --Illythr 15:32, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
All available evidence point to the fact that Moldovans in Transnistria want to secede, too. It is not that they are outgunned by the two other groups. All three are actually "on the same page" to a very large extent. Moldovans in Transnistria have no big urge to join their brothers in Moldova. That may change, of course, when Moldova joins the EU. But for now, it is a very safe bet to say that Moldovans in Transnistria are in sync with the Slavs with regard to independence. - Mauco 00:56, 23 December 2006 (UTC)
Totally untrue, but I don't want to reopen long debates on this subject.--MariusM 01:21, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
No long debate is needed. A single source will suffice. If this is "totally untrue" then at least there's a source somewhere to back it up? Otherwise, I stand by everything that I have said: Ukrainians AND Russians AND Moldovans are in sync, and all 3 main ethnic groups are united in their drive towards independence. - Mauco 01:48, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
Dear Mauco,
  • while Russian "peacekeeping" troops (which actively sided against Moldova with the separatist forces) still occupy the territory,
  • while the government is still headed by a self-professed Lenin wanna-be (complete with goatee),
  • while "independent" Transnistrian web-based "newspapers" run features on the lessons we can learn from Lenin,
  • while the state "minister of security" is a Russian thug whose men pulled the trigger killing peaceful Baltic independence protesters and intentionally killed a film crew...
  • ...and who organized a terrorist attack in Transnistria which he then blamed on Moldovans,
  • while Romanian is an official language only in Soviet-era Cyrillic (which is not the pre-Latin script Romanian original despite the statements of the official pridnestrovie.net web site that Moldovan = returning Romanian to its Cyrillic roots),
  • and I can go on
you would be the one pushing POV. There is nothing of any substance for you to stand by, there is absolutely no measure of true democracy or independence in Transnistria today, nor until the above circumstances change. You have been insisting that "change is on the way" and "democracy is blooming" for quite some time now, but the more time passes the more the things that matter (i.e., all of the points above) remain immutable. Ergo, I would submit that my position that there has been absolutely no change in Transistria (apart from the ever improving quality and funding of their propaganda) is far more accurate than your proposition that there is true democracy, true "opposition" and a "real" political system, etc., etc., etc.  —  Pēters J. Vecrumba 14:08, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
Say, what? We weren't discussing democracy in Transnistria (which is not even the subject of this page anyway). Scroll up and read the context of the previous debate, please. I asked MariusM for a source. He then disappeared. Now you show up. If you have the source that I asked MariusM, then please post it. Otherwise I don't really know what to do with your, ahem, "interesting" personal analysis of Transnistria. As you hopefully know, the vast majority of the population of Transnistria is firmly opposed to unification with Moldova. The decision to keep pursuing independence is not imposed top-down, but a widely held wish among large segments of the population AND among all ethnic groups; including the native-born Moldovans. Unlike Bosnia, Kosovo, etc, there is no ethnic strife in Transnistria, and this is something very important which the outside press rarely reports. - Mauco 14:14, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

Incorporation of a small section and an External Link

This site lacks groups of people organized in their own right but without land which I think should be included with the articale. The external link is a separate but connected issue (http://www.unpo.org) it is an organization trying to get these different groups representation in the UN. It is also a good start for anyone willing to research 'people without a nation.' This issue almost qualifies as a different articale but I think should the issue should as least be addressed in the articale. Thank you.

The Vatican and the PRC

There is a difference between non-recognition and the absence of diplomatic relations. For example, countries at or near war have routinely broken off diplomatic relations, without denying the existence, or right to existence, of the other side. Saying that the PRC does not recognize the Vatican requires a source. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 20:13, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

Partial control = limited sovereignty/shared sovereignty

A reminder is in place for the newcomers here on the difference between partial control and full control. We are not referring to pockets of the claimed territory which is under control of another sovereign, but rather to the extent that an unrecognized country is able to exercise its sovereignty in the territory which it does control.
A disputed territory alone therefore does not count. Otherwise almost all RECOGNIZED states would fall under the "partial control" heading, too (since there are hundreds of territorial disputes in the world.
The cutoff point has a lot more to do with effectivity in the area under its control. Transnistria has a few border villages that it lets Moldova control, because that is how the villagers prefer it. But it has to be listed under the full control category without a doubt. Somaliland is there, though the issue of the border with Sool and East Sanag region, which is disputed with Puntland, covers a much larger area than the few Transnistrian villages and is the scene of much more violent armed confrontations. Abkhazia, despite the Kodori gorge, should probably also be under the full control category, but I am willing to hear how others feel about this before I make the move. - Mauco 01:05, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

No agreement, already explained in "The partial and full control edit war" section.--MariusM 12:08, 23 December 2006 (UTC)
You can not have Somaliland in one section and Transnistria in another. Completely illogical. Face reality, please. - Mauco 14:47, 23 December 2006 (UTC)
Don't know Somaliland situation. Just move Somaliland in other section if you think so.--MariusM 14:52, 23 December 2006 (UTC)
Evading the real issue. The point is that both places exercise full sovereignty over the areas which they control. This is not "partial control" so both should be in the same full control category, and most likely Abkhazia should be there as well. I am open to discussing this latter point, however. But do not revert Somaliland and Transnistria from their real, de-facto on the ground status. Do not hide the actual reality and the facts of the situation as it exists there. - Mauco 14:58, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

Content dispute

Please add this important clarification back in: "Note that the word "control" in this list refers to control over the area occupied, not occupation of the area claimed. Virtually no unrecognized country controls all the area it claims."
It is consistent with the rest of the intro, and with longstanding practice of this article.
It was removed[5] by User:MariusM without discussion and with a rude edit log comment[6] so that he could justify a POV change that is not consistent with the rest of the (still current) intro and overall inclusion criteria. I should add that the line above, which he removed, was not added by me. I am merely supporting the existing work of the other editors here. - Mauco 14:09, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

I concur. I was just reading the current division for the first time and I did not take it to have this meaning, so the clarification must be re-added. I am not sure the division is maintanable though, nor does it seem very meaningful:
1) To my knowledge Somaliland is not in 'full' control of the territory which it occupies (conflict with Puntland),
2) whereas the PMR is,
3) as is the SADR, it is in full control of the territory which it occupies.
4)Is there actually a state of Tamil Elam that has declared independance?
5)The State of Palestine is not the same thing as the Palestinian Territories, it has no de facto sovereignity, it only exists on paper.
6)Is Waziristan any more real than the Chechen Republic of Ichkeria?
Is it really interesting to divide states on the basis of full control over their occupied territory? Sephia karta 22:55, 28 December 2006 (UTC)
I think that there should be fewer categories rather than debate which category an entity is part of or what is the definition of a category. Combine the categories to 1) Partially recognized states, 2) Unrecognized states, and 3) Historic unrecognized or partially recognized states. That is all that is needed. -- (Shocktm | Talk | contribs.) 00:14, 29 December 2006 (UTC)
Not a bad suggestion. I could live with that. Just have some clear rules, and define them, so we avoid the back-and-forth edit warring. What say other longtime editors? - Mauco 03:12, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

Partially recognised countries with de facto control over their territories

In my opinion, the first sentence should be changed to something like:

The following states are recognised only by a minority of the world's sovereign states.

New Moheli flag available

Please replace the png flag of Moheli with a vector version. Thanks, --odder 01:05, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

Two other possible entities to be mentioned?

I think that both Mount Athos (ostensibly in Greece) and the Sovereign Military Hospitaller Order of Saint John of Jerusalem of Rhodes and of Malta could do with a mention on this page - both claim limited sovereignty and receive some recognition worldwide. Grutness...wha? 01:25, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

The thing is, do they actually claim more sovereignity than they are recognised to posess? Do they claim to be sovereign independant states? If they don't, we could still include them becouse Kosova is up there, but we'd have to widen the scope of this article, which would risk becoming very similar to the self-governing entities article. Sephia karta 23:41, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
The "rule" here has been to leave out entities if they have not themselves declared independence. This is why Puntland is not included. Have these two declared independence? To what extent are they currently seeking sovereign statehood? - Mauco 23:43, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
Sorry, this is not the rule. We have Republic of China here, which never declared independence. I agree with Grutness to include the other two entities.--MariusM 01:18, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
Just like that? What happened to my request for sources? - Mauco 01:50, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
We can address the no indep. declaration issue (together with the non-disputed one) within the text. NikoSilver 01:24, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
I agree with Sephia karta: these two entities don't claim more sovereignty than they are recognised to possess, and thus don't belong on this list. Rebecca 01:27, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
Indeed. Keep them out, or we pollute the list. - Mauco 01:50, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
Agree per Rebecca (do not claim more sovereignty than they are recognized to possess). NikoSilver 11:24, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
I think it's more complicated though. While the ROC has not declared itself independant as Taiwan, they do consider themselves to be the sovereign independant state of China, don't they? Isn't the situation similar to the situation with Korea? I don't know whether the two Korea's recognise each other, but suppose for the moment that they don't, suppose that they agree that there is only one Korean state, only they disagree over which of the two entities is that one Korean state. Then neither of the two have declared independance from 'Korea', yet they do both claim independance.
If the ROC wouldn't consider itself to be a sovereign independant state, then they wouldn't have embassies to countries, would they, then they couldn't be recognised to begin with.Sephia karta 18:38, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
SMOM claims sovereignty, but it isn't a state. It is a sovereign military order. The Holy See is similarly sovereign, and is similarly not a state, but it controls a state, the Vatican City. The SMOM doesn't, although it does have some buildings that are recognized as under extraterritorial jurisdiction, like an embassy. But it doesn't actually have territory. Might be worth mentioning john k 19:28, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

Cabinda

According to the Republic of Cabinda article, 80% of the Province is in control of a government seperate of Angola. Zazaban 03:19, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not a reliable source. We need a source outside Wikipedia to support such clams.--MariusM 03:21, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

The Old Hans and the See

Is the People's Republic of China not basing their unrecognition of the Holy See based solely on the See's unrecognition of the PRC, and thus completely bypassing the process of actually considering the legitimacy or illegitimacy of the See? Excuse my terramorthification, but is that not akin to the Vatican saying, "We do not recognize the People's Republic's control over China," only to have the PRC say, "Oh, yeah? Well, we don't recognize the Holy See's control over Vatican City! How do you like it now?" VolatileChemical 07:55, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

Typical. NikoSilver 11:26, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

Zimbabwe-Rhodesia

Did Zimbabwe-Rhodesia actually claim to be a sovereign state? I thought it returned to a status as a British colony during that period. john k 19:33, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

Republic of Tatarstan

Removed from page:

Excuse me, but as citizen of Russian Federation and living in Tatarstan since 1984 I cannot agree with this. Tatarstan was not associated or confederal state with Russia ever. It was always a subject of Russian Federation, here was always Russian federal army, Russian federal police (militsiya), Russian federal security etc. --Vlad Jaroslavleff 08:01, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

Hmmm... This fact is rather disputable... Tatarstan KGB was the last KGB, disestablished in Russia... as for the independce, Tatarstan officials sometimes claimed the recognition of assocoated state status... Moreover, Tatarstan was a self-proclamed union republic without recognition before USSR was disintegrated... So, Vlad, I'm a citizen of Tatarstan and living there since 1986, but I really dont know how to desribe this strange struggle for independence. Howvever, yor statements are not an inprovement and they can only state your attitude to Tatarstan's independence... --Üñţïf̣ļëŗ (see also:ә? Ә!) 17:22, 17 February 2007 (UTC)
De facto Tatarstan was not independent state ever (we do not talk here about middle ages). KGB in name of Tatarstan KGB does not mean anything, de facto it was a regional department of FSB. Independence at really was claimed only by Tatarstan nationalists and never by Tatarstan officials in their official speeches (if it is not so, please cite the reliable sources). Tatarstan male inhabitans was drafted in Russian army, Tatarstan pensioners got pension from Russian federal government and so on. So, actually, Tatarstan never was the independent state. Actually the articles of Tatarstan constitution that proclaims that Tatarstan is an independent state was contradicted to Constitution of Russia and abolished in early 2000s (when Putin become a president of Russia) with absolutely no counteraction of Tatarstan citizens and officials. --Vlad Jaroslavleff 21:40, 17 February 2007 (UTC)
So, what unrecognized state term actually means? Tatarstan officials claimed Tatarstan to be a state by Tatarstan's constitution, so before 2000 Putin's "verticalization" Tatarstan probably belonged to unrecognized states. This fact depends only on terminology... As for the ministries, some of them were suboprdinated to Babay's administration, not YeBN's... --Üñţïf̣ļëŗ (see also:ә? Ә!) 17:28, 18 February 2007 (UTC)
Yes, some of them were subordinated and is subordinated now to Shaymiev's administration, of course. Just because Shaymiev is head of Tatarstan. But key ministry, Home Office, MVD is actually regional department of federal Ministry of Home Affairs, because Minister of the Interior (ministr vnutrennih del) is commissioned by federal Minister of Home Affairs, not by Shaymiev. The same with Ministry of Public Health (ministerstvo zdravoohraneniya), Ministry of Justice (ministerstvo justitsii), Ministry of Education (ministerstvo obrazovanija) and so on.
There all states with de facto control of their territory in the article. But putting Tatarstan under section ".. states with de facto control of their territory" is incorrect, Tatarstan's territory was always controlled (and controlled now) by Russian Federation. Here was always Russian Army in Tatarstan, Russian Interior Forces (Vnutrenniye Voyska) and so on, so Tatarstan was never have sole control of its territory.
Even judicial system was always Russian with, of course, regional courts. For the Supreme Court of Tatarstan there was always superior court - the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation. For the Consitutional Court of Tatarstan there was always superior - the Constitutional Court of the Russian Federation. The same with arbitrage. Tatarstan never had its own Military Court.
Tatarstan has its own territory, but it is not Tatarstan's property. Yes, of course, as every region of the Russian Federation, Tatarstan has some of its territory in property (so-called regional property), but the same situation with all Russian regions. Moreover, even every city and village has some territory in property (so-called municipal property).
We cannot say about confederate status, because we cannot compare Tatarstan even with any of states of the USA. Because, for example, every US state has its own state police, but no region in Russia has its own police, all police forces in Russia are federal.
If I publish my own constitution and declare in it that my house is an independent state, will my house be here in article? I am de facto control territory of my house (because it is my own property). Why I can not do this? --Vlad Jaroslavleff 20:11, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

Iraqi Kurdistan

The Iraqi Kurdistan Region is officially recognized by Iraqi constitution and currently has constitutionally recognized authority over its region. So can it be removed from the "Historic unrecognized or partially recognized states with de facto control over their territory" section? --D.Kurdistani 04:01, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

Partially unrecognised states

This section (which lists Israel, Peoples' Republic of China, and others) is difficult to compile and probably incomplete. There are many countries who do not have diplomatic relations with each other. Often it is not because of any dispute but because the two countries are not too big and not geographically close to each other.

For example, Singapore and Barbados did not establish diplomatic relations until around 1996. There is still no Singapore High Commission in Barbados.VK35 22:55, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

Unrecognized by whom?

What reference are we using to define who the prime arbiter of recognition?

Taiwan is recognized by 23 states. What makes their recognition of less value than say...the U.S.A. or the UN? Sounds incredibly POV or chauvinistic.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Maowang (talk • contribs).

The article clearly separates out states with no international recognition, states only recognized by the country that created them, states that have partial recognition (Taiwan is one of these), and states that have greater but not universal recognition. No country's viewpoint is given any extra priority, these are simply a matter of fact. Vizjim 12:08, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

suggestion

Let's make a new list and move the partially recognized ones there. DenizTC 23:35, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

There's not enough of them imho. I support keeping all of them here. Alaexis 12:30, 7 May 2007 (UTC)
Sections 1, 2, 5, 7, 9, and some from section 8 (maybe most). The title can be list of not fully recognized states or something like that. Otherwise we may need to change the title. DenizTC 13:26, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

Section merging / confusion

I think "States recognized by only one country with de facto control over their territory" section should be merged to the "Partially recognized states with de facto control over their territory". In the end it doesn't matter how many countries recognize it, it's still partially recognized. In the current wording, Turkish Republic of Northern Cyprus (TRNC) falls under both of the sections. Therefore we don't need the second section. The explanation next to the TRNC says that it's recognized by only one country anyways.

Or else it would break up more confusions / conflicts. we would also need a seperate section for Repuclic of Cyprus (Roc), goes as "States that are recognized by all countries except one". Or renaming of the section that witholds TRNC, as "States recognized by only one country (Turkey) and one autonomous republic (Nakhichevan) with de facto control over their territory". And Guess what if a country declares its independence tomorrow and only two countries recognize it :) Regards, Kerem Özcan 10:16, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

I take it as a consensus since nobody spoke against it. Regards, Kerem Özcan 09:30, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

Placement of Western Sahara

What? How could there possibly be a better category for it? The SADR of Western Sahara is partially recognized and the territory is largely under military occupation, right? Why did you move it? -Justin (koavf)·T·C·M 04:01, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

Wrong. Western Sahara is not occupied but disputed. So, to categorize the SADR as a country under occupation is turning Wikipedia to a propaganda organ for the Polisario. No, No.--A Jalil 07:05, 8 June 2007 (UTC)
What is UN position about WS? Alæxis¿question? 07:51, 8 June 2007 (UTC)
The UN considers the territory as disputed between the kingdom of Morocco and the Polisario Front. The UN neither recognizes the sovereignty of Morocco on the territory nor the government-in-exile (SADR) that the Polisario unilaterally proclaimed. Kofi Annan had in some of his reports described Morocco as the "Administrative Power" in Western Sahara. The UN is calling for direct negotiations to find a solution acceptable to both parties, and will supervise direct negotiations (without pre-conditions) between Morocco and the Polisario Front this month (June 2007). --A Jalil 08:10, 8 June 2007 (UTC)
Occupation and UN definitions Jalil, Western Sahara is clearly occupied, and the UN has called it as such - I've even told you this before and referred you to these same documents, so I don't know why you're feigning ignorance here. Two examples:
UN General Assembly Resolution 34/37 - November 21, 1979, vote: 85-6, with 41 abstentions reads in part:
"the aggravation of the situation resulting from the continued occupation by Morocco and the extension of that occupation to the territory recently evacuated by Mauritania"
Link to that session of the GA
Direct link to the pdf
UN General Assembly Resolution 35/19 - November 11, 1980, vote: 88-8, with 43 absentions reads in part:
"terminate the occupation of the territory of Western Sahara"
Link to that session of the GA
Direct link to the pdf
Even if the UN didn't consider the area occupied, it still is. Furthermore, there is no contradiction in saying that it is occupied and disputed. Typically, if an area is occupied, there is some dispute. Since there is a category for precisely this kind of territory, that's where Western Sahara/SADR belongs. -Justin (koavf)·T·C·M 16:23, 8 June 2007 (UTC)
That sounds convincing. What are exactly the arguments against including SADR into the Partially recognized states largely under military occupation section? Alæxis¿question? 16:32, 8 June 2007 (UTC)
No. It might be convincing to those with little or no aquintance with the different organs of the UN.
  • The document he always refers to was a document drafted in Havana, Cuba, by Algeria, and Cuba, and put to vote in the GA (General Assembly). The GA is a kind of opinion poll where all countries give their opinion of some thing at a certain time under certain conditions (political or economical interests, who is in power, ...). If you have enough friends to secure a vote on some issue you get it. But the back-face of the thing is that the GA resolutions have no weight, no authority and are not binding. the voice of Nauru or Tuvalu or Bahrein (a few thousend inhabitants) weights as much as that of Russia or the USA or China (more than a billion). The SC (Security Council) is the authority in the UN. Anything can't be adopted if it is not accepted as representing the UN ideals and position.
  • Koavf pretends to ignore one big example for which he never reacted: The famous "Zionism=Racism" resolution. In 1975, in the midst of the Cold War, the Arab states could count on the support of the USSR and the East block in addition to the non-alligned movement, they put to vote the resolution that equals Zionism with Racism to the GA and was adopted. After the fall of the Soviet Union and the East block, and many of the third World countries no more thinking in terms of the Cold War, the majority was lost and the GA again gathered to vote that Zionism is not Racism. So, which of the two resolutions represent the UN position? now as has been proved before to koavf, the documents you refer to do not represent the position of the UN, but the position of the majority at the time of the vote and is by the way very outdated with regard to the resolutions the UN has issued twice a year in the last decades.
  • On the countrary, the former UN Secretary General (Anan) in 2002 refered to Morocco as the "Administrating Power" in Western Sahara.
  • If "something disputed is occupied" (il)logic is followed, then every suspect is guilty and not what we've always known that every suspect is innocent till otherwise proven.
  • "Even if the UN didn't consider the area occupied, it still is". This is your personal opinion. Trying to impose it in Wikipedia has costed you more than a half year block, and it seems your manners have not changed.
  • "Typically, if an area is occupied, there is some dispute" this is not the case here, but exactly the opposite. There is a dispute which only when the conflict resolved will show if the territory was indeed occupied (case of independence) or that it really belong to Morocco (integration or autonomy within Morocco). Till then, Forget about anticipating the result and calling it occupied instead of disputed.--A Jalil 21:10, 9 June 2007 (UTC)
Zionism is racism, etc. The pedantic way that you described the UNGA is odd, and an appeal to the UNSC is even more queer, since they hardly passed any resolutions on the matter prior to the establishment of MINURSO. Make of the United Nations System what you want, the UN still called the territory occupied. Simple. It also never reversed its stance, a la UN General Assembly Resolution 3379. If it did, we might have something to discuss. Since it hasn't, there is no real dispute that the UN has called Western Sahara occupied. Again, even if the UN never said such a thing, and even if they said the opposite, the region would still in fact be occupied. A foreign military is there, consequently, it is occupied. Again, you point out uses of language that are not contradictory or even relevant: Morocco is the administering power in most of the territory and it does so by occupying it. There is no contradiction in terms. Note also that you inverted my wording to say the opposite of what I claimed: if a territory is occupied, there is necessarily a dispute (or else no one would occupy it.) If there is a dispute, it is not necessary that it be occupied. Regardless of the outcome of the Sahara dispute, Morocco will still have been a foreign power invading the territory and setting up its military in a civilian area for an indefinite period of time. One more time, though, that line of argumentation is still irrelevant, because the territory is, in fact, occupied. You can claim things are my personal opinion or conflate opinions with facts or whatever you want; it's not a convincing line of argument it's as irrelevant as the point you made before: a territory remains occupied regardless of my assessment of the facts. If you don't consider Western Sahara (or Iraq or the West Bank) occupied, that is irrelevant; they remain occupied in spite of your assessment. I refuse to fall into your fallacy of bifurcation by choosing between "disputed" and "occupied;" it is clearly both, and since there is a listing for precisely this situation, that is where Western Sahara/SADR belongs in this list. -Justin (koavf)·T·C·M 21:41, 9 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Since the Minurso's establishment, and since WS became debated by the UNSC, there has never been a single document describing Morocco as occupying WS. If it were an occupation it would have been used at least once, or actually frequently, but because it is not, none.
  • "Regardless of the outcome of the Sahara dispute, Morocco will still have been a foreign power invading the territory and setting up its military in a civilian area for an indefinite period of time". So if there is a referendum where the people of Western Sahara vote for belonging to Morocco (confirming their Moroccan identity), Morocco will still be occupying them (per indefinite period of time). This is one of the most ridiculous things (if not the most) that I have heard this year. Unbelievable.--A Jalil 22:15, 9 June 2007 (UTC)
Not quite They will have been an occupying power; they still occupied the territory for 30-odd years, even in the unlikely event that the Sahrawis freely choose to integrate into the Kingdom of Morocco for some reason. If the West Bank Palestinians vote to integrate into Israel, that doesn't retroactively make the occupation of the last 40 years not happen. It was still an occupation nonetheless. When you make bombastic assertions like that and then claim that I'm being ridiculous, you take away credibility from your position. -Justin (koavf)·T·C·M 22:26, 9 June 2007 (UTC)
If only you were careful with examples. Here you made another bad mistake: How can the Palestinians choose to integrate with Israel when there has never been such an option neither by the UN nor by Israel itself. Here you brought the big proof on yourself: There can't even be a referendum to end the Palestinian/Isreali conflict because the UN considers the West Bank and Gaza as occupied (UNSC res. 422), and if a territory is occupied, the UN does not condone the occupation by making a referendum where one of the options is other than an end to occupation. That is the difference between the case of WS and that of Palestine. The UN calls for a referendum in the disputed territories but not in the occupied ones.--A Jalil 22:54, 9 June 2007 (UTC)
You missed the point You ignored my question; if the West Bank Palestinians did choose to integrate into Israel, would that retroactively make the occupation of the past 40 years not an occupation? Clearly, that position makes no sense. Morocco is occupying the territory, regardless of any prospective outcome of the conflict. As far as your line about occupation goes, you're wrong, because that is exactly what happened in Western New Guinea; where did you get the information for this assertion? -Justin (koavf)·T·C·M 21:28, 11 June 2007 (UTC)
You missed the point again you continue to give examples from fiction and transpose them on completely different situations to make way for your Polisario POV. You know it fools none. --A Jalil 08:27, 12 June 2007 (UTC)
Whatever This is going nowhere. You ignored a very simple question and it punctured the logic of your logic about integration and retroactively not making an occupation. It is obvious to any objective third party that the Sahara is occupied, and those facts speak for themselves. -Justin (koavf)·T·C·M 15:39, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

Hi. Sorry to interrupt the discussion. I'm not an expert on the subject but current placing of SADR is wrong. It stays under the "unrecognized..." but it's actually recognized by 43 countries. So I don't know the rest but it's classification should start with "Partially recognized..." Regards, Kerem Özcan 09:00, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

More generally, this article have to be reorganized. I suggest:
  • either according to control over their (claimed) territory, then international recognition
  • either according to international recognition, then control over their (claimed) territory
--Juiced lemon 10:49, 10 June 2007 (UTC)
Kerem, Juiced Kerem, you're right, and as you'll notice, I've been going back and forth with some editors on precisely this issue. Why does this article need to be reorganized along these lines, Juiced? -Justin (koavf)·T·C·M 21:28, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

The "sadr" does not belong in here

  • The so-called sahrawi rapublik is not a state.
  • It is not a country.
  • It is a government in exile.
  • It sits in Algeria (Tindouf).
  • It has no control on the strip beind the wall but claims control of this
  • It is largely unreconized
  • The recognition of the African Union does not mean much as ca half of the african states do not recognize it.
  • Etc.
  • ===> Please stop using wikipedia for pro-polisarian propaganda!!

Thanks - wikima 20:12, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

What? Wikima, your edits introduced a number of grammatical and spelling errors that simply don't make sense. Clearly, the SADR is a state and country - that is why it is on this list. Another state on here - the Republic of China - is in exile. Are you in favor of taking it off the list as well? The assertion "It has no control on the strip beind [sic] the wall but claims control of this" is unproven, and there are editors on here who have personally been there, there is video of demonstrations behind the berm, elections and conferences are held there by the SADR, there is a military buildup regulated by the UN cease-fire agreement, etc. You know all this, and I don't see why you keep on asserting these inflammatory claims with no evidence. ===> Please stop using Wikipedia for Pro-Moroccan propaganda!! Thanks. -Justin (koavf)·T·C·M 20:33, 12 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Nope, "sadr" is a gov. in exile with no control on any territory.
  • You should respond with arguments. A demonstration of foreign militants is not a control of a territory for instance. "sadr" is in Tindouf, under algerian control. Any move of its "troups" is highly condemned by the UN etc.
  • I explained all this in details if you remember.
  • You can do the changes by keeping the version, and do not take sp. errors or gramma for a pretext to revert.
  • You don't seem to have leraned from your long block.
wikima 20:50, 12 June 2007 (UTC)
  • It seems koavf is redefining the word "exile": The ROC is in exile!!. That makes no sense. None of the ROC organs is on foreign land.
  • As to the control, it has already been proven to you that the non-presence of Moroccan troops in a region does not make it automatically controlled by the Polisario even if they have never set foot in it (Laguera, the Atlantic coast south of the wall, ...).
  • Spain withdrew from Spanish Sahara instead of "abandoned". The withdrawl was agreed upon in the Madrid Accords and happened accordingly.
  • When mentionning the recognitions, it should not hurt to mention that the SADR is not recognised by the UN nor by the Arab League (remember the "A" in SADR means "Arab").
  • "The UN is attempting to hold a referendum ..". "attempting" is in the present continuous meaning something that is taking place at the moment. That is not the case here. The UN has attempted to hold a referendum but did not succeed. Now, the UN will be holding in the coming week (18.6.2007) direct negotiations without pre-conditions to reach a solution. The MINURSO's mission is nowadays simply to monitor the cease-fire. --A Jalil 07:22, 13 June 2007 (UTC)
Jalil and Wikima Wikima:
  • The SADR controls the Free Zone, as per the 1991 cease-fire
  • You should respond with arguments instead of asserting that the SADR is controlled by Algeria. Any move of Morocco's "troops" is highly condemned by the UN etc.
Jalil:
  • See exile, Jalil. I didn't define the term.
  • See above
  • Well, no one actually knows what the Madrid Accords say, as they've never been made public, but whatever.
  • There is no point in listing all the states and organizations that don't recognize one of these entities; otherwise, this list would get indefinitely long.
  • The UN is attempting to hold a referendum, but whatever. Unless I'm mistaken, the last UNSC resolution did not change MINURSO's mandate. -Justin (koavf)·T·C·M 15:35, 14 June 2007 (UTC)