Talk:List of states with limited recognition/Archive 2

Osgoodelawyer
I'm afraid I don't know what the bias was. Moldovans are now considered an ethnic group separate from Romanians, and I don't think the Moldovans in Transnistria identify as Romanian (just like those in Moldova do not). To continue to call them Romanians is actually the bias—it rejects a designation that the people themselves hold. └ OzLawyer / talk ┐ 16:26, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
 * They they self-identify as Romanians, despite pressure from the puppet administration to repress that. For an example, see Ilie Ilaşcu's case. Why do you think they self-identify as "Moldovans"? As an ethnic designator, "Moldovan" seems to be more of an exonym.--Tekleni 16:37, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Why? Because they live in the "Trans-Dniester Moldovan Republic" and they speak Moldovan (which is an official language of Transnistria—not Romanian).  I don't think that link to an article proved a thing. └ OzLawyer / talk ┐ 16:58, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Are there any linguists on Earth which say that Moldovan ≠ Romanian? I'll answer that, no, there aren't. Also, the word "Moldovan" in the title of the pseudo-state simply refers to geography, not ethnicity. Moldovans is undue weight (recognized only by the CIS), see the article.--Tekleni 17:05, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
 * I understand that they are essentially the same language, but the fact that it is called Moldovan speaks volumes about the identity of the people. I'm Canadian, but I do not speak Canadian, I speak English.  As for your assertion that "Moldovan" in the name refers to geography, that may be so, but, again, that's not evidence against identity being displayed in the name.  If there was no identity as Moldovan, there would be no need to note Moldova in the name.  Finally, the census numbers in the Transnistria article are of Moldovans, not Romanians.  If the data says "Moldovan", we are not in a position to say "Romanian"—that's putting our own point of view in, and undertaking original research. └ OzLawyer / talk ┐ 17:12, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Look, I'm just saying that the concept of Moldovan language doesn't seem to exist outside the CIS, ergo using it here is undue weight. Anyway, let's see what everyone else thinks.--Tekleni 17:45, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
 * But language and ethnicity are different things, and we're talking about ethnicity here, not language. People can feel they are Moldovan ethnically and still speak Romanian. └ OzLawyer / talk ┐ 18:10, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Exactly. Also, saying that all/most "self-identify as Romanians" needs to be backed-up by sources, or else it would be original research. For example, I knew a Moldovan guy who mentioned Romanians as "close", but not the same. Furthermore, isn't one of the most important factors in what determines an ethnic group being "whatever they want to be"? I could have something like this: Austrians (Germans), but I don't because they don't want to be called Germans. I'm not saying it's the same for Moldovans, but we can't just assume that all/most Moldovans call themselves Romanians. That would be POV-pushing. <span style="font-family:monospace, monospace;">Khoikhoi 19:17, 10 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Tekleni, I happen to know quite a bit about the Ilie Ilaşcu's case. He is in no way representative of the general population of Moldova, nor is he representative of the general population (or even the 31.9% minority) in Transnistria. He is an advocate of the unification of Moldova and Romania, which is a position not shared by the majority in neither Moldova nor Transnistria. Today he has Romanian citizenship. Before he got that, however, he still called himself Romanian in order to demonstrate a political point: He feels that there is no such thing as Moldova or a specific Moldovan ethnicity, and that it should be part of Romania. We can agree with him or disagree with him on that, but the point to be made is that we should be aware that he does not approach the issue objectively and specifically introduces his own bias in order to further the cause which he advocates. - Mauco 23:08, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

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


 * I've bumped this one up to full protection now. Perhaps the simiplest solution to this would be to insert some text under each header but above the list of entities stating what we mean by each grouping. --Robdurbar 18:33, 10 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Osgoodelawyer is correct. Otherwise we must move Taiwan down to the "partial" list as well. - Mauco 23:02, 10 November 2006 (UTC)


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

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


 * I wonder if 3 people (Osgoodlawyer, Mauco and likely Robdurbar) are enough to impose a definition in Wikipedia. ROC don't control the entire teritorry it claims, I think ROC should be alone in a separate category, as this particular case, while being de facto independent, never officially asked for independence. Anyhow, in the last >50 years ROC never made an attempt to expand the teritorry it control, it has stable borders. On contrary, Transnistria's borders are not clear and its government made attempts to increase the territorry, not only through having something written in its "Constitution" which nobody take seriously. See attempt to take control on village Vasilievca, attempt to take control in Varnitsa. We should make a distinction between seccesionist teritorries about which everybody agree on their geographical extension, disagreement being only if they have or not the right to separate, and those territories which, even if agreement is done about seccesion, there is still a debate about the borders of a future state. I suppose that Tamil Tigers have some villages in which they have 100% control.--MariusM 21:58, 29 November 2006 (UTC)


 * How on earth can you claim that they nobody takes Transnistria's Constitution seriously? 555,000 inhabitants do. In terms of size, a full 10% of U.N. member states have populations that are smaller than that. There is a Supreme Court which takes it very seriously indeed. It even overturns laws from parliament and the president which it finds unconstitutional. Besides, Transnsitria controls some 99% of the area which they claim in their constitution. The section title is very precise now so stop reverting if you do not know what you are talking about: Transnistria's constitution is highly respected by the unrecognized country, and prized as one of their symbols of statehood. - Mauco 23:18, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Indeed, they take Transnistria's constitution seriously, contrary with Taiwan, which has defined in its constitution borders including the entire China and Mongolia, but never take it seriously. Transnistria don't control its entire teritorry, this is my point, and "Taiwan" argument is not valid.--MariusM 23:30, 29 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Anyways, which part of Transnistria (Dniester's left bank +Beltsy) is not controlled by its government? --Illythr 11:52, 30 November 2006 (UTC)


 * First time I heard that Beltsy is part of Transnistria. Villages not controlled by secessionist government are: part of Dubăsari district (33810 inhabitants according 2004 Moldovan census), Varniţa town near Tighina and I think some areas in Basarabian part of former Slobozia rayon. According Transnistrian constitution, PMR should include former rayons of Slobozia, Grigoriopol, Dubăsari, Rîbniţa and Camenca. Camenca rayon also had a part which is geographically in Basarabia, that part is not controlled by Transnistria and, contrary with Slobozia rayon, AFAIK it seems it even didn't try to controll it.--MariusM 02:50, 2 December 2006 (UTC)


