Talk:List of sovereign states/Archive 16

Archive 10

←

Archive 14

Archive 15

Archive 16

Kherson and Zaporizhzhia

Putin has signed two decrees each recognizing the independence of Kherson and Zaporizhzhia respectively, both effective immediately. While their "independence" is set to last for only one day, should they be included in the list of non-UN recognized states (since they meet the criteria) or is it not worth it? AxolotlsAreCool (talk) 22:24, 29 September 2022 (UTC)

I just added them. They have been recognized, i added a source stating such. Interestingly enough, the Russiand decree recognizes the names of the "new countries" as Kherson Oblast and Zaporzizhzhia Oblast. An interesting question (likely soon moot) has now arisen, they have no official flags but they do have official coats of arms. Do we display the coats of arms in place of the flags like we do for medival states in battle infoboxes of military conflict articles?XavierGreen (talk) 04:15, 30 September 2022 (UTC)

They are flying the Russian flag over government buildings in those regions, so I'd use that. Tartan357 (talk) 05:07, 30 September 2022 (UTC)

That just discredits the criteria. Russia occupied part of these regions, declared them “states” to be “annexed” the next day, so some Wikipedia editors decide to add then delete them from this list on Putin’s schedule? What a farce.

Exercise common sense. This is a PR exercise by a violent, criminal government. Don’t humour it. Just remove these travesty “states.” —Michael Z. 05:03, 1 October 2022 (UTC)

Indeed, exercise common sense. The so called independence declaration was immediately followed by the annexation request, which precisely sets the meaning of that so called independence. The territories also never excercised independence. Adding them to the list until the Duma had formally ratified Putin's annexation decree is a form of falsifying history and the process happening.. a mockery and caricature of what is happening here. These territories have nothing to do with "independence". Labrang (talk) 05:42, 1 October 2022 (UTC)

I wouldn't have put the point in those terms, but I agree with the thrust of this. If our inclusion criteria require that we make such an obviously non-neutral listing, then our inclusion criteria must be changed. This article is not supposed to be a Russian propaganda piece, but right now it basically is. Hence the {{npov}} banner at the top.

I would also note that this demonstrates a major problem with the articles List of sovereign states in the 2020s and List of sovereign states in the 2010s - the latter of which still lists Crimea. Kahastok talk 07:50, 1 October 2022 (UTC)

The criteria implicitly assume quite reasonably that states will behave according to a set of rules. If states play fast and loose with the rules, then the system breaks down and ours along with it. Selfstudier (talk) 09:23, 1 October 2022 (UTC)

As I said above, I would suggest that the list of excluded entities in the List of states with limited recognition should really be adopted here as well. That explicitly excludes entities like these, by describing this specific situation. Kahastok talk 11:04, 1 October 2022 (UTC)

The article specifically notes that "are recognised as a sovereign state by at least one UN member state" is enough to merit inclusion, and this was the precedent used to include Donetsk and Luhansk upon Putin recognition of them in February. We cannot remove Kherson and Zaporizhzhia without also changing our inclusion criteria, which can be done. AxolotlsAreCool (talk) 18:11, 1 October 2022 (UTC)

Those 4 oblasts are now the same as Crimea and can't be included as (self-declared independent) states now, just as disputed territory. Chrz (talk) 07:27, 1 October 2022 (UTC)

The situation of these four independent territories is similar to the Republic of Artsakh in the sense that it was established by another state and they don't even hide it in the flag. However, it has not been considered Armenian propaganda. KajenCAT (talk) 10:44, 1 October 2022 (UTC)

And remind the annexation referendum it was not just about annexation, but declaring independence and then annexing to Russia. KajenCAT (talk) 10:46, 1 October 2022 (UTC)

Nobody takes the notion of Kherson and Zaporizhzhia independence seriously, considering that they apparently wanted to be annexed by Russia a day later. How meaningful is independence if it only lasts for one day? At least the Donetsk PR and Luhansk PR lasted for 7-8 years... That's a lot more significant. Jargo Nautilus (talk) 18:35, 2 October 2022 (UTC)

Well no, because Artsakh has been de facto independent for over thirty years, and is included not because the Armenian government recognise it (they do not) but because independent scholars describe it as generally being acknowledged as meeting the standard of the declarative theory of statehood. That is a completely different situation. Kahastok talk 11:03, 1 October 2022 (UTC)

And why are Donetsk People's Republic and Luhansk People's Republic still on the list? Now when those selfdeclared countries do not consider themselves independent... previous recognition does not matter. Chrz (talk) 21:14, 1 October 2022 (UTC)

Because they still consider themselves to be independent until their annexation treaties are ratified by the Russian parliament. The annexation does not take effect under Russian law until the ratificaiton occurs. See here [1]XavierGreen (talk) 22:29, 1 October 2022 (UTC)

There is no such thing as Russian law. Putin is the Law. They are now either a part of Russia or a part of Ukraine, the consensus seems to be the latter. My very best wishes (talk) 00:41, 2 October 2022 (UTC)

They are formally disputed between Russia and Ukraine. We may have our views on which side's position is right and which is wrong, and to what degree, but the factual statement is there is a territorial dispute between Russia and Ukraine over these territories. Kahastok talk 07:46, 2 October 2022 (UTC)

One could say they are disputed territories not disputed states. But even that would be a stretch because parts of Kherson and Zaporizhzhia (together with provincial capital of Zaporizhzhia) are controlled by Ukraine, and none of them is a state by Ukrainian constitution. My very best wishes (talk) 15:35, 2 October 2022 (UTC)

So you think that an area isn't disputed if de facto control split between the two parties? The implication of that would be that you consider the front line to be the current legal border between Russia and Ukraine?

No. Crimea, Donetsk, Luhansk, Kherson and Zaporizhzhia - both the Ukrainian-held areas and the Russian-held areas - are all disputed territory until either Russia or Ukraine withdraw their assertion that the territory is theirs. We might have a POV on who is legally and/or morally in the right of this, but that POV doesn't change the fact of the dispute. Kahastok talk 15:48, 2 October 2022 (UTC)

@Kahastok - I've identified a notable problem with the maps for Russia's territory. The boundaries that are shown for the newly-annexed regions encompass the official borders of the Ukrainian oblasts (Kherson, Zaporizhzhia, Donetsk, and Luhansk), even though Russia doesn't control all of the territory that it claims. By the way, the Wikipedia article for Russia currently says that the entirety of these four oblasts is "claimed and controlled" by Russia, but that's not true as per what I just said. Jargo Nautilus (talk) 18:42, 2 October 2022 (UTC)

EDIT: Nevermind, someone changed it very recently to say that these territories are only claimed by Russia, in the Russia article. The problem with the maps still persists. We need to depict some sort of "line of control", even though the line is constantly shifting (which will require consistent updating by Wikipedia editors). Jargo Nautilus (talk) 18:44, 2 October 2022 (UTC)

That someone was @Mzajac. Jargo Nautilus (talk) 18:45, 2 October 2022 (UTC)

This article, quite deliberately, has no such map. If there is a problem on some other article, it needs to be fixed elsewhere. Kahastok talk 20:27, 2 October 2022 (UTC)

It was a territorial dispute of sorts and now it is a full fledged sovereignty dispute, Ukraine says it's theirs via territorial integrity/IL and Russia claiming it via an unrecognized annex (similar to Crimea). In the meantime there is an ongoing armed conflict/military occupation in those areas. So it is a mess when all is said and done. Selfstudier (talk) 16:02, 2 October 2022 (UTC)

Is there a meaningful difference between "territorial dispute" and "sovereignty dispute"? Genuinely curious. Jargo Nautilus (talk) 18:39, 2 October 2022 (UTC)

Also adding that there's no such thing as "legally annexing" these territories. Everything about this is illegal.  Vanilla  Wizard 💙 00:57, 2 October 2022 (UTC)

The law i was citing to there is Russian law. To be annexed to Russia under Russian law, the Duma needs to ratify the treaty. In the case of Crimea, Crimea was listed on this page until the Duma ratified the annexation treaty.XavierGreen (talk) 13:58, 2 October 2022 (UTC)

@Vanilla Wizard - Interestingly, the article about "annexation" on Wikipedia says that all annexations are illegal by default. The alternative is "cession" (ceding, not to be confused with "cessation", stopping), which is regarded as legal. For example, the United Kingdom ceded Hong Kong to the People's Republic of China in 1999. This is regarded as a legal annexation of Hong Kong by China, because it was done under an international treaty with the United Kingdom. Jargo Nautilus (talk) 18:50, 2 October 2022 (UTC)

The article in question defines the word "annexation" very narrowly. There are a number of examples of cases where we commonly use the word "annexation" to refer to acts that are ostensibly legal, such as the US annexation of Texas. Kahastok talk 20:27, 2 October 2022 (UTC)

The US annexation of Texas wasn't legal, though. The territory was taken (stolen) from Mexico by American settlers. Hawaii is a similar case. Jargo Nautilus (talk) 21:42, 2 October 2022 (UTC)

IDK, the article says LPR is already annexed and thus not independent. Chrz (talk) 12:01, 2 October 2022 (UTC)

Ultimately, it's a question of the pre-existing consensus being in place until changed. There clearly is not consensus here to add Kherson or Zaporizhzhia and it isn't immediately obvious that there is consensus to remove Donetsk and Luhansk (though the discussion has definitely tilted that direction since I was last here). Once a clear consensus is formed to remove Donetsk and Luhansk, they'll be removed (or to add Kherson and Zaporizhzhia), the article should be changed. Kahastok talk 07:35, 2 October 2022 (UTC)

@KajenCAT - I would refrain from the comparison to Artsakh. Artsakh is more similar to Kosovo than it is to Kherson and Zaporizhzhia. Maybe there's some similarity to Donetsk PR and Luhansk PR, since it is possible that some of the Donetsk PR and Luhansk PR residents genuinely desired independence (i.e. self-determination). However, Kherson and Zaporizhzhia never ostensibly demonstrated any desire for independence. They were simply occupied and annexed by Russia, with a brief interim period of farcical independence. Jargo Nautilus (talk) 18:33, 2 October 2022 (UTC)

Self-determination is a red herring. It is a collective right of peoples, i.e. nations, and no one is claiming that Donetsians or Kherson Oblastians are an ethnic group. Furthermore, self-determination is explicitly not a right of statehood or separatism against the UN Charter (which is why even Russian “allies” like Armenia, China, and Serbia refuse to go along with Putin on this).

And obviously, everything about this violates a huge list of human rights including the right to self-determination of the people affected. As they say about the fake referendums, it’s ridiculous to claim that Ukrainians voted for their own genocide. —Michael Z. 19:21, 2 October 2022 (UTC)

I believe that it is perfectly plausible for there to exist a "Donetskian nation" or even a "Khersonian nation" (as unlikely as it is). Obviously, the illegal referenda don't demonstrate the true extent of these so-called nations, but at the same time, the illegal referenda don't completely discredit these national identities either. Jargo Nautilus (talk) 19:59, 2 October 2022 (UTC)

As for Armenia, that country is not really friends with Russia. On paper, Armenia is a Russian ally, but really, Russia is only an ally of convenience for Armenia. Armenia is surrounded by enemies, namely Azerbaijan and Turkey. Armenia has decent relations with Russia and Iran, who they see as temporary allies against the Azeris and Turks. But the Russians and Iranians have historically been enemies of Armenia too, so they can't completely be trusted. Armenia's only friend that is directly adjacent to it is Georgia. Armenia also seems to have decent relations with some of the Central Asian countries. Armenia's closest friends are Greece, the Assyrians, the Lebanese Maronites, and apparently even Serbia. Armenia also has a good relationship with the Kurds in the present day, although the Kurds historically assisted Turkey with the Armenian Genocide. Jargo Nautilus (talk) 19:59, 2 October 2022 (UTC)

China and Serbia refuse to support Russia on this matter due to their own problems of secession. Specifically, Serbia is worried about the Kosovo Precedent, whereas China sees Taiwan as a "renegade province" and also has issues with Tibet and Uyghur (Xinjiang) separatism. Plus, supporting Russia is political suicide for China and Serbia. They don't have any interest in fighting (and losing) Russia's wars. Jargo Nautilus (talk) 20:07, 2 October 2022 (UTC)

This isn't the place for us to give our own personal analyses of the geopolitics. This is purely a question of whether Kherson and Zaporizhzhia (or Donetsk or Luhansk) meet our inclusion criteria. Kahastok talk 20:27, 2 October 2022 (UTC)

Not worth doing it, mate. They got annexed straight away. I think they don't even have a proper country name. Putin just called them the regions of Kherson and Zaporizhzhia. 2001:8003:9007:8201:84C4:1957:3106:2BB9 (talk) 04:10, 2 October 2022 (UTC)

Donetsk and Luhansk

There was an edit war on this today as some new editors and IPs tried to remove these and other entries inappropriately. But, given recent news, I think it's worth being clear where we are. I'm going to put my understanding and see if you all agree.

As I understand it, as of today, Donetsk and Luhansk belong on the list based on recognition by Russia, Syria and North Korea.

As of 3pm local time (UTC+3) tomorrow, Putin intends to sign an order annexing both territories. From that point, it is probably safe to assume that all three countries will cease to recognise Donetsk and Luhansk as sovereign, because they will recognise them as part of Russia. The consequence for this article and for List of states with limited recognition is that Donetsk and Luhansk entirely disappear. This becomes an ordinary sovereignty dispute, and we do not include ordinary sovereignty disputes unless a state's entire sovereignty is disputed, which will not be the case here. But this does not happen until tomorrow.

Any objections or things to add? Kahastok talk 17:00, 29 September 2022 (UTC)

Agreed, we don't need to wait around for Syrian or North Korean statements (although I hope there will be some nonetheless). If the two are no longer recognised by Russia, they no longer meet the criteria for this list. It would be nice for some confirmation about specific timing regarding legal effect, but I suspect that would be essentially academic and not worth spending time here on. CMD (talk) 17:08, 29 September 2022 (UTC)

Yes, I'm curious if, for example, the occupation authorities in Kherson will declare independence first prior to annexation per the Crimea precedent. Would there be a need to list an ephemeral state on here? Was Crimea during its brief independence?Astrofreak92 (talk) 17:28, 29 September 2022 (UTC)

Crimea did get on for its week of nominal recognition, but there would be no point listing something for an hour or so. CMD (talk) 17:38, 29 September 2022 (UTC)

When Crimea was annexed, it remained technically independent under Russian law for as long as it did because the accession treaty annexing Crimea needed to be ratified by the Russian legislature, and thus remained on the list until it was under Russian law incorporated into Russia. The same precedent should apply in this situation for the Russian puppet states in Ukraine.XavierGreen (talk) 04:18, 30 September 2022 (UTC)

I have fairly serious doubts as to whether including these oblasts for a few hours when every reliable source made it clear that recognition was a temporary measure to facilitate annexation is within the spirit of policies such as WP:NPOV. It's a bit like claiming Catalonia was independent for 8 seconds in 2017 - that being the time it took for Puigdement to get from one sentence to the next. I am similarly unconvinced that we did the right thing by including Crimea in 2014. But the question is now academic and I see no reason why we should not now agree to disagree. Kahastok talk 13:13, 30 September 2022 (UTC)

The inclusion criteria says that a state recognized by at least 1 UN state is to be included, "the right thing" has no bearing. Catalonia was not recognized by any UN member state, so that is not a meaningful example to follow. The Russian puppet states are not yet actually incorporated into Russia, the Duma has to ratify the treaty of accession, which may take a couple days. Until then, Russian recognition of their independence means that they be included in the list until such time as they are legally recognized by Russia as being part of Russia.XavierGreen (talk) 13:24, 30 September 2022 (UTC)

Shall we start an RFC on this?

"The right thing" is the right thing according to our policies and guidelines. Not only do policies and guidelines have bearing here, they are the only thing that has bearing here. If our inclusion criteria require us to do something that breaks policy, then either we must ignore our inclusion criteria or we must change them.

Given that this is a situation that every WP:RS says is temporary, it seems to me that the logic from List of states with limited recognition is just as valid here: we exclude [t]hose areas undergoing current civil wars and other situations with problems over government succession, regardless of temporary alignment with the inclusion criteria (e.g. by receiving recognition as state or legitimate government), where the conflict is still in its active phase, the situation is too rapidly changing and no relatively stable quasi-states have emerged yet. If we need to change our inclusion criteria to include such a clause, we should do so. Kahastok talk 13:31, 30 September 2022 (UTC)

In this case, the matter is easier than it seems. Donetsk and Luhansk should be removed from this list. It is not necessary to wait for Syria and North Korea to make any declarations in this regard. The states themselves (DPR, LPR, Kherson territory and Zaporizhzhia territory) and their authorities consider that they are no longer independent states, but part of Russia. And obviously there is not going to be a statement from Syria stating that they condemn the Russian annexation and still see Donetsk and Luhansk as independent countries. Vgaiyfi (talk) 13:51, 30 September 2022 (UTC)Blocked sock

Do you have a source that says that they no longer consider themselves independent?XavierGreen (talk) 14:00, 30 September 2022 (UTC)

I mean, they just signed documents to that effect. And Vladimir Putin has claimed, in so many words, that the territories are Russian. Kahastok talk 14:19, 30 September 2022 (UTC)

But under Russian law, they are still recognized as independent states and sources clearly state that the annexation does not take effect until ratified by the Russian parliament. See here [2]XavierGreen (talk) 14:37, 30 September 2022 (UTC)

And I would object to the addition of that criterion to this page, since it is synthesis. Neither the constitutive theory or declarative theory of statehood require there to be peace for a state to be a state. Throughout history states have risen and fallen, and throughout history there have been states who have been at war for their entire existence.XavierGreen (talk) 13:51, 30 September 2022 (UTC)

It has never, at any stage in history, been the normal situation to accept entities as genuine sovereign states, when their sovereign existence is only recognised by a single other state as part of a legal fiction during an annexation process that even on paper takes no longer than a few days.

You claim that no one has objected to inclusion. That isn't true. I have objected to inclusion, and if you're saying I'm no-one, then that's a personal attack. Your version of the article, which does not have consensus, is biased in favour of a Russian legalistic point of view, failing to even acknowledge the annexation that every RS makes clear is the background to the recognition. Kahastok talk 14:19, 30 September 2022 (UTC)

Insofar as your comments here above, you proposed changing the inclusion criteria, nor did not comment in the separate thread below handing Kherson, et al. At the time I made my edit comments, there was 100% support for inclusion in the thread below. As to the rest, what source says that? On the soveriegn states by year pages, states that were recognized or existed for extremely brief periods of time are routinely included.XavierGreen (talk) 14:36, 30 September 2022 (UTC)

Are you seriously suggesting that I'm lying when I say I object to them being included? That I just removed them for the fun of it? Kahastok talk 14:45, 30 September 2022 (UTC)

Cripes, the Kremlin never considered them sovereign or independent states. Just stop humouring it with this song and dance. Just remove these fake republics from the list. —Michael Z. 05:06, 1 October 2022 (UTC)

Thank you. I agree fully with that. Putin has decreet and anyone making this about "yes but the Duma had not ratified yet" is making a mockery and caricature out of this. The Duma is not all of a sudden going to have their own and different mind on this. The Ukrainian territories have no bearing on this list (anymore) if at all. It is a waste of time and energy to have this discussion about such a technicality. Labrang (talk) 05:32, 1 October 2022 (UTC)

But recognition is just that, a technicality, Pakistan does not recognize Armenia but Armenia still exists. The inclusion criteria have remained stable for years, if you want to propose that they be changed open an RFC. As of right now Donetsk, Luhansk, etc clearly meet the inclusion criteria of the page.XavierGreen (talk) 15:39, 1 October 2022 (UTC)

@XavierGreen - Nobody seriously thinks that Armenia doesn't exist. Pakistan's position on Armenia's sovereignty is very weird, and I'm not even sure that they themselves take themselves seriously on this position. Azerbaijan and Turkey, two of Armenia's main geopolitical rivals (aside from Russia and Iran), recognise the sovereignty of Armenia. Pakistan doesn't even have a horse in this race. Pakistan doesn't recognise Armenia in order to appease Azerbaijan, but Azerbaijan itself recognises Armenia... How does that make even a lick of sense? Jargo Nautilus (talk) 18:56, 2 October 2022 (UTC)

• I don't have much to add besides repeating what I said at Talk:List of states with limited recognition and my own talk page. We don't need to wait for the State Duma to rubberstamp it, just as we didn't wait for that before posting about the annexation at ITN. @XavierGreen:, every single editor here & at List of states with limited recognition has disagreed with you. If for no other reason, you should revert yourself for violating 1RR, but I can't see how you continue to deny that there is an apparent consensus.  Vanilla  Wizard 💙 00:23, 2 October 2022 (UTC)

• Yes, I agree with most people above (except XavierGreen): they are no longer sovereign states. I would also argue they never were sovereign states, but this is now moot. My very best wishes (talk) 00:32, 2 October 2022 (UTC)

• Comment Both Donetsk and Luhansk should be removed from the list, they are no longer de facto states. Luhansk Oblast is de jure Ukrainian territory claimed and fully occupied by Russia. Donetsk Oblast is de jure Ukrainian territory claimed and partially occupied by Russia. Yes, I know these treaties have not been ratified, but it doesn't really matter, we all know that they will get ratified. 2001:8003:9007:8201:84C4:1957:3106:2BB9 (talk) 04:08, 2 October 2022 (UTC)

• There is no rush and no reason we can't wait for more reporting on this. We aren't on a deadline. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 04:10, 2 October 2022 (UTC)

  I'm not sure what there is to wait for. These territories are almost universally recognized as part of Ukraine. Russia has challenged that, but now recognizes them as part of Russia. Nobody recognizes them as independent states. They need to be removed. Delays are only going to cause confusion. Doric Loon (talk) 13:16, 3 October 2022 (UTC)

Moving forward

While I have opposed including Kherson and Zaporizhzhia here, there is a valid point being made that the letter of the inclusion criteria would appear to mean that they must be included. I argue that if the inclusion criteria require we do something non-neutral, then they must be changed. This discussion is thus to deal with what changes might be needed in the future.

The problem here is ultimately, as User:Selfstudier correctly said, The criteria implicitly assume quite reasonably that states will behave according to a set of rules. If states play fast and loose with the rules, then the system breaks down and ours along with it.

Well, this precise situation has come up twice now, with Crimea in 2014, and with Kherson and Zaporizhzhia in 2022, so I think it's worth considering the implications in more detail.

Options I thought of:

1. We adopt the list of excluded entities from the List of states with limited recognition.
2. We change the definition we apply for the constitutive theory of statehood, to state that recognition by a small minority of states should be insufficient for inclusion absent other factors.
3. We argue that the exclusion of Kherson and Zaporizhzhia was wrong and that we must include them and any similar situation in the future.
4. We argue that the inclusion criteria as currently listed are irredeemably WP:OR and that no better criteria are possible. Instead, this would become a redirect or dab page.

Going through these in turn:

For option 1, the list of excluded entities includes Those areas undergoing current civil wars and other situations with problems over government succession, regardless of temporary alignment with the inclusion criteria (e.g. by receiving recognition as state or legitimate government), where the conflict is still in its active phase, the situation is too rapidly changing and no relatively stable quasi-states have emerged yet., a description that seems to perfectly match the position of Kherson and Zaporizhzhia. This is already standard consensus at List of states with limited recognition, and that list is the only potentially-meaningful difference in the definition of a "state" between the two lists.

For option 2, the theory holds that statehood arises from recognition by other states. While our article claims a precise number (if, and only if, it is recognised as sovereign by at least one other state), the literature is not nearly so prescriptive. In fact, the constitutive theory is a more general theory that says that statehood depends on recognition and not on the facts on the ground (see [3][4][5][6]). An example definition we could use that would fit with this definition is that any member or observer state at the United Nations that is recognised by at least one other state meets the standard of the constitutive theory, but that entities not part of the UN must also be sourced as meeting the standard of the declarative theory.

Option 3, I find unsatisfactory for all the reasons previously discussed, but I include it here to acknowledge that mine is not the only valid position on this.

Option 4, in reality maintaining this list requires a certain amount of judgement from editors. We would traditionally argue that this all flows from sources, but it is true that the two theories of statehood are stated in decidedly woolly terms and (per point 2) there are many interpretations that could be made. We have articles like Member states of the United Nations which might reasonably serve as suitable proxies.

I would be interested in hearing others' views on this. Kahastok talk 08:24, 2 October 2022 (UTC)

Go with Option 1, simplest, has a consensus at the other page already and solves the problem. Selfstudier (talk) 12:30, 2 October 2022 (UTC)

I prefer option 1 above, although we could perhaps word it more succinctly if it must be included on the page as well (must it?). That said, I don't agree with the premise of the discussion that it is an issue if our system breaks down if real life breaks down. When this happens, that is the list accurately changing to reflect what it is covering. This page covers an aspect of the international system defined by a set of conventions that can be abused. I don't see trying to smooth over this abuse when it occurs through the pretense that there is a right non-abused version as somehow more neutral. There is currently a state playing fast and loose with the rules of the topic this list is covering; reflecting that on the list reflects what is happening in the world. This ties into the thought behind option 4. The criteria was agreed on in part to try and get away from individually editorial assessments of specific polities. In that sense there is some OR, because we had to pick something out of the many options available from different sources. However, the criteria are specifically designed to greatly reduce the scope for OR. I'm not following the assertion that the constitutive theory requires judgment from editors, as it is probably as binary as possible (ignoring Somaliland and Taiwan here). The declarative theory is the criteria that actually requires judgment, as it requires us to evaluate sources, although even there we have a pretty hard line in that we have looked for sources that explicitly bring up the declarative theory (and this kept DPR and LPR off this list for many years). Giving it more prominence in the criteria (option 3) will increase the room for editorial judgment (and accusations of OR), not reduce it. CMD (talk) 13:11, 2 October 2022 (UTC)

A proposal per option 1 might be to add the following before the line On the basis of the above criteria, this list includes the following...:

Suggested text

Entities may sometimes be excluded from the list, even if they might be argued to meet the standard laid out. These include: Rebel groups, quasi-states and subnational entities that do not claim sovereignty, or that are not considered by independent sources to meet the standard of the declarative theory as described above. Entities that, in the context of an active war or dispute, technically meet the standard for a brief period but where no stable quasi-states have been formed. Alternative governments of existing states, where the government does not claim to govern a separate state tot hat listed. Micronations Non-state entities represented in international organisations, such as the Sovereign Military Order of Malta and European Union. Uncontacted peoples.

Wording is a work in process, happy for it to be revised. Kahastok talk 14:04, 2 October 2022 (UTC)

I would bold edit that in and then anyone can tinker with it thereafter in the usual way. Selfstudier (talk) 15:00, 2 October 2022 (UTC)

Done. Kahastok talk 16:08, 2 October 2022 (UTC)

I've edited the wording. If you object to some of my changes, feel free to make your own further changes. Jargo Nautilus (talk) 18:12, 2 October 2022 (UTC)

I have trimmed. Actually quite a lot - smaller than even my original addition. I've kept some of your wording, but I'm concerned that this shouldn't be an exhaustive list of all the things that don't belong, particularly in cases where it is clearly redundant to the inclusion criteria above (e.g. dependent territories, UK countries, EU/SMOM). The four categories I've left cover, I would suggest, the vast majority of entities that get proposed and rejected here.

In the case of the governments-in-exile one, part of the point is that they are not always in exile. The point is where we have places like Venezuela, Syria, Afghanistan and Libya, where foreign governments loudly recognise President X as the legitimate president of Y, but President X either doesn't have control (even if they live in-country) or only has control of part of the country. Kahastok talk 20:49, 2 October 2022 (UTC)

I read through the changes and noted that it was partially duplicative of our already existing note of clarification. I've merged the two into the note to reduce this duplication, as such a note seems the best way to not drown out the simple criteria we have with a number of asterixes to deal with grey areas. CMD (talk) 00:04, 3 October 2022 (UTC)

As far as I'm concerned, the current state of the article is the consensus. A user has been trying to revert back to an old revision for some reason. I think he is trying to restore the statuses of Kherson and Zaporizhzhia into the article... Otherwise, I don't see why he is increasing the number of states from 208 to 210. 208 includes the DPR and LPR, whereas 210 adds Kherson and Zaporizhzhia on top of that. Jargo Nautilus (talk) 15:27, 3 October 2022 (UTC)

I've removed the sentences about dependent territories etc because they aren't listed as primary entries. Indeed, they are listed as secondary entries, within the main entries about countries. E.g. the Faroe Islands and Greenland are listed inside of Denmark's main entry. Jargo Nautilus (talk) 15:27, 3 October 2022 (UTC)

Those sentences are specifically there to provide some context to the extents. CMD (talk) 15:32, 3 October 2022 (UTC)

They aren't necessary since the table itself (in the header) explains that information. Jargo Nautilus (talk) 15:32, 3 October 2022 (UTC)

They are there as longstanding clarifications regarding the criteria and are in the criteria section for that reason, as they cover entities that are sometimes included on similar lists (with names including those that might redirect here) but not on this one. CMD (talk) 15:38, 3 October 2022 (UTC)

I've shortened the sentence. It carries the same meaning, except that I've moved Cook Islands and Niue into the main list. "Similar entities" covers Hong Kong, Macau, Gilgit-Baltistan, Azad Kashmir, etc. Jargo Nautilus (talk) 15:40, 3 October 2022 (UTC)

The list only includes sovereign states. That excludes 99% of dependent territories and autonomous regions by default. It's self-explanatory. The only weird cases are Cook Islands and Niue. Jargo Nautilus (talk) 15:41, 3 October 2022 (UTC)

Please stop, CI/Niue are included already in the upper list as entities recognised by 1 or more UN member states. As to your other point, given this discussion (and the rest of this talkpage) is occurring, it's obviously not self-explanatory. CMD (talk) 15:46, 3 October 2022 (UTC)

They actually aren't in the upper list. If you count the entries in the upper list, Cook Islands and Niue are excluded. Indeed, Cook Islands and Niue are two examples of states in an free association arrangement. The other three main examples are Palau, Marshall Islands, and Micronesia. This description also applies to certain European microstates. Jargo Nautilus (talk) 15:49, 3 October 2022 (UTC)

205+2+1=208. Not sure what you're counting. CMD (talk) 15:51, 3 October 2022 (UTC)

Which sovereign states recognise Cook Islands and Niue as sovereign states? There's an article that says 50+ states have diplomatic relations with Cook Islands, but there seems to be a distinction between diplomatic relations and sovereign recogntion. Jargo Nautilus (talk) 16:05, 3 October 2022 (UTC)

In any case, this will all be cleared up once DPR and LPR are removed from the list. I've also removed the entry for "states in free association" since that really only covers Cook Islands, Niue, Palau, Marshall Islands, and Micronesia, all of whom are already in the list. Jargo Nautilus (talk) 16:05, 3 October 2022 (UTC)

Please self-revert your edit warring changes into long-standing text. During previous discussions some editors found specific references they felt sufficiently established recognition as sovereign states (I was not one of these editors), and that led to their inclusion. As for free association, again that section is about the extents not the main list, and the CI/Niue case and the US cases are not the same. CMD (talk) 16:11, 3 October 2022 (UTC)

Please list some entities in the "extents" that are formally considered to be states in free association. Jargo Nautilus (talk) 16:13, 3 October 2022 (UTC)

The Cook Islands and Niue? CMD (talk) 01:13, 4 October 2022 (UTC)

They aren't in the extents. They are in the main area. Jargo Nautilus (talk) 02:34, 4 October 2022 (UTC)

They are also in an extent, hence why they are mentioned in the part of the text dealing with what is in the extents. CMD (talk) 02:45, 4 October 2022 (UTC)

I started a discussion thread on this article at NORN. TFD (talk) 15:14, 2 October 2022 (UTC)

I am Opposed to any changes in the inclusion criteria, they were the result of a major RFC that has worked well for years. If anyone is proposing they be changed, they should open a formal RFC.XavierGreen (talk) 14:24, 3 October 2022 (UTC)

The sentences about dependent territories etc are unnecessary. These territories are included as subsections of the main entries by default. They are not listed as primary entries. Jargo Nautilus (talk) 15:29, 3 October 2022 (UTC)

They are absolutely necessary, they are the inclusion criteria for what gets bulleted in the right hand column of the page. If those sentences weren't there, it would go back to the way it was before they were added with random changes getting added and removed every other day.XavierGreen (talk) 15:40, 3 October 2022 (UTC)

There's no need for those criteria. The right-hand column already has an explanation of its contents in the header (there's a note). Also, the entries in that column are typically limited to dependent territories, autonomous regions, and similar entities. It's pretty straightforward in my view. Jargo Nautilus (talk) 15:44, 3 October 2022 (UTC)

Objectively speaking, places like Hong Kong and Macau are not sovereign states. The only people who view them in this way are the uninformed. Legally, they are controlled by the People's Republic of China. No sovereign state claims authority over Hong Kong, not even Hong Kong itself. The PRC regards Hong Kong as part of its internal territory, whereas Hong Kong is regarded as more of an external dependency by the West. Either way, Hong Kong is not a sovereign state. It's a similar case with many other similar entities, the only exceptions being Cook Islands and Niue, which behave like dependent territories of New Zealand but also operate as sovereign states in certain respects, e.g. foreign affairs. Jargo Nautilus (talk) 15:47, 3 October 2022 (UTC)

@XavierGreen - As far as I can tell, the current state of the article is pretty close to what the consensus is, because various users of varying viewpoints have all more or less settled at this point. The only person who is opposed to the edits is you, which actually means that you are going against the consensus. The current consensus is to leave the DPR and LPR inside the article and to exclude Kherson and Zaporizhzhia, as far as I'm aware. The Criteria was also abbreviated, and an extra point of "unstable states during warfare are excluded" was added. Jargo Nautilus (talk) 15:32, 3 October 2022 (UTC)

There is an ongoing discussion regarding the inclusion criteria at NORN and other editors aside from myself have voiced serious concerns about user:Kahastok's proposal. The incusion criteria as they stood were created through a lenghty RFC processes with large numbers of editors. If you want to amend the inclusion critera, open a form RFC request.XavierGreen (talk) 15:40, 3 October 2022 (UTC)

I've got no clue what "NORN" is. Furthermore, I haven't changed the criteria myself since the "extents" fall outside of the main criteria anyhow. Dependent territories aren't included in the list by default. Jargo Nautilus (talk) 15:43, 3 October 2022 (UTC)

the Dependent territories and entities created by international treaty have always been included in this page as bulleted entities on the right hand column of the page. They are thus, "included in the list by default". If you had bothered to read what you were deleting, it would have been apparant.XavierGreen (talk) 15:59, 3 October 2022 (UTC)

You have not explained anything here. Jargo Nautilus (talk) 16:13, 3 October 2022 (UTC)

I figured out what you guys are talking about. "No original research noticeboard." Jargo Nautilus (talk) 17:19, 3 October 2022 (UTC)

Hmm, I don't think an RFC is necessary. If it were a substantial change I would agree, however it is a change only at the margin and the change appears to have consensus up till now. The discussion at NORN is a separate issue. Selfstudier (talk) 15:44, 3 October 2022 (UTC)

The proposal is a substantial change, it could result in Armenia, Artsak, and Somaliland being removed from the list. They are all states that are partially recongized and yet are in the midst of active military conflicts. Your attempts to craft the inclusion criteria to get the specific result you want (removing the Russian puppet states) will have other ramifications well beyond what you intend. The situation at hand is nothing new, throughout history there have been states created at the instigation of another that were only partially recognized and then annexed or merged into another state. Examples include the various revolutionary republics founded in the late 1790's that were sponsored and recognized by France, the Republic of Texas and Republic of Hawaii, various Axis aligned client states like Slovakia, Tannu Tuva and Mongolia (Soviet client states) in the 1930's, Manchukuo and Biafra. Thus, the proposal is in fact a major change because in effect it seeks to eliminate an entire class of states from the page that have existed throughout history.XavierGreen (talk) 15:58, 3 October 2022 (UTC)

Since when is Somaliland in the midst of an active military conflict? Somaliland's status is very stable at the moment, although it is located right next to Ethiopia (and Tigray), which is extremely unstable at the moment. Also, nobody in their right mind is going to remove Armenia from the list. That's a preposterous suggestion. The only entity that might be removed from the list is Artsakh, but Artsakh is actually fairly stable in its present state. There is currently no direct warfare occurring in Artsakh, although Azerbaijan has recently been launching direct attacks against Armenia. Jargo Nautilus (talk) 16:07, 3 October 2022 (UTC)

Somaliland has been engaged in intermittent fighting with Somalia's Puntland region virtually since its declaration of independence. Its eastern frontier is constently in flux, with fighting often flaring around election season and Federalist forces have frequently siezed control of Buuhoodle. As for Armenia and Artsakh, i suggest you give this article a read. Nagorno-Karabakh conflict.XavierGreen (talk) 16:26, 3 October 2022 (UTC)

That's not a significant enough conflict to nullify its existence. The border region is fluctuating, but the core area of the country has remained relatively stable throughout its entire existence. Indeed, compared to mainland Somalia, Somaliland is actually more stable. Also, the border with Ethiopia and Djibouti is stable. Jargo Nautilus (talk) 16:30, 3 October 2022 (UTC)

As for Armenia, Armenia's own sovereignty has never been seriously at risk. Only the sovereignty of Artsakh is at risk. If Artsakh is wiped from the map, that doesn't mean that Armenia will be removed as well. All of the countries that surround Armenia recognise its sovereignty, including Armenia's enemies such as Azerbaijan and Turkey. Armenia is a member state of the United Nations. Armenia also has a long and well-established history as a distinctive nation, going back thousands of years. Jargo Nautilus (talk) 16:30, 3 October 2022 (UTC)

Armenia has only existed as a soveriegn state since 1991, and since that time it has been in an armed conflict with Azerbijan and affirmatively not recognized by Pakistan.XavierGreen (talk) 16:35, 3 October 2022 (UTC)

Pakistan's non-recognition of Armenia is insignificant considering that Azerbaijan itself recognises Armenia. Furthermore, even though Armenia has only been independent in its contemporary form since 1991, the cultural history of Armenia stretches back to the era of the Roman Republic. Armenia is an ancient country, and it has at various times fallen under the control of various empires, such as Persia, the Ottomans, and Russia, but the national identity has never been destroyed throughout that period. Indeed, Artsakh has a high likelihood of disappearing at some point in the future, either by being absorbed into Azerbaijan or by being annexed by Armenia. Artsakh has no real national identity that is separate from Armenia. Jargo Nautilus (talk) 16:42, 3 October 2022 (UTC)

Out of 193 UN member states, the only one that doesn't recognise Armenia is Pakistan. Nobody takes Pakistan's stance seriously, and you shouldn't either. Jargo Nautilus (talk) 16:44, 3 October 2022 (UTC)

Looking at it from a national identity perspective, Armenia is actually one of the least likely states to become extinct in the future. Countries exist both in the legal form and in the national form. Some countries that exist legally don't have a particularly strong national identity, and hence they are at genuine risk of collapsing even though they possess 100% international recognition. On the other hand, Armenia has managed to survive for this long already (around 3000 years), so I don't see any reason why it would cease to exist in the near future unless some kind of massive Second Armenian Genocide occurs where they are all wiped out. Even then, Armenia has a significant diaspora overseas, which is actually larger than the population of the modern-day sovereign state itself. Jargo Nautilus (talk) 16:51, 3 October 2022 (UTC)

@XavierGreen - At the present moment, I have no intention of removing Donetsk PR and Luhansk PR from the list. The only entities that I objected to being added to the list were Kherson and Zaporizhzhia since they clearly are not real countries, having been ostensibly established by Russia inside of Ukraine during an ongoing military invasion and occupation. Donetsk PR and Luhansk PR are different because they were ostensibly established by "separatists", who subsequently developed closer ties with Russia before eventually being absorbed voluntarily into Russia. Jargo Nautilus (talk) 16:11, 3 October 2022 (UTC)

I think it rather fanciful that any good faith editor would consider even five years to be "a brief period", let alone thirty. Personally, I'd struggle to justify that description for anything much more than a few months and my instinctive limit would be a week or two. And I'd also add that in order to apply this criterion, we'd have to know that the period was going to be "brief".

I don't think anyone here is claiming the wording as sacrosanct and unchangeable however. We could quantify the time period if it would help. Kahastok talk 17:30, 3 October 2022 (UTC)

The distinction of Kherson and Zaporizhzhia is that they were undeniably created by Russia during Russia's invasion and occupation of Ukraine, having been seized directly from Ukraine in a blatant land grab. This makes Kherson and Zaporizhzhia even different from Donetsk PR and Luhansk PR. With the Donetsk and Luhansk PRs, at least they had the appearance of "separatists" who genuinely desired self-determination. On the other hand, Kherson and Zaporizhzhia never had any kind of separatists to speak of. They were simply invaded and annexed by Russia. Jargo Nautilus (talk) 17:39, 3 October 2022 (UTC)

By stating or quantifying a time period, you are proposing to inject even more arbitrary original research into the article. Your proposal itself is original research, neither the declarative or constitutive theories of statehood say that the fact a state is created during an ongoing conflict renders that polity not to be a state.XavierGreen (talk) 18:05, 3 October 2022 (UTC)

@XavierGreen - Kherson and Zaporizhzhia have never fulfilled the criteria of the declarative theory of statehood. They only fulfill the constitutive theory due to having been recognised by Russia, but this is a clear abuse of the system. Russia apparently didn't even recognise them as "republics". They literally recognised them as "oblasts". So, according to Russia, "Kherson Oblast" and "Zaporizhzhia Oblast" are real independent sovereign states. Jargo Nautilus (talk) 18:30, 3 October 2022 (UTC)

How is it "an abuse of the system", the theories of statehood don't care about your personal polical beliefs or those of anyone they are objective and neutral as to all viewpoints.XavierGreen (talk) 18:35, 3 October 2022 (UTC)

You can't just invade a country, stage referendums where the inhabitants are held at gunpoint, and declare that a piece of territory is an "independent country" within literally just one day of subsequently annexing that piece of territory. Jargo Nautilus (talk) 18:59, 3 October 2022 (UTC)

Well, that is exactly what India did to the Kingdom of Sikkim in 1975. The West stayed quiet and said nothing at that time though. Nowadays, Sikkim is universally recognised as a part of India. So.... 1.159.145.27 (talk) 09:03, 4 October 2022 (UTC)

That's not the same thing. Sikkim was (1) not a subregion of another sovereign state and (2) already a distinctive sovereign state at the time of its annexation by India. So, the equivalent to India annexing Sikkim would have been Russia annexing the entirety of Ukraine. If India had annexed only 15% of Sikkim, then that would have been a comparable situation. Jargo Nautilus (talk) 15:50, 5 October 2022 (UTC)

Furthermore, as far as I can tell, the Indian referendum in Sikkim wasn't about "independence" but rather about directly acceding to India (I've not looked deeply into this, so correct me if I'm wrong). On the other hand, the Russian referendums in Kherson and Zaporizhzhia had two stages. The first stage was declaring independence as distinctive sovereign states, and the second stage was acceding to Russia. Jargo Nautilus (talk) 15:53, 5 October 2022 (UTC)

By the declarative theory of statehood, Kherson and Zaporizhzhia have never qualified as independent states in any capacity. This is recognised not just by me but by the majority of the world except for Russia and maybe China. Jargo Nautilus (talk) 19:02, 3 October 2022 (UTC)

I doubt it. China is the last country on Earth to recognise India’s sovereignty over Sikkim, which was annexed by India through a similar sham referendum in 1975. China is a die-hard supporter of territorial integrity due to its own Taiwan issue. 1.159.145.27 (talk) 09:14, 4 October 2022 (UTC)

Donetsk and Luhansk, one final time

Putin has signed the ratified annexation treaties, meaning that the Donetsk and Luhansk People's Republics, in the form of self-proclaimed sovereign states, do not exist anymore. They should be removed. AxolotlsAreCool (talk) 12:46, 5 October 2022 (UTC)

Yes, i concur, now is the point at which they (or Russia) consider themselves to be sovereign states. If Syria or North Korea affirmatively says that they still recognize them as sovereign states, they should be readded (like the Baltic state were recognized pre-1991).XavierGreen (talk) 13:22, 5 October 2022 (UTC)

This isn't really like the Baltic states, which claimed to be independent despite Soviet objections. The DPR and LPR no longer consider themselves independent because they have joined Russia via (fraudulent) referendums, and Russia has recognized this. AxolotlsAreCool (talk) 13:56, 5 October 2022 (UTC)

Correct. The DPR and LPR don't even recognise themselves as independent sovereign states, so it ultimately doesn't really matter what North Korea and Syria think. There is no such thing as a "DPR/LPR government in exile". The DPR and LPR have happily annexed themselves into Russia. There's no armed resistance from them (note: not the same deal with the Donetsk Oblast and Luhansk Oblast of Ukraine, which are actively resisting Russian annexation). Jargo Nautilus (talk) 16:28, 5 October 2022 (UTC)

Bear in mind that there is the minor technicality of the fact that Russia actually annexed both the DPR/LPR and the Donetsk/Luhansk Oblasts of Ukraine. Russia never recognised the two Oblasts in the first place (after 2014), but the DPR/LPR did not control the entirety of the Oblasts from 2014 to 2022, with large portions remaining under Ukrainian control. When Russia recognised the DPR/LPR in February 2022, it "recognised them within their original borders", which supposedly means that Russia recognised the DPR/LPR as the legitimate authorities of the entire Oblasts (including Ukrainian-controlled parts). Subsequently, Russia annexed the entire territories of Donetsk and Luhansk under Russian control, including parts that were either under DPR/LPR rule for 7+ years or under Ukrainian rule prior to February 2022. Russia does not control a significant portion of Donetsk (still Ukrainian) and a small portion of Luhansk, although Russia has not recognised concrete borders, claiming that "the borders are for the people to decide". So, effectively, Russia is currently in a state of having "fluid borders", and we really cannot say what is going on because none of this makes sense. Putin's logic is in a world of its own. Jargo Nautilus (talk) 16:33, 5 October 2022 (UTC)

@XavierGreen - I think you mean to say that "this is the point at which they no longer consider themselves to be sovereign states". Jargo Nautilus (talk) 15:45, 5 October 2022 (UTC)

For all intents and purposes, the DPR and the LPR are not countries anymore (not that I think they ever really were, but I digress). It seems that most of the regular editors of this page have decided to just sit around and wait for reliable sources to come trickling in. Jargo Nautilus (talk) 15:41, 5 October 2022 (UTC)

Eh, well, I agree with their recent removal by AxolotlsAreCool. The ratification by Putin seems final enough. Theoretically, we do need to see whether North Korea and Syria will renounce their official recognitions, but that's merely a formality at this point. Jargo Nautilus (talk) 16:25, 5 October 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 6 October 2022

Some of Russia's claimed federal subjects are not recognized by the international community but some are at least by a few countries. Given controversial nature, why is it necessary to even specify the exact number of subjects on this page? Better say it's a federation and leave it at that. 2600:1700:20:1D80:A0A5:449D:F54D:EEC (talk) 05:52, 6 October 2022 (UTC)

The entities within each federation are listed on this page due to the interaction between federations and sovereignty. However, they remain internal matters and are not generally the subject of international recognition.

That said, the specific number given is an interesting topic for consideration. Our treatment is currently inconsistent (noting particularly the entries for Comoros and Somalia). CMD (talk) 06:07, 6 October 2022 (UTC)

Russia claimed administrative divisions

@Kahastok - The extent for Russia previously said that Russia had "85 federal subdivisions", and then mentioned that 2 of them (Crimea and Sevastopol) are disputed. However, I changed it to say that Russia has "83 internationally recognised federal subdivisions", and then I mentioned that Russia claims and partially/fully controls an additional 6 federal subdivisions (areas). The issue arises from Russia being officially a "Federation", which apparently means we need to list every single federal unit of Russia. Jargo Nautilus (talk) 18:20, 5 October 2022 (UTC)

Any sources that any of the federal divisions are "internationally recognised"? Domestic administration is generally a matter for the state. CMD (talk) 00:08, 6 October 2022 (UTC)

The 6 extra federal divisions certainly are NOT internationally recognised, which is the more important fact. Jargo Nautilus (talk) 03:28, 6 October 2022 (UTC)

Source that the international community cares at all about how Russia wants to carve up their claims? CMD (talk) 03:34, 6 October 2022 (UTC)

We can talk about semantics all you want. Russia could carve up 6 pieces into 7, 8, 9. It doesn't matter. If we list Russia's territory in square kilometres, it will be clear exactly how much is internationally recognised and how much isn't. Jargo Nautilus (talk) 03:55, 6 October 2022 (UTC)

Correct, it doesn't matter. Leave that to articles which deal with territory in square kilometres. CMD (talk) 03:58, 6 October 2022 (UTC)

We don't distinguish between what other countries internal subdivisions (like India or China) are recognized or not, so why should Russia be singled out? The Russian government itself has 89 internal federal subjects, that's what the article should state.XavierGreen (talk) 16:07, 6 October 2022 (UTC)

We do distinguish between administrative divisions that are controlled versus claimed. Jargo Nautilus (talk) 19:11, 6 October 2022 (UTC)

Chechnya

Ukrainian recognition of the Chechen Republic of Ichkeria - If this actually gets signed and ratified by Zelenskyy, then we will have to add the Chechen Republic of Ichkeria to this article, in the same way that we added Kherson Oblast and Zaporizhzhia Oblast. Glorious days might just be ahead of us. Jargo Nautilus (talk) 19:21, 19 October 2022 (UTC)

You draw the comparison, and say that we must include based on Kherson and Zaporizhzhia. Yet you opposed including Kherson and Zaporizhzhia, so your argument is a double standard.

Plus, there was never consensus to include Kherson and Zaporizhzhia on this article, so it is difficult to claim them as some kind of precedent.

I object to including Chechnya based on the sources we have available, which do not say that Ukraine proposes to recognise Chechnya as a sovereign state. Being recognised as occupied territory is manifestly different from being recognised as a sovereign state, and there are examples of cases where countries recognise the one but not the other. Kahastok talk 20:35, 19 October 2022 (UTC)

Liberland (but here me out)

Liberland is possibly recognized by 4 (non-micronation) countries. The most known of these is Somaliland. ([7]). Apparently the Liberland passport is valid in Colombia, and depending on how you think might count as being recognized ([8]). Also Liberland is a vaild "ecominc parnter" with Malawi, ([9]) and one for a span of 5 years that started in 2020 with Haiti ([10]). 2007Gtbot (talk) 16:40, 8 November 2022 (UTC)

The BBC source doesn't say that there was recognition, and Somaliland isn't a UN member state anyway. The others all fall under WP:SELFSOURCE, and fail at least two of the five requirements there. Specifically, the material makes exceptional claims about third parties.

What I see overall here is a micronation being a micronation. This is what micronations do. I see nothing that would suggest that this micronation meets the standard for inclusion here. Kahastok talk 17:44, 8 November 2022 (UTC)

These were less, sources I would use in an artical and more like sources so that I don't sound crazy. In and artical I would source the actural documents themself if possable. I just don't have the texts of the documents. 2007Gtbot (talk) 18:24, 8 November 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 22 November 2022

The Kingdom of Denmark should switch places with each other Denmark on the list. 2607:FEA8:F420:F400:1421:4F9D:D117:85EE (talk) 01:18, 22 November 2022 (UTC)

 Not done: There is only one Denmark on the list. CMD (talk) 01:35, 22 November 2022 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

• Flag of Gilgit-Baltistan.svg

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 11:56, 17 December 2022 (UTC)

Change "Denmark" to "Kingdom of Denmark" or "Danish Realm"

Change "Denmark" in the first column to "Kingdom of Denmark" or "Danish Realm", and change the link from https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Denmark to https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Danish_Realm. Denmark is a constituent country within the sovereign state of The Kingdom of Denmark/Danish Realm, but not a sovereign state itself. The page for Denmark states: "This article is about metropolitan Denmark. For the sovereign state, see Danish Realm. "

Also change the flag to the "Flag of the Kingdom" as seen here https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flag_of_Denmark DREAMsolister (talk) 11:30, 20 January 2023 (UTC)

 Not done: The short name for the state is "Denmark". The Wikipedia article titles are used to disambiguate between concepts. The state uses the standard flag in most cases. CMD (talk) 13:47, 20 January 2023 (UTC)

Alright, but I would still change the link to https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Danish_Realm as with the Netherlands it is https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kingdom_of_the_Netherlands rather than https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Netherlands. DREAMsolister (talk) 06:16, 21 January 2023 (UTC)

Done. CMD (talk) 08:51, 21 January 2023 (UTC)

Add "Republic of Ireland" to "Ireland"

Since this page is protected from vandalism, I'm asking who can edit (like a mod or something) to add this minor edit. It's kind of bugging me 72.252.188.81 (talk) 14:38, 25 January 2023 (UTC)

"Republic of Ireland" is not an official name, so it is not used on this page. CMD (talk) 15:15, 25 January 2023 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 15 February 2023

Cook Islands and Nuie should be placed in the sovereignty dispute column, along the others, as it is not recognized by other states. 2607:FEA8:F420:F400:2909:474A:82B1:1BE8 (talk) 03:41, 15 February 2023 (UTC)

 Not done for now: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{Edit semi-protected}} template. It does not appear that there is a dispute about their sovereignty, rather that they are associated, but sovereign nations. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 12:07, 15 February 2023 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 6 July 2023

The current flag of the Islamic Emirates of Afghanistan should be included besides its name on the list. Caiomstocco (talk) 03:59, 6 July 2023 (UTC)

 Not done for now: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{Edit semi-protected}} template. Looking at /Archive 15#The Afghanistan problem, I didn't see a clear consensus on what to do. Please either provide a past convincing RfC about the flag or establish a new consensus. Heart ^(talk) 04:14, 6 July 2023 (UTC)

Taiwan's recognition of Somaliland

The Republic of China currently recognizes the Republic of Somaliland as legitimate. https://en.mofa.gov.tw/CountryInfoEn.aspx?CASN=2&n=1289&sms=0&s=200 Caiomstocco (talk) 05:49, 7 July 2023 (UTC)

Yes, they do. Somaliland has finally been recognized as a sovereign state by somebody. 2001:8003:900C:5301:ED5E:AD76:97D7:6D20 (talk) 04:45, 3 August 2023 (UTC)

Scotland??

Why isn’t Scotland listed? Coronaverification (talk) 06:49, 22 July 2023 (UTC)

Because its sovereignty lies in its constituency within the wider United Kingdom. Iskandar323 (talk) 09:47, 22 July 2023 (UTC)

Because it is not a sovereign state. Don't worry though, it will become one in the future. It is inevitable. 2001:8003:900C:5301:ED5E:AD76:97D7:6D20 (talk) 04:48, 3 August 2023 (UTC)

"Unrecognized" spelling inconsistent

Both Unrecognized and Unrecognised are used. Consistency is needed A3811 (talk) 14:28, 24 April 2023 (UTC)

Unrecognized is the standard spelling. 2001:8003:900C:5301:ED5E:AD76:97D7:6D20 (talk) 04:49, 3 August 2023 (UTC)

Congos

Revert the names of both Congos2607:FEA8:F420:F400:E4D9:E55E:9F9C:83F2 (talk) 01:45, 8 August 2023 (UTC)

Somaliland is now recognised by the Republic of China (Taiwan)

Request for change to list item for Somaliland to reflect this 123.243.26.26 (talk) 04:46, 9 March 2023 (UTC)

Please see the discussion at Talk:List of states with limited recognition/Archive 14#Somaliland and Taiwan. CMD (talk) 05:39, 9 March 2023 (UTC)

Seems to support Somaliland's inclusion. Otherwise, we should remove Somaliland from this article since it has no recognition as a state. 2001:8003:900C:5301:ED5E:AD76:97D7:6D20 (talk) 04:52, 3 August 2023 (UTC)

Somaliland meets the criteria for inclusion in this article even if its sovereignty has not been recognized by any other sovereign state (it is often regarded as satisfying the declarative theory of statehood). AuH2ORepublican (talk) 13:21, 8 August 2023 (UTC)

Chechen Republic of Ichkeria should be in "other states" category

In 2022 UN-member Ukraine recognised Chechen Republic of Ichkeria as independent nation. While it does not possess territory or population due to 100% of its territory being controlled by Russian Federation, it still is a partially-recognised state. It should be put in "Other States" category. SOROSHENKO (talk) 18:42, 4 October 2023 (UTC)

Declared states which do not control territory are not listed here, even if they are recognized by a state. Otherwise this page would need to start engaging with micronation claims. Ichkeria met the criteria for inclusion prior to its takeover by Russia, but that predated the existence of this page.Astrofreak92 (talk) 23:02, 4 October 2023 (UTC)

How many micronations are recognised by UN founding members? SOROSHENKO (talk) 10:24, 7 October 2023 (UTC)

Astrofreak92 is incorrect, the page would include states which have recognition but lack control (or does include perhaps, depending on how you define it). All states for which we have firm sources noting recognition are in this list. Ukraine has not recognized Ichkeria as a state, despite some claims on particular news cites. If Ukraine did recognize them, expect far more coverage. CMD (talk) 10:52, 7 October 2023 (UTC)

This is not true. My comment at AfD applies here:

Ukraine has not recognized the Chechen Republic of Ichkeria. "As of 18 October 2022, the decision of the Verkhovna Rada to recognize the Chechen Republic of Ichkeria as temporarily occupied by Russia awaits the signature of President Volodymyr Zelenskyy.... In early November, Zelenskyy responded to the Verkhovna Rada's vote and a petition with 25,000 signatures by ordering the Ukrainian Ministry of Foreign Affairs to research if, how, and in which form Ukraine could recognize the Chechen Republic of Ichkeria. He emphasized that it was the Ukrainian President's prerogative to extend full diplomatic recognition to other states." Therefore the Chechen Republic of Ichkeria does not fall under the constitutive theory. It no longer falls under the declarative theory, since it had lost all of its defined territory, permanent population, and effective government in the Second Chechen War... As far as I can tell, "Zelenskyy responded to the Verkhovna Rada's vote and a petition with 25,000 signatures by ordering the Ukrainian Ministry of Foreign Affairs to research if, how, and in which form Ukraine could recognize the Chechen Republic of Ichkeria. He emphasized that it was the Ukrainian President's prerogative to extend full diplomatic recognition to other states." i.e., no recognition. And regardless, the very lead of the CHRI article says this: "The Chechen Republic of Ichkeria [...] was a de facto state that controlled most of the former Checheno-Ingush ASSR. [...] Since the 2000s, several entities have claimed [emphasis mine] to be an exile government of Ichkeria." Its description in the wiki search says "former unrecognized country". Enwiki itself makes it clear this was a state that no longer exists.

JM2023 (talk) 02:04, 15 October 2023 (UTC)

Artsakh - gone now?

Artsakh announced its intention to dissolve by today. Is it officially gone? 108.160.120.91 (talk) 00:06, 1 January 2024 (UTC)

Apparently, they reversed their intentions to dissolve by Jan 1, though that information may actually be fake, so now? Who knows. Whether they announced or not, they do not control any territory at this point, and so they do not meet the criteria to be considered a sovereign state. They are more akin to a government-in-exile than anything else. As of now they are not dissolved, so IMO, there's one of two ways to treat this. Either Artsakh is treated as a government-in-exile, or we keep the status quo on the page until more information comes out regarding the circumstances in the area. Spesh531^{(talk, contrib., ext.)} 08:11, 1 January 2024 (UTC)

I apologize for the mistakes, I do not fully speak English, but it seems to me that in the second paragraph of the article something is confused in the numbers.

"...16 states, of which there are 6 UN member states, 1 UN General Assembly non-member observer state, and 8 de facto states...": 6 + 1 + 8 ≠ 16.

And in addition, nothing has been fixed here at all — there are still 206 states: "On the basis of the above criteria, this list includes the following 206 entities:

203 states recognised by at least one UN member state

2 states that satisfy the declarative theory of statehood and are recognised only by non-UN member states

1 state that satisfies the declarative theory of statehood and is not recognised by any other state". 2A00:1FA2:C251:E972:0:4F:4D54:6201 (talk) 09:14, 2 January 2024 (UTC)

Somaliland is diplomatically accepted by Ethiopia. It's not 'unrecognized by any other state'

For that matter, the S.M.O.M. is recognized as a state by at least Costa Rica and San Marino, and so by the logic presented herein should be included as a state as well as a sovereign subject of international law. 142.127.178.197 (talk) 18:37, 3 January 2024 (UTC)

Holy See

TDL, the Vatican is a state; the Holy See is a different thing and cannot be described as a state. It is the episcopal see (or diocese) of the Pope and the central government of the Catholic Church. Its "territory" is the whole city of Rome, not just the Vatican. The Vatican is that part of the Holy See under sovereign/state authority of the Pope. By calling the Holy See "a non-member-state observer" the UN is not calling it a state. It's just saying that it's an observer and not a member-state.Barjimoa (talk) 10:51, 27 January 2024 (UTC)

As mentioend in my edit summary, the Holy See is recognized as a Non-Member-State by the UN (see here: [11]), so the language in the article here is correct.

The UN has another cateogory for non-state observers (see here), so calling it a state which is non member observer. It was a big deal back when Palestine's status at the UN was upgraded from "just" an observer to a non-member state observer (like the Holy See), which was broadly interpreted as the UN recognizing its statehod. See [12] for example. TDL (talk) 02:22, 28 January 2024 (UTC)

I agree it's been interpreted as such for Palestine, but not for the Holy See. No one describes the Holy See as a state in international law, everyone does it for the Vatican. In fact, even this article lists the Vatican and not the Holy See; the problem is that this article is simply and evidently mistaken in treating the Holy See as if it's the same thing of the Vatican city. It ought to be corrected, no? A state is generally agreed to have: a sivereign territory, a population, a government. What's the population, sovereign territory and government of the Holy See? The Holy See is the bishopric of Rome (embodied by the Pope), and bishoprics are divisions inside the Catholic Church, not states. The Vatican is a state (with a territory, a population, a government) over which the Holy See has sovereignity.Barjimoa (talk) 05:12, 28 January 2024 (UTC)

Yes I understand all of that, and if you are proposing to add further clarity in the description of the Vatican City text description then I'm supportive of that.

However, none of that changes the fact that the UN does recognize the Holy See as a non-member observer state and so we must descirbe it as such. We can't describe it as something else just because you think that the UN is wrong. If the UN didn't think it was a state, it would be recognized as an observer entity, much like the SMOM for example (see [13]). You can read the most recent UN resolution for yourself, it is very clear: "Acknowledges that the Holy See, in its capacity as an Observer State...".

The way you worded things would have led us to conclude that Palestine was a UN recognized state prior to the 2012 resolution (since it was recognized as an observer entity at that point), at a time when it clearly was not. Observer states and observer entities are different, and it's only the latter that is relevant to this list/context. We need to keep that clear in the text, otherwise it opens the door to debating the inclusion of various observer entities. TDL (talk) 18:32, 28 January 2024 (UTC)

There is a problem

For South Korea, it says there is no soviergenty dispute, even though it’s not reconized by North Korea. Blackmamba31248 (talk) 00:17, 20 March 2024 (UTC)

A result of this edit. This is likely related to the media hype surrounding their recent constitutional change, which some media claimed was recognition. CMD (talk) 01:17, 20 March 2024 (UTC)

Well, it’s not really a recognition. This is this like saying Isreal reconizes Palestine because they are Enemies. Blackmamba31248 (talk) 01:26, 20 March 2024 (UTC)

I would agree, and agree with reverting absent better sourcing. It was an idea that did spread a bit as these things can, even if not fully supported. CMD (talk) 02:13, 20 March 2024 (UTC)

Questions

So, it said the criteria is tó edit this article is tó have an account over 30 days old with 500 edits, but it’s not extra protected. Second of all, Afghanistan’s flag is missing, and when í went tó add it, it said that the flag is suppossed tó nót be there, and it talked about more info, there was no link.. Blackmamba31248 (talk) 01:39, 6 April 2024 (UTC)

It says "The situation is explained in the further information column", and further information column is right after it which contains "The de facto ruling government, the Islamic Emirate of Afghanistan, has not been recognised by any state. The United Nations continues to recognise the Islamic Republic of Afghanistan as the government of Afghanistan." Svito3 (talk) 01:47, 6 April 2024 (UTC)

There's a very large banner near the top of this talk page. Remsense诉 01:52, 6 April 2024 (UTC)

References

Map?

Example map

Can we get a map, like the one I've added to the right, into the article? The comment in the article says, "Please discuss at talk before adding a map here. There are neutrality issues to resolve.", and I believe the attached map resolves such issues, as it shows borders of all countries listed in the article, with non-UN states shown in red. The map may still need some updating, as it is from 2012, but overall, it suits the article. Any thoughts on this idea? '''[[User:CanonNi]]''' (talk|contribs) 08:55, 12 April 2024 (UTC)

The two things that I notice are that Artsakh no longer exists, and Palestine should be coloured yellow. TheLegendofGanon (talk) 22:17, 21 April 2024 (UTC)