Talk:List of proposed state mergers/Archive 1

Title
This page, as currently written, seems narrower in scope than its title implies. Perhaps there is a more appropriate title that could be used, such as List of proposed state mergers, or List of state unification proposals? Slb36cornell (talk) 19:15, 28 January 2011 (UTC)

Why North-American Union is not mentioned here???
Here's the link: North American Union — Preceding unsigned comment added by 182.188.139.39 (talk) 15:04, 16 January 2016 (UTC)

Candidates for Inclusion
Among historical movements, how about the West Indies Federation and the Federal Republic of Central America (see also later attempts)? Would Tanzania qualify as an example of a successful state unification proposal, since both Tanganyika and Zanzibar were independent prior to its creation? How about Germany? Slb36cornell (talk) 19:14, 28 January 2011 (UTC)
 * I removed Kingdom of Serbs, Croats, and Slovenes, Tanzania, and United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland. This list is for proposed or short-lived mergers only; if we include all the successful mergers, it would encompass many current and former countries. See Category:National unifications. Goustien (talk) 16:41, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

The worst I have seen on Wikipedia!
Hi

This 'list' is like a kid in a candy store's wish list! UK and Fance???? What a joke! Just becauce it was proposed, so what??? Didn't Idi Amin propose he be accepted as King od Scotland? MOST os the supposed candidats for a merger are really thumb-suck. Portugal and Spain? Rui &#39;&#39;Gabriel&#39;&#39; Correia (talk) 18:48, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

Could we please now stop this un-history?
A coupe of points about "proposed mergers":
 * 1. Let's not confuse nationalist feelings with a real serious proposal discussed bilaterally/ multilaterally between the parties. Who are these "nationalists" being quoted right left and centre? What are their support bases? How much support do they enjoy? The fact that some or other nationalist crackpot may at one point have mentioned the idea of joining A and B does not make it a "proposed merger of two states".


 * 1a. Why don't you include a merger between the UK and Uganda? After all, didn't the crackpot dictator Idi Amin claim that he was the righful king of Scotland?
 * 1b. Don't draw your conclusions from looking at maps - Finland has very little in common with Scandinavian countries. They are a different people, they speak a language entirely unrelated to any of their neighbours. Their closest 'relatives' are the Hungarians. Go read some history.


 * 2. Let's not confuse 'ideas' of enconomic unions with mergers of two or more states. Look at the EU - it is still made up of its constituent separate entities and always will.


 * 3. Where are your sources? You have a total of 3 sources to support wild claims of state mergers that will affect about 90% of the world. And if you are going to use something as a source, PLEASE FIRST READ WHAT IT SAYS! - the source used for the so-called Russian Union says "[He] specified that it was not building a state, but a union of sovereign states.". And please use real sources - the source you quoted about Portugal/ Spain is based on a telephone survey of 876 people on general greater collaboration between the two countries.


 * 4. Don't contradict information on serious WP repeatedly updated and monitored by serious editors. The page on Scandinanism says that "As opposed to the German and Italian counterparts, the Scandinavian state-building project was not successful and is no longer pursued"


 * 5. Most of the so-called proposed states have names made by the handful of editors who contribute to this page - XXX Federation, YYY Federation. These things don't exist, have never existed and will never exist. Hover/ click and you get redirected to another page vaguely related to the so-called name of the would-be state.

Now, let's stop that - this is supposed to be an encyclopaedia, not a Terry Pratchett book. Rui &#39;&#39;Gabriel&#39;&#39; Correia (talk) 09:45, 23 July 2013 (UTC)


 * I've now spent the better part of a whole day looking into each of these claims and have left only the ones with a degree of plausibility. Please provide proper references before adding anything to the list Rui &#39;&#39;Gabriel&#39;&#39; Correia (talk) 12:09, 23 July 2013 (UTC)

Very lame
A lot of fanciful nonsense, but seems to omit the obvious establishments of the Australian and Canadian confederations. Eregli bob (talk) 09:55, 23 July 2013 (UTC)
 * You are absolutely right. These should both be included somewhere in late 19th century. Rui &#39;&#39;Gabriel&#39;&#39; Correia (talk) 12:16, 23 July 2013 (UTC)
 * I have added the long missing Canadian and Australian confederations. It wouldn't make sense we had the West Indies Federation on one hand and not Canada nor Australia. I think we should all reach consensus on what should remain and what should not. Viller the Great (talk) 07:12, 21 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Proposed State mergers have considerable historic relevance. See United Kingdom and United States.  As a resident of the UK I cant deny the relevance of proposals for a United Ireland and, if the vote had gone for Scottish independence, I am sure that unionist campaigns would rapidly start on both sides of the border.  You dismissively describe "fanciful nonsense" when the only issue, as always, is that of notability.  See List of conspiracy theories for "fanciful nonsense".  gregkaye  ✍ ♪  11:29, 9 December 2014 (UTC)

Dreamland editors
Just because some crackpot goes on tv talking about the desirability of a federation between the South Pole and Atlantis, there is no reason whatsoever to come and add that nonsense here. Do you have any evidence, BESIDES an NGO that the Nordic countries would like to merge into one nation? If not, please stop playing here. Rui &#39;&#39;Gabriel&#39;&#39; Correia (talk) 22:17, 12 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Agree with this, some ***hole keep adding their poor dream just like the Indonesia case into this list. I have frequently tried to find any sources that mentioning about the proposed merger (be it from international news from which the countries involved) or other WP:RELIABLE SOURCES but seems didn't found any. I suggest this article should be semi-protect by any WP:ADMINS to prevent more nonsense edits in the future. ~ Muffin Wizard;) 11:11, 5 May 2015 (UTC)

Merger vs Annexation
A merger is when two STATES (via their governments) officially agree to join as one nation - such as East ans West Germany. The people wanting such a union counts for very little - such as East and West Germans for four decades. An annexation, on the other hand is when a more powerful nation takes over a weaker one - such as Germany under Hitler, taking over the Sudetenland and later the rest of Czechoslavakia. Texas did not willingly join the United States, it was annexed as everyone knows. Rui &#39;&#39;Gabriel&#39;&#39; Correia (talk) 22:51, 12 February 2014 (UTC)


 * The page you've linked says that Texas very willingly joined the USA, signing over its sovereignty. This is very different from a military takeover. CMD (talk) 22:59, 12 February 2014 (UTC)

Indonesia
I have remove Indonesia from the list, the reason is there is no source mentioning about this based on Google search, compared to the Chinese and Korean issues which agreed by a number of citizens in the countries included. ~ Muffin Wizard;) 11:02, 5 May 2015 (UTC)

Instead, see also the notes for every merger, the quotation below shows that there is at least an agreement by both sides:


 * Chinese - Unification of the Greater China Region is the stated goal of both governments, though support in Taiwan is slowly decreasing over time. Supported by Chinese nationalists in both states ✅
 * Cyprus - Supported by many Cypriots and the United Nations. ✅
 * Korean - Korean reunification has been a goal for both Koreas since the 1953 armistice agreement. However, proposed strategies vary between the two Koreas. ✅

While for Indonesia, there is a BIG NO! Why? Because it is only '''based from PDI-P ideology. PDI-P is an Indonesian party and there is seems NO agreement + supports from the other sides on the countries they want to included on their stupid ideology just like the idiot Bangsamoro Republik plan.'''
 * Indonesian - Unification of Greater Indonesia is the goal of PDI-P and is set in 2020.

Thank you. ~ Muffin Wizard;) 11:48, 5 May 2015 (UTC)

State mergers, and non-State mergers
I've been seeing a lot of changes on this page about this issue, and I want to point out, a state merger is when two or more countries agree to unify, or propose to. Something like "Karelia and Finland" isn't a proposed state merger, because Karelia isn't a country of any sorts, but just a part of Russia. Same goes for others too; the German-speaking part of Belgium proposing to unify with Germany wouldn't be a state merger, as it isn't a nation unlike Germany. Rather, a proposed state merger of North Korea and South Korea would be a state merger, because both are actual countries, that control their own nation. This page should only be for state mergers, too, which means that a Karelia and Finland proposed merger wouldn't work, but instead, something like PRC and ROC proposed unification. Columbina 1 (talk) 18:54, 31 July 2015 (UTC)

Union of Sovereign States
Hi guys. I would like to know what the rest of you make of the inclusion of the Union of Sovereign States in this list. As I see it, as can be read in Union of Sovereign States, this was an attempt to keep the Soviet Union from breaking up, which cannot be considered a merger, but rather a 'renewal' of confirmation of an earlier arrangement. However, nine of the republics actually were part of discussing the proposal and agreed to it. At the same time, one would have to question the legitimacy of the authorities/ government in the 8 republics that agreed with Russia on this — did they represent the will of the people or were they Moscow puppets? The fact that the whole thing came to naught after the coup, would imply that they were basically 'part' of the government in Moscow and therefore came down with it in the coup, and that therefore did not represent the will of the people. Finally, the argument that this is the predecessor of the Commonwealth of Independent States means very little — if anything —, as the latter is not a state.

I would like to hear the opinions of others. Thank you. Rui &#39;&#39;Gabriel&#39;&#39; Correia (talk) 14:44, 24 September 2015 (UTC)
 * I made the mistake of thinking on this before I pulled back and remembered that this is Wikipedia, not our parsing of information in order to create our own WP:SYNTH. The WP:BURDEN is still on finding RS stating that the "Union of Sovereign States" is considered to be a merger proposal independent of rearranging deckchairs aboard the Titanic. If there aren't such sources, it's OR. What is available (such as this and this suggest otherwise, particularly: "According to the treaty, republics that don't sign it remain subject to Soviet law -- including the law on secession rushed through parliament last year.") --Iryna Harpy (talk) 01:31, 25 September 2015 (UTC)


 * Valid point, Iryna, very valid indeed. However, that is the history of that page, unfortunately. Very few entries on that page have any sources including high-profile ones such as the unification of the two Germanies. My involvement throughout has been to delete, delete, delete each time I see fanciful entries, but I have stopped short of removing on the basis of the absence of sources where I know it to be true — again, German unification. So, applying that rationale, I would not delete this one based on absence of sources, as that would be double standards on my part. But even if we do find sources, what is at issue is how we are going to determine what constitutes a merger. These countries were already one, so at most, by nine of them forming a new country, it would at most be a secession. Then, based on what you pointed out, to the effect that "republics that don't sign it remain subject to Soviet law", you have made the case that this is not a merger.


 * At any rate, I asked for other opinions, so I will wait to hear from more people. Regards, Rui &#39;&#39;Gabriel&#39;&#39; Correia (talk) 11:16, 25 September 2015 (UTC)


 * I agree with Gabriel, this article needs a criteria of inclusion not only for what constitutes a merger, but also, especially in the "current proposals" section, criteria that limits fanciful and unrealistic state mergers (e.g. United States of Europe, US-Canada merger, etc.). I personally am getting tired of reverting user and IP edits that add nonsense and fanciful entries and will assist in the creation of such a criteria. Nick Mitchell 98 (talk) 20:48, 27 September 2015 (UTC)


 * I also agree with needing to find an RS basis for inclusion or exclusion, otherwise the existence of this 'list' is OR. While I see solid grounds to start an AfD, I also comprehend why it should not be deleted. Until such a time as we can establish a set of criteria for either scenario without engaging in WP:CHERRY or WP:COATRACK (and any other forms of OR), we can only restrict entries based on RS per WP:BURDEN. I know it's an undesirable situation but, like many other articles and lists that exist in Wikipedia, case by case is the only singular criterion on which to base inclusion. The only way to resolve this issue is to proscribe criteria as per List of states with limited recognition and related articles whereby absolute parameters such as declarative theory and diplomatic recognition are reasonable methods of establishing the status. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 00:45, 2 October 2015 (UTC)

I have removed Union of Sovereign States from this list on the strength of WP policies and the views presented herein. The proponent of its inclusion was first notified and then invited to this discussion but did not come to the party. I thank those who participated. Regards, Rui &#39;&#39;Gabriel&#39;&#39; Correia (talk) 01:53, 4 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Cheers for removing it, . Ample time was allowed, the user has been actively editing, and inclusion was based on WP:OR. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 08:35, 4 October 2015 (UTC)

As usual, the proactive Wikipedia pro-Ukrainian regime canvassing mafia is imposing their false consensus in order to remove any mention or give a derogatory view of anything related to USSR or Russia. If you want to see what are agit-prop pamphlets intead of encyclopaedia articles, simply read any article related to Ukrainian politics, history, etc... or best, review their edit history, and you'll find how that group of users have hijacked that articles, removing everything they want (doesnt matter that sources are recognized as reliable) and adding what they want (of course doesnt matter if the source is partisan, if it fits their POV's). Do what you want, Im too busy to engage in a conflict wich I cant win (its a simple problem of numbers, they are more numerous), and I know they have contact with administrators who will favour them. Sad but true. The simple point of fact of comparing a reality (Union of Sovereign States) with a fantasy (United States of Europe) in order to justify its deletion says it all...And then some still find strange why both the number of editors & quality of editions are drawning in Wikipedia...Well, another article to add to the list of unreliable WP articles...-- HC PUNX  KID 15:30, 15 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Well, that's one impressive list of WP:ASPERSIONS! Pray tell, what does the exclusion of the "Union of Sovereign States" have to do with your purported "proactive Wikipedia pro-Ukrainian regime canvassing mafia"? You introduced it to the content, therefore the WP:BURDEN was on you to demonstrate that was a genuine 'proposed state merger', not a reshuffling of a pre-existing order. You were asked to present arguments by means of WP:RS, yet failed to respond in any shape or form until now... and this is not a response: it's a WP:POINTy, WP:PERSONAL declaration. I'd suggest that you retract this as I believe this to be a case to be taken up at the WP:AN. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 22:13, 17 October 2015 (UTC)
 * I only just saw this. I agree, this is a case for WP:AN.
 * , please provide diffs showing my editing with a pro-Ukranian bias as part of "the proactive Wikipedia pro-Ukrainian regime canvassing mafia". Rui &#39;&#39;Gabriel&#39;&#39; Correia (talk) 21:10, 22 October 2015 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 28 September 2015

 * Australia
 * 🇦🇺 Australia 🇿🇦 South Africa

86.80.198.70 (talk) 12:10, 28 September 2015 (UTC) More importantly, you have not cited reliable sources to back up your request, without which no information should be added to, or changed in, any article. - Arjayay (talk) 13:50, 28 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done: as you have not requested a specific change in the form "Please replace XXX with YYY" or "Please add ZZZ between PPP and QQQ".