 * This is more or less correct. The 33810 figure is highly misleading, the vast majority of these inhabitants are part of Transnistria and don't want to have anything to do with Moldova. The Moldovan villages only number a few hundred inhabitants, on average. Transnistria's constitution says that the territory is all of what is on the left bank + Bender and suburbs. But they have those villages near Dubossary which they do not control, as well as Varnitsa (suburb of Bender). They are keen to control Varnitsa but they are not worried about the villages. At any rate, if you look at a map, you will see that this is a case of "splitting hairs" and can under no circumstances be a determining factor in the inclusion criteria for this list. - Mauco 23:05, 4 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Er, mixed up Beltsy with Bender, sorry. --Illythr 11:30, 6 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Not true what Mauco told about transnistrian constitution, about the 33810 figure and the will of vast majority of those inhabitants. In general, not true what Mauco tell about Transnistria.--MariusM 13:59, 6 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Please supply a source that states how I am wrong. - Mauco 00:58, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

add Bangsamoro and The Gay and Lesbian kingdom.
Both are countries with de facto controller over some territory. Zazaban 03:04, 15 November 2006 (UTC)


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

The Gay and lesbian kingdom does in fact control territory. It even has an administative capital! Zazaban 15:22, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
 * From the article: The kingdom's claims are not recognised by any state, and as no permanent settlement has been established, the Coral Sea Islands remain uninhabited. – If you have no people on the territory, you cannot possibly control it. └ <b style="color:blue;">OzLawyer</b> / <i style="color:black;">talk</i> ┐ 15:36, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

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


 * Transnistria is the part of Moldova east of the river Dniester, self-declared a separate Soviet republic in 1990 and more or less functioning as an independent state since the fall of the Soviet Union with no international recognition from any sovereign state. Transnistria is home to three major groups, a Moldovan plurality, followed by Ukrainians then Russians.


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

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




 * 1) It later declared complete sovereignty. Perhaps just change 1990 to 1992 instead?
 * 2) I think that whoever added that sentence intended it to be a short explanation of the "problem", i.e. that Russians and Ukrainians outnumber the titular nation and want to secede. I guess it can be changed to ...three major groups, roughly equal in numbers: Moldovans, Russians and Ukrainians, with the two Russian-speaking minorities outnumbering Moldovans., but I'd rather just remove it altogether... --Illythr 15:32, 13 December 2006 (UTC)


 * All available evidence point to the fact that Moldovans in Transnistria want to secede, too. It is not that they are outgunned by the two other groups. All three are actually "on the same page" to a very large extent. Moldovans in Transnistria have no big urge to join their brothers in Moldova. That may change, of course, when Moldova joins the EU. But for now, it is a very safe bet to say that Moldovans in Transnistria are in sync with the Slavs with regard to independence. - Mauco 00:56, 23 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Totally untrue, but I don't want to reopen long debates on this subject.--MariusM 01:21, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
 * No long debate is needed. A single source will suffice. If this is "totally untrue" then at least there's a source somewhere to back it up? Otherwise, I stand by everything that I have said: Ukrainians AND Russians AND Moldovans are in sync, and all 3 main ethnic groups are united in their drive towards independence. - Mauco 01:48, 3 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Dear Mauco,
 * while Russian "peacekeeping" troops (which actively sided against Moldova with the separatist forces) still occupy the territory,
 * while the government is still headed by a self-professed Lenin wanna-be (complete with goatee),
 * while "independent" Transnistrian web-based "newspapers" run features on the lessons we can learn from Lenin,
 * while the state "minister of security" is a Russian thug whose men pulled the trigger killing peaceful Baltic independence protesters and intentionally killed a film crew...
 * ...and who organized a terrorist attack in Transnistria which he then blamed on Moldovans,
 * while Romanian is an official language only in Soviet-era Cyrillic (which is not the pre-Latin script Romanian original despite the statements of the official pridnestrovie.net web site that Moldovan = returning Romanian to its Cyrillic roots),
 * and I can go on
 * you would be the one pushing POV. There is nothing of any substance for you to stand by, there is absolutely no measure of true democracy or independence in Transnistria today, nor until the above circumstances change. You have been insisting that "change is on the way" and "democracy is blooming" for quite some time now, but the more time passes the more the things that matter (i.e., all of the points above) remain immutable. Ergo, I would submit that my position that there has been absolutely no change in Transistria (apart from the ever improving quality and funding of their propaganda) is far more accurate than your proposition that there is true democracy, true "opposition" and a "real" political system, etc., etc., etc. <span style="font-size:9pt; font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;"> &mdash; Pēters J. Vecrumba 14:08, 4 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Say, what? We weren't discussing democracy in Transnistria (which is not even the subject of this page anyway). Scroll up and read the context of the previous debate, please. I asked MariusM for a source. He then disappeared. Now you show up. If you have the source that I asked MariusM, then please post it. Otherwise I don't really know what to do with your, ahem, "interesting" personal analysis of Transnistria. As you hopefully know, the vast majority of the population of Transnistria is firmly opposed to unification with Moldova. The decision to keep pursuing independence is not imposed top-down, but a widely held wish among large segments of the population AND among all ethnic groups; including the native-born Moldovans. Unlike Bosnia, Kosovo, etc, there is no ethnic strife in Transnistria, and this is something very important which the outside press rarely reports. - Mauco 14:14, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

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

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

Partial control = limited sovereignty/shared sovereignty
A reminder is in place for the newcomers here on the difference between partial control and full control. We are not referring to pockets of the claimed territory which is under control of another sovereign, but rather to the extent that an unrecognized country is able to exercise its sovereignty in the territory which it does control. A disputed territory alone therefore does not count. Otherwise almost all RECOGNIZED states would fall under the "partial control" heading, too (since there are hundreds of territorial disputes in the world. The cutoff point has a lot more to do with effectivity in the area under its control. Transnistria has a few border villages that it lets Moldova control, because that is how the villagers prefer it. But it has to be listed under the full control category without a doubt. Somaliland is there, though the issue of the border with Sool and East Sanag region, which is disputed with Puntland, covers a much larger area than the few Transnistrian villages and is the scene of much more violent armed confrontations. Abkhazia, despite the Kodori gorge, should probably also be under the full control category, but I am willing to hear how others feel about this before I make the move. - Mauco 01:05, 23 December 2006 (UTC)
 * No agreement, already explained in "The partial and full control edit war" section.--MariusM 12:08, 23 December 2006 (UTC)
 * You can not have Somaliland in one section and Transnistria in another. Completely illogical. Face reality, please. - Mauco 14:47, 23 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Don't know Somaliland situation. Just move Somaliland in other section if you think so.--MariusM 14:52, 23 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Evading the real issue. The point is that both places exercise full sovereignty over the areas which they control. This is not "partial control" so both should be in the same full control category, and most likely Abkhazia should be there as well. I am open to discussing this latter point, however. But do not revert Somaliland and Transnistria from their real, de-facto on the ground status. Do not hide the actual reality and the facts of the situation as it exists there. - Mauco 14:58, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

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


 * I concur. I was just reading the current division for the first time and I did not take it to have this meaning, so the clarification must be re-added. I am not sure the division is maintanable though, nor does it seem very meaningful:
 * 1) To my knowledge Somaliland is not in 'full' control of the territory which it occupies (conflict with Puntland),
 * 2) whereas the PMR is,
 * 3) as is the SADR, it is in full control of the territory which it occupies.
 * 4)Is there actually a state of Tamil Elam that has declared independance?
 * 5)The State of Palestine is not the same thing as the Palestinian Territories, it has no de facto sovereignity, it only exists on paper.
 * 6)Is Waziristan any more real than the Chechen Republic of Ichkeria?


 * Is it really interesting to divide states on the basis of full control over their occupied territory? Sephia karta 22:55, 28 December 2006 (UTC)


 * I think that there should be fewer categories rather than debate which category an entity is part of or what is the definition of a category. Combine the categories to 1) Partially recognized states, 2) Unrecognized states, and 3) Historic unrecognized or partially recognized states. That is all that is needed. -- (Shocktm | Talk | contribs.) 00:14, 29 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Not a bad suggestion. I could live with that. Just have some clear rules, and define them, so we avoid the back-and-forth edit warring. What say other longtime editors? - Mauco 03:12, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

Partially recognised countries with de facto control over their territories
In my opinion, the first sentence should be changed to something like:

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

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

Two other possible entities to be mentioned?
I think that both Mount Athos (ostensibly in Greece) and the Sovereign Military Hospitaller Order of Saint John of Jerusalem of Rhodes and of Malta could do with a mention on this page - both claim limited sovereignty and receive some recognition worldwide. Grutness...<small style="color:#008822;">wha?  01:25, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
 * The thing is, do they actually claim more sovereignity than they are recognised to posess? Do they claim to be sovereign independant states? If they don't, we could still include them becouse Kosova is up there, but we'd have to widen the scope of this article, which would risk becoming very similar to the self-governing entities article. Sephia karta 23:41, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
 * The "rule" here has been to leave out entities if they have not themselves declared independence. This is why Puntland is not included. Have these two declared independence? To what extent are they currently seeking sovereign statehood? - Mauco 23:43, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Sorry, this is not the rule. We have Republic of China here, which never declared independence. I agree with Grutness to include the other two entities.--MariusM 01:18, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Just like that? What happened to my request for sources? - Mauco 01:50, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
 * We can address the no indep. declaration issue (together with the non-disputed one) within the text. NikoSilver 01:24, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
 * I agree with Sephia karta: these two entities don't claim more sovereignty than they are recognised to possess, and thus don't belong on this list. Rebecca 01:27, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Indeed. Keep them out, or we pollute the list. - Mauco 01:50, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Agree per Rebecca (do not claim more sovereignty than they are recognized to possess). NikoSilver 11:24, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
 * I think it's more complicated though. While the ROC has not declared itself independant as Taiwan, they do consider themselves to be the sovereign independant state of China, don't they? Isn't the situation similar to the situation with Korea? I don't know whether the two Korea's recognise each other, but suppose for the moment that they don't, suppose that they agree that there is only one Korean state, only they disagree over which of the two entities is that one Korean state. Then neither of the two have declared independance from 'Korea', yet they do both claim independance.
 * If the ROC wouldn't consider itself to be a sovereign independant state, then they wouldn't have embassies to countries, would they, then they couldn't be recognised to begin with.Sephia karta 18:38, 3 January 2007 (UTC)


 * SMOM claims sovereignty, but it isn't a state. It is a sovereign military order.  The Holy See is similarly sovereign, and is similarly not a state, but it controls a state, the Vatican City.  The SMOM doesn't, although it does have some buildings that are recognized as under extraterritorial jurisdiction, like an embassy.  But it doesn't actually have territory.  Might be worth mentioning john k 19:28, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

Cabinda
According to the Republic of Cabinda article, 80% of the Province is in control of a government seperate of Angola. Zazaban 03:19, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia is not a reliable source. We need a source outside Wikipedia to support such clams.--MariusM 03:21, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

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


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

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

Republic of Tatarstan
Removed from page:


 * [[Image:Flag of Tatarstan.svg|22x20px|border]] Republic of Tatarstan (1991-1994). From 1994-2000 Tatarstan was associated state of Russian federation on confederal status, and since 2000 it is a subject (republic) of Russian Federation.

Excuse me, but as citizen of Russian Federation and living in Tatarstan since 1984 I cannot agree with this. Tatarstan was not associated or confederal state with Russia ever. It was always a subject of Russian Federation, here was always Russian federal army, Russian federal police (militsiya), Russian federal security etc. --Vlad Jaroslavleff 08:01, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Hmmm... This fact is rather disputable... Tatarstan KGB was the last KGB, disestablished in Russia... as for the independce, Tatarstan officials sometimes claimed the recognition of assocoated state status... Moreover, Tatarstan was a self-proclamed union republic without recognition before USSR was disintegrated... So, Vlad, I'm a citizen of Tatarstan and living there since 1986, but I really dont know how to desribe this strange struggle for independence. Howvever, yor statements are not an inprovement and they can only state your attitude to Tatarstan's independence... --Üñţïf̣ļëŗ ( see also: ә? Ә!) 17:22, 17 February 2007 (UTC)
 * De facto Tatarstan was not independent state ever (we do not talk here about middle ages). KGB in name of Tatarstan KGB does not mean anything, de facto it was a regional department of FSB. Independence at really was claimed only by Tatarstan nationalists and never by Tatarstan officials in their official speeches (if it is not so, please cite the reliable sources). Tatarstan male inhabitans was drafted in Russian army, Tatarstan pensioners got pension from Russian federal government and so on. So, actually, Tatarstan never was the independent state. Actually the articles of Tatarstan constitution that proclaims that Tatarstan is an independent state was contradicted to Constitution of Russia and abolished in early 2000s (when Putin become a president of Russia) with absolutely no counteraction of Tatarstan citizens and officials. --Vlad Jaroslavleff 21:40, 17 February 2007 (UTC)
 * So, what unrecognized state term actually means? Tatarstan officials claimed Tatarstan to be a state by Tatarstan's constitution, so before 2000 Putin's "verticalization" Tatarstan probably belonged to unrecognized states. This fact depends only on terminology... As for the ministries, some of them were suboprdinated to Babay's administration, not YeBN's... --Üñţïf̣ļëŗ ( see also: ә? Ә!) 17:28, 18 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Yes, some of them were subordinated and is subordinated now to Shaymiev's administration, of course. Just because Shaymiev is head of Tatarstan. But key ministry, Home Office, MVD is actually regional department of federal Ministry of Home Affairs, because Minister of the Interior (ministr vnutrennih del) is commissioned by federal Minister of Home Affairs, not by Shaymiev. The same with Ministry of Public Health (ministerstvo zdravoohraneniya), Ministry of Justice (ministerstvo justitsii), Ministry of Education (ministerstvo obrazovanija) and so on.
 * There all states with de facto control of their territory in the article. But putting Tatarstan under section ".. states with de facto control of their territory" is incorrect, Tatarstan's territory was always controlled (and controlled now) by Russian Federation. Here was always Russian Army in Tatarstan, Russian Interior Forces (Vnutrenniye Voyska) and so on, so Tatarstan was never have sole control of its territory.
 * Even judicial system was always Russian with, of course, regional courts. For the Supreme Court of Tatarstan there was always superior court - the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation. For the Consitutional Court of Tatarstan there was always superior - the Constitutional Court of the Russian Federation. The same with arbitrage. Tatarstan never had its own Military Court.
 * Tatarstan has its own territory, but it is not Tatarstan's property. Yes, of course, as every region of the Russian Federation, Tatarstan has some of its territory in property (so-called regional property), but the same situation with all Russian regions. Moreover, even every city and village has some territory in property (so-called municipal property).
 * We cannot say about confederate status, because we cannot compare Tatarstan even with any of states of the USA. Because, for example, every US state has its own state police, but no region in Russia has its own police, all police forces in Russia are federal.
 * If I publish my own constitution and declare in it that my house is an independent state, will my house be here in article? I am de facto control territory of my house (because it is my own property). Why I can not do this? --Vlad Jaroslavleff 20:11, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

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

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

For example, Singapore and Barbados did not establish diplomatic relations until around 1996. There is still no Singapore High Commission in Barbados.<span style="margin:0;text-align:left;color:#ff00000;font-size:80%;font-family:Tahoma;font-weight:bold;padding:0.2em 0.4em">VK35 22:55, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

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

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


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

suggestion
Let's make a new list and move the partially recognized ones there. DenizTC 23:35, 6 May 2007 (UTC)
 * There's not enough of them imho. I support keeping all of them here. Alaexis 12:30, 7 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Sections 1, 2, 5, 7, 9, and some from section 8 (maybe most). The title can be list of not fully recognized states or something like that. Otherwise we may need to change the title. DenizTC 13:26, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

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

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


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

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


 * Wrong. Western Sahara is not occupied but disputed. So, to categorize the SADR as a country under occupation is turning Wikipedia to a propaganda organ for the Polisario. No, No.--A Jalil 07:05, 8 June 2007 (UTC)
 * What is UN position about WS? Alæxis¿question? 07:51, 8 June 2007 (UTC)
 * The UN considers the territory as disputed between the kingdom of Morocco and the Polisario Front. The UN neither recognizes the sovereignty of Morocco on the territory nor the government-in-exile (SADR) that the Polisario unilaterally proclaimed. Kofi Annan had in some of his reports described Morocco as the "Administrative Power" in Western Sahara. The UN is calling for direct negotiations to find a solution acceptable to both parties, and will supervise direct negotiations (without pre-conditions) between Morocco and the Polisario Front this month (June 2007). --A Jalil 08:10, 8 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Occupation and UN definitions Jalil, Western Sahara is clearly occupied, and the UN has called it as such - I've even told you this before and referred you to these same documents, so I don't know why you're feigning ignorance here. Two examples:
 * UN General Assembly Resolution 34/37 - November 21, 1979, vote: 85-6, with 41 abstentions reads in part:
 * "the aggravation of the situation resulting from the continued occupation by Morocco and the extension of that occupation to the territory recently evacuated by Mauritania"
 * Link to that session of the GA
 * Direct link to the pdf
 * UN General Assembly Resolution 35/19 - November 11, 1980, vote: 88-8, with 43 absentions reads in part:
 * "terminate the occupation of the territory of Western Sahara"
 * Link to that session of the GA
 * Direct link to the pdf
 * Even if the UN didn't consider the area occupied, it still is. Furthermore, there is no contradiction in saying that it is occupied and disputed. Typically, if an area is occupied, there is some dispute. Since there is a category for precisely this kind of territory, that's where Western Sahara/SADR belongs. -Justin (koavf)·T·C·M 16:23, 8 June 2007 (UTC)
 * That sounds convincing. What are exactly the arguments against including SADR into the Partially recognized states largely under military occupation section? Alæxis¿question? 16:32, 8 June 2007 (UTC)


 * No. It might be convincing to those with little or no aquintance with the different organs of the UN.
 * The document he always refers to was a document drafted in Havana, Cuba, by Algeria, and Cuba, and put to vote in the GA (General Assembly). The GA is a kind of opinion poll where all countries give their opinion of some thing at a certain time under certain conditions (political or economical interests, who is in power, ...). If you have enough friends to secure a vote on some issue you get it. But the back-face of the thing is that the GA resolutions have no weight, no authority and are not binding. the voice of Nauru or Tuvalu or Bahrein (a few thousend inhabitants) weights as much as that of Russia or the USA or China (more than a billion). The SC (Security Council) is the authority in the UN. Anything can't be adopted if it is not accepted as representing the UN ideals and position.
 * Koavf pretends to ignore one big example for which he never reacted: The famous "Zionism=Racism" resolution. In 1975, in the midst of the Cold War, the Arab states could count on the support of the USSR and the East block in addition to the non-alligned movement, they put to vote the resolution that equals Zionism with Racism to the GA and was adopted. After the fall of the Soviet Union and the East block, and many of the third World countries no more thinking in terms of the Cold War, the majority was lost and the GA again gathered to vote that Zionism is not Racism. So, which of the two resolutions represent the UN position? now as has been proved before to koavf, the documents you refer to do not represent the position of the UN, but the position of the majority at the time of the vote and is by the way very outdated with regard to the resolutions the UN has issued twice a year in the last decades.
 * On the countrary, the former UN Secretary General (Anan) in 2002 refered to Morocco as the "Administrating Power" in Western Sahara.
 * If "something disputed is occupied" (il)logic is followed, then every suspect is guilty and not what we've always known that every suspect is innocent till otherwise proven.
 * "Even if the UN didn't consider the area occupied, it still is". This is your personal opinion. Trying to impose it in Wikipedia has costed you more than a half year block, and it seems your manners have not changed.
 * "Typically, if an area is occupied, there is some dispute" this is not the case here, but exactly the opposite. There is a dispute which only when the conflict resolved will show if the territory was indeed occupied (case of independence) or that it really belong to Morocco (integration or autonomy within Morocco). Till then, Forget about anticipating the result and calling it occupied instead of disputed.--A Jalil 21:10, 9 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Zionism is racism, etc. The pedantic way that you described the UNGA is odd, and an appeal to the UNSC is even more queer, since they hardly passed any resolutions on the matter prior to the establishment of MINURSO. Make of the United Nations System what you want, the UN still called the territory occupied. Simple. It also never reversed its stance, a la UN General Assembly Resolution 3379. If it did, we might have something to discuss. Since it hasn't, there is no real dispute that the UN has called Western Sahara occupied. Again, even if the UN never said such a thing, and even if they said the opposite, the region would still in fact be occupied. A foreign military is there, consequently, it is occupied. Again, you point out uses of language that are not contradictory or even relevant: Morocco is the administering power in most of the territory and it does so by occupying it. There is no contradiction in terms. Note also that you inverted my wording to say the opposite of what I claimed: if a territory is occupied, there is necessarily a dispute (or else no one would occupy it.) If there is a dispute, it is not necessary that it be occupied. Regardless of the outcome of the Sahara dispute, Morocco will still have been a foreign power invading the territory and setting up its military in a civilian area for an indefinite period of time. One more time, though, that line of argumentation is still irrelevant, because the territory is, in fact, occupied. You can claim things are my personal opinion or conflate opinions with facts or whatever you want; it's not a convincing line of argument it's as irrelevant as the point you made before: a territory remains occupied regardless of my assessment of the facts. If you don't consider Western Sahara (or Iraq or the West Bank) occupied, that is irrelevant; they remain occupied in spite of your assessment. I refuse to fall into your fallacy of bifurcation by choosing between "disputed" and "occupied;" it is clearly both, and since there is a listing for precisely this situation, that is where Western Sahara/SADR belongs in this list. -Justin (koavf)·T·C·M 21:41, 9 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Since the Minurso's establishment, and since WS became debated by the UNSC, there has never been a single document describing Morocco as occupying WS. If it were an occupation it would have been used at least once, or actually frequently, but because it is not, none.
 * "Regardless of the outcome of the Sahara dispute, Morocco will still have been a foreign power invading the territory and setting up its military in a civilian area for an indefinite period of time". So if there is a referendum where the people of Western Sahara vote for belonging to Morocco (confirming their Moroccan identity), Morocco will still be occupying them (per indefinite period of time). This is one of the most ridiculous things (if not the most) that I have heard this year. Unbelievable.--A Jalil 22:15, 9 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Not quite They will have been an occupying power; they still occupied the territory for 30-odd years, even in the unlikely event that the Sahrawis freely choose to integrate into the Kingdom of Morocco for some reason. If the West Bank Palestinians vote to integrate into Israel, that doesn't retroactively make the occupation of the last 40 years not happen. It was still an occupation nonetheless. When you make bombastic assertions like that and then claim that I'm being ridiculous, you take away credibility from your position. -Justin (koavf)·T·C·M 22:26, 9 June 2007 (UTC)
 * If only you were careful with examples. Here you made another bad mistake: How can the Palestinians choose to integrate with Israel when there has never been such an option neither by the UN nor by Israel itself. Here you brought the big proof on yourself: There can't even be a referendum to end the Palestinian/Isreali conflict because the UN considers the West Bank and Gaza as occupied (UNSC res. 422), and if a territory is occupied, the UN does not condone the occupation by making a referendum where one of the options is other than an end to occupation. That is the difference between the case of WS and that of Palestine. The UN calls for a referendum in the disputed territories but not in the occupied ones.--A Jalil 22:54, 9 June 2007 (UTC)
 * You missed the point You ignored my question; if the West Bank Palestinians did choose to integrate into Israel, would that retroactively make the occupation of the past 40 years not an occupation? Clearly, that position makes no sense. Morocco is occupying the territory, regardless of any prospective outcome of the conflict. As far as your line about occupation goes, you're wrong, because that is exactly what happened in Western New Guinea; where did you get the information for this assertion? -Justin (koavf)·T·C·M 21:28, 11 June 2007 (UTC)
 * You missed the point again you continue to give examples from fiction and transpose them on completely different situations to make way for your Polisario POV. You know it fools none. --A Jalil 08:27, 12 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Whatever This is going nowhere. You ignored a very simple question and it punctured the logic of your logic about integration and retroactively not making an occupation. It is obvious to any objective third party that the Sahara is occupied, and those facts speak for themselves. -Justin (koavf)·T·C·M 15:39, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

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


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

The "sadr" does not belong in here

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

Thanks - wikima 20:12, 12 June 2007 (UTC)
 * What? Wikima, your edits introduced a number of grammatical and spelling errors that simply don't make sense. Clearly, the SADR is a state and country - that is why it is on this list. Another state on here - the Republic of China - is in exile. Are you in favor of taking it off the list as well? The assertion "It has no control on the strip beind [sic] the wall but claims control of this" is unproven, and there are editors on here who have personally been there, there is video of demonstrations behind the berm, elections and conferences are held there by the SADR, there is a military buildup regulated by the UN cease-fire agreement, etc. You know all this, and I don't see why you keep on asserting these inflammatory claims with no evidence. ===> Please stop using Wikipedia for Pro-Moroccan propaganda!! Thanks. -Justin (koavf)·T·C·M 20:33, 12 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Nope, "sadr" is a gov. in exile with no control on any territory.
 * You should respond with arguments. A demonstration of foreign militants is not a control of a territory for instance. "sadr" is in Tindouf, under algerian control. Any move of its "troups" is highly condemned by the UN etc.
 * I explained all this in details if you remember.
 * You can do the changes by keeping the version, and do not take sp. errors or gramma for a pretext to revert.
 * You don't seem to have leraned from your long block.
 * wikima 20:50, 12 June 2007 (UTC)


 * It seems koavf is redefining the word "exile": The ROC is in exile!!. That makes no sense. None of the ROC organs is on foreign land.
 * As to the control, it has already been proven to you that the non-presence of Moroccan troops in a region does not make it automatically controlled by the Polisario even if they have never set foot in it (Laguera, the Atlantic coast south of the wall, ...).
 * Spain withdrew from Spanish Sahara instead of "abandoned". The withdrawl was agreed upon in the Madrid Accords and happened accordingly.
 * When mentionning the recognitions, it should not hurt to mention that the SADR is not recognised by the UN nor by the Arab League (remember the "A" in SADR means "Arab").
 * "The UN is attempting to hold a referendum ..". "attempting" is in the present continuous meaning something that is taking place at the moment. That is not the case here. The UN has attempted to hold a referendum but did not succeed. Now, the UN will be holding in the coming week (18.6.2007) direct negotiations without pre-conditions to reach a solution. The MINURSO's mission is nowadays simply to monitor the cease-fire. --A Jalil 07:22, 13 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Jalil and Wikima Wikima:
 * The SADR controls the Free Zone, as per the 1991 cease-fire
 * You should respond with arguments instead of asserting that the SADR is controlled by Algeria. Any move of Morocco's "troops" is highly condemned by the UN etc.
 * Jalil:
 * See exile, Jalil. I didn't define the term.
 * See above
 * Well, no one actually knows what the Madrid Accords say, as they've never been made public, but whatever.
 * There is no point in listing all the states and organizations that don't recognize one of these entities; otherwise, this list would get indefinitely long.
 * The UN is attempting to hold a referendum, but whatever. Unless I'm mistaken, the last UNSC resolution did not change MINURSO's mandate. -Justin (koavf)·T·C·M 15:35, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

1

 * Partially recognized states. "with de facto control over their territory" is self-evident.
 * support :Dc76 16:44, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Why is it self-evident? Alæxis¿question? 19:44, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
 * When it looses control over the territory, it becomes a government in exile. IMO, a state by definition exercises control over some territory. :Dc76 16:51, 16 June 2007 (UTC)
 * support:Alæxis¿question? 19:17, 16 June 2007 (UTC)
 * oppose Non-explicit title. Acceptable only as a sub-section of a new section States, with reminder of the definition of a state. --Juiced lemon 21:06, 16 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Surely "Palestine" could be described as a "partially recognized state," and it does not have de facto control over its territory. john k 21:54, 16 June 2007 (UTC)
 * No, exactly this is the counterexample! At least in my understanding. It is called "Palestinian authority", not "Palestinian state". It is a government, a form of self-rule, not yet a state, because it does not have control over the teritory, Israel does. The states that recognize Palestine, regard PLO (and by continuation the Palestinian authority) not just as the local govenment (as it is at least for now; obviously it will eventually be a state), but also as the legitimate government of that territory.
 * P.S. If Hamas would organize now a government in Gaza, and control the little territory it has, and 34 states recongnize it as a separate state, that would be a "partially recognized state". IMHO.:Dc76 15:37, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Er, no, not the Palestinian Authority, which is not a state at all. The State of Palestine, which  is recognized by various countries as a sovereign state, but has no de facto control over  any territory. john k 22:37, 29 June 2007 (UTC)


 * I see, you mean the State of Palestine declared in 1988, not the Palestinian Authority. Let me understand its situation beeter: the State of Palestine has no goverment, and it controls no territory; it is just a proclamation, and that proclamation is recongnized: "More than 100 states recognize the State of Palestine, and 20 more grant some form of diplomatic status to a Palestinian delegation, falling short of full diplomatic recognition." (from its article) Among these 100 are listed Argentina, Montenegro, Albania, Turkey, Ukraine.
 * I am only questioning one word: can it be called a "state". May I make a hypotetical supposition: suppose the local authonomous government of Catalunia declares a State of Catalunia, but does nothing more to act in the name of that state - it continues to act as a local authority as if the declaration never happened. Wouldn't it be simply a desire by a local government to obtain more sovereignty? Of course, the comparision is a stretch:
 * Palestinian authority started in 1992, 4 years after the proclamation of the State of Palestine
 * the "two state solution" is an acceptable thing in the international diplomacy, and noone doubts that that will eventually (in 10 or in 100 years) happen.
 * So, can we call it a "sovereign state without de facto control over its territory" or a "declaration of a state". The State of Palestine has no government, no president, nothing - as I understand it is just a declaration to foster cohesion among supporters of a palestinian state. So, I suggest to list it separately from anything else, since it is not a state but a proclamation.:Dc76 16:23, 6 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Shouldn't all this about Palestine be actually under #2 below? That-Vela-Fella 18:18, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

2

 * Partially recognized governments. The subsections will explain "in exile", or "on disputed territories" or something similar, or whatever.
 * support :Dc76 16:44, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
 * support :no big difference Alæxis¿question? 19:44, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
 * oppose: illogical. A government cannot be “on disputed territories” when he don't control any territory. Therefore, this is not a government, but a state. --Juiced lemon 21:10, 16 June 2007 (UTC)
 * So, are you saying that when it controls territory, you call it "government", and when it does not, you call it just a "state"? If it is so, than you POV differs from mine only in the interchanged usage of the two words. In that case, maybe we can find a linguist to explain us the words and settle it. :Dc76 15:40, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

3

 * Unrecognized states and governments. Two sections into one section, with subsection to give the details.
 * support :Dc76 16:44, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
 * What's the point in the words and governments here? If it weren't there I'd support it. Alæxis¿question? 19:45, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
 * My reason for introducing the word "governments" there is that in my proposal we have "1.2 states" and "1.3 governments", i.e. for the sake of the completeness when one looks at the TOC. Actually, I did not think about possible implications of introducing this word. Is there a potential problem?
 * I also agree that "with (OR without) further territorial claims" as per User:That-Vela-Fella sounds better.:Dc76 16:51, 16 June 2007 (UTC)
 * There are no unrecognised governments among the 2 entities listed in that section so imho the word 'governments' should be removed. Actually I think that unrecognised governments shouldn't be in the list at all (as a rule, with occasional exception) since they neither control anything (otherwise they'd be classified as unrecognised states nor should rule some territory according to the "law" (de jure). So I'll support your proposal with Vela-Fella's and my amendments. Alæxis¿question? 19:17, 16 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Islamic Emirate of Waziristan is just a government, not a state, in my understanding. Please, note that is the title for the whole section, which would contain two subsections.:Dc76 15:45, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
 * I hear about it for the second time in my life so I'm not an expert but it looks it's described as a state sometimes. ([]). If you move Waziristan to governments though and leave the other entities in the states subsection I'll support it.
 * support. Alæxis¿question? 17:32, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
 * oppose. According to Montevideo Convention, control over some territory is essential, recognition is incidental. Combination of states and governments is nonsense. --Juiced lemon 21:19, 16 June 2007 (UTC)
 * That is one oppinion. IMO, they are equally important. Also, what is "Islamic Emirate of Waziristan", government, state? :Dc76 15:45, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

4

 * singular to plural, b/c everything else is plural, even when there is only one entry.
 * support :Dc76 16:44, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
 * support: --Juiced lemon 21:22, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

5

 * historic states vs historic governments. I stared at the titles of the two subsections 5 minutes until I saw states vs governments (the only difference). The new titles makes this more clear to read. Slight variations also possible.
 * support :Dc76 16:44, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
 * support :Alæxis¿question? 19:47, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
 * “Unrecognized or partially recognized” is also superfluous. You can specify that in a note after the title of section 2. “Governments” as a subsection of Historic geo-political entities with de facto control over some territory is contradictory. --Juiced lemon 21:33, 16 June 2007 (UTC)
 * I guess you prefer title of section: "Historic geo-political entities", first sentence "This is a list of historic geo-political unrecognized or partially recognized entities with de facto control over some territory." Title of one subsection "states". Title of second subsection "governments". Please, note that this says no more and no less than the current verstion says, only that one does not have to read several times to observe what is the difference between the two subsections.:Dc76 15:59, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

about the whole proposal
I seem to be more inclined to go with the proposal since it'll be under better defined headings. Only thing I would suggest for 1.4 are the "and (not) claiming more" parts of it. Would be better sounding if it says "with (OR without) further territorial claims". That-Vela-Fella 20:16, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

=== Proposal === The moral of this changes is: compare the TOC in the current version with that in my proposal, and see which one is more neat and clear? (:Dc76 16:44, 14 June 2007 (UTC))

current
 * 1 Present geo-political entities
 * 1.1 Partially unrecognized states
 * 1.2 Partially recognized states with de facto control over their territory
 * 1.2.1 States that are recognized by more than one country
 * 1.2.2 States that are recognized by only one country
 * 1.3 Partially recognized states existing on disputed territories
 * 1.4 Unrecognized states with de facto control over their territory
 * 1.5 Unrecognized states with partial control over their territory
 * 1.6 Internationally administered territory
 * 1.7 Partially recognized governments in exile
 * 2 Historic geo-political entities
 * 2.1 Historic unrecognized or partially recognized states with de facto control over their territory
 * 2.1.1 Europe
 * 2.1.2 Asia
 * 2.1.3 Africa
 * 2.1.4 Americas
 * 2.1.5 Oceania
 * 2.2 Historic unrecognized or partially recognized governments with de facto control over their territory
 * 3 Notes
 * 4 See also

or proposal
 * 1 Present geo-political entities
 * 1.1 Partially unrecognized states
 * 1.2 Partially recognized states
 * 1.2.1 States that are recognized by more than one country
 * 1.2.2 States that are recognized by only one country
 * 1.3 Partially recognized governments
 * 1.3.1 Partially recognized governments existing on disputed territories
 * 1.3.2 Partially recognized governments in exile
 * 1.4 Unrecognized states and governments
 * 1.4.1 with control over some territory and not claiming more
 * 1.4.2 with control over some territory and claiming more
 * 1.5 Internationally administered territories
 * 2 Historic geo-political entities with de facto control over some territory
 * 2.1 Unrecognized or partially recognized states
 * 2.1.1 Europe
 * 2.1.2 Asia
 * 2.1.3 Africa
 * 2.1.4 Americas
 * 2.1.5 Oceania
 * 2.2 Unrecognized or partially recognized governments
 * 3 Notes
 * 4 See also

Further simplification of the last proposal:


 * 1 Present geo-political entities
 * 1.1 Partially unrecognized
 * 1.2 Partially recognized
 * 1.2.1 Recognized by more than one country
 * 1.2.2 Recognized by only one country
 * 1.3 Unrecognized
 * 1.4 Internationally administered
 * 2 Historic geo-political entities
 * 2.1 Europe
 * 2.1 Asia
 * 2.1 Africa
 * 2.1 Americas
 * 2.1 Oceania
 * 3 Notes
 * 4 See also

Explanations:
 * The article is titled to deal with "countries" so we should concentrate on them
 * If there are some exiled governments, that can be dealt with as a country, if it controls a territory
 * "Geo-political" already means somebody in control of a territory
 * Whether the unrecognized countries claim more land than they control, seems not to be a part of the topic
 * "De facto" and "control" are also interchangeable
 * "Territory" is a "geopolitical entity" also. --Drieakko 17:35, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Makes sense to me You're right; the title headings are pretty silly. -Justin (koavf)·T·C·M 17:59, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Another option is that we put all the information to a table. It could have the following columns:
 * Name
 * Current status
 * Declared independece
 * Recognized by
 * in which the "Current status" is a brief description of the latest situation, "Declared independence" the date when the country claimed to be independent (if ever) and "Recognized by" either the names of the countries that have recognized it or their number.
 * The same could be done for the list of historical unrecognized countries, with the following items:
 * Name
 * Past status
 * Period
 * Current status. --Drieakko 19:29, 16 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Reminds me of a suggestion of mine long ago, a list of who recognizes whom, plain and simple. No chance of POV issues. Doesn't matter if there is territory, isn't territory, or if territory is disputed. Even mutual recognition of the frozen conflict zone territories by each other, and no one else, is clear.
 * From a syntactical standpoint, are not "partially recognized" and "partially unrecognized" equivalent to the glass is half full versus the glass is half empty? They all qualify for the article by being partially unrecognized... it might be clearer to indicate "Recognized by a majority of countries and authorities" versus "Recognized by a minority of countries and authorities". Just a thought. (Emerging from the Wiki-woodwork, apologies to those that haven't seen me in a while...)
 * Unfortunately, these heading titles don't make much sense for an article about un recognition, but "Unrecognized by a majority..." and "Unrecognized by a minority..." don't bode well for simplification. :-) <span style="font-size:9pt; font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;"> &mdash; Pēters J. Vecrumba 01:50, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

I will carry out the move to a table format for the entire article soon, unless anyone objects. --Drieakko 06:36, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

So, is this going to be done or what? That-Vela-Fella 22:56, 13 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Patiently waiting for comments, if any are still coming :) --Drieakko 03:16, 14 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Out of interest, where are you going to get official/authoritative figures on the number of countries that recognize any specific state? Will partially-recognized countries' recognition be counted, or only ones that have a seat at the UN, or what? Vizjim 03:41, 14 August 2007 (UTC)
 * I don't plan to introduce any new data during the "operation", just to clean-up the way the data is presented and give it a more list-like appearance. --Drieakko 03:48, 14 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Seems like there might be some problems with this, both in terms of practicality and format. I understand that you don't intend to introduce any data during the changeover, but the end result will require that new data to be found nonetheless, won't it? Vizjim 04:14, 14 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Yes, quite likely it will. The main purpose of the first step is to formalize what this article is about. Unnecessary or missing information is best revealed by a table structure. --Drieakko 04:21, 14 August 2007 (UTC)
 * What I'm suggesting is that this will create a WP:OR-baiting article, and probably shouldn't be done unless we can first find a satisfactory way to collect the required data. (And, just to be clear, I've had a search around and can't find any such source of data that would seem neutral to all parties). Vizjim 07:46, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

Table proposal
Here is a rough cut of the table. Kindly comment.

--Drieakko 13:18, 16 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Excellent, and I drop my objections. I just couldn't visualise it before.  This allows for explanations and nuance (so for example you could include the recognition of the TRNC by the Organization of the Islamic Conference), and it works very well. Vizjim 15:34, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

Another proposal for the past unrecognized countries, containing just a snapshot:

--Drieakko 14:21, 16 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Also lovely. By the way, would it be possible to create another column of the table just for sources? It would be good to promote sourced edits in a disputed article such as this one... Vizjim 15:35, 16 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Thanks. For sources, IMHO Footnotes is a clean way. --Drieakko 16:21, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

Yes, looks similar to other setups on other articles and sources done with references at the bottom of the page. I'd go with this cleaner looking format. That-Vela-Fella 06:04, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
 * I bow to your wisdom. Vizjim 06:44, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

The idea s quite good. I think we should have a(nother) column that has links o each 'entity's section for further information. In my opinion we should not have Macedonia/FYROM and Myanmar/Burma, those countries are fully recognized. We can list them in a see also section. DenizTC 12:16, 17 August 2007 (UTC)


 * The column "Disputed" attempts to indicate the element that is not recognized. For Macedonia and Myanmar, the name of the country remains disputed, making the countries only partially recognized. --Drieakko 12:18, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
 * I disagree with that. There are certainly name disputes, so we have the relevant articles (hence I said we can have a see also for them), but these don't make them partially recognized. Myanmar is fully recognized since 1948. There is even an embassy of Myanmar in US and Australia, two countries which make Myanmar unrecognized according to some people here. DenizTC 13:00, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
 * If a country can not get recognized by the name it wants to be recognized as, it is then IMHO partially recognized. --Drieakko 13:14, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
 * We don't matter. Anyway I made some changes, please check. I went ahead and inserted the table combining recognition and non-recognition, also the table is sorted ('statehood' above 'independence', and then temporal order; don't know whether we should put Vatican on top). I commented out Myanmar and Macedonia for now. 14:34, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
 * You also did not seem to matter to wait for the discussion to close before carrying out major edits. Anyway, good points. I further simplified your edits. This article is a list, nothing else, and all information is available in additional articles that need not take their arguments here for any other than just the basic facts. --Drieakko 21:02, 19 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Sorry about not waiting much. To avoid any deadlocks any further, I decided to just be bold and do the edit. DenizTC 03:38, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

There needs to be clarification as to whether the name being used is the common name (some examples of common names in list are "Vatican City", "Israel", "Cyprus", "South Ossetia", and "Somaliland") or the formal name (some examples are "People's Republic of China" and "Republic of China"). Or perhaps both the common name and the formal name could be listed. Readin (talk) 20:25, 25 August 2008 (UTC)
 * This is about the table itself though. But as for the names, the formal was only done for China so as to tell them apart. That-Vela-Fella (talk) 20:58, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

Vatican
Is Vatican really not recognised by China as an independant country? I know they have no diplomacy, but all countries that have diplomacy with Taiwan (ROC) have no diplomacy with China. I've read a book from China, about flags and coats of arms of the countries around the world. Vatican is shown in the book, and also those like Paraguay, Gambia... but no Western Sahara/SADR, Abkhazia... --Edmund the King of the Woods! 11:12, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

Just as with any other nation(s), it's only a diplomatic recognition involved with this topic. It obviously sees it existing as an independent country, but just not in friendly terms due to the Taiwan issue. That-Vela-Fella 18:37, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

If we should emphasize on DIPLOMACY, then countries such as Paraguay, St Lucia, Gambia, Honduras, Guatemala... should also be listed, because they have no diplomacy with China (due to diplomacy with Taiwan)


 * The very notion of "recognition" is, by definition, "diplomacy". It's not emphasis on, it's what it is. So, yes, there would be a (reciprocal) list of all countries which mainland China does not recognize because those countries recognize Taiwan instead. (Sorry for not using PRC and ROC, I see enough acronyms in my day job!)
 * In the end, it would likely be a single list, that is, countries which recognize Taiwan instead of China = countries China does not recognize (because...).<span style="font-size:9pt; font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;"> &mdash; Pēters J. Vecrumba 01:58, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

Only thing missing in the table now is when it all started. I'm sure it must have been once it got it's 1st recognition as an independent state again in 1929? That-Vela-Fella 23:07, 19 August 2007 (UTC) Actually, I don't think it should really be there since 176 (a huge majority) of nations recognize them. Anyone think as to why they are listed, otherwise it should be removed soon. That-Vela-Fella 12:14, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

But it appeared to be a "partially recognised state", so how many countries recognise it, it's not important. The most important is - is there any country doesn't recognise it as an independant country? --Edmund the King of the Woods! 12:38, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Well that's the thing, is there? Just because out of the 192 in the UN, only 16 don't have diplomatic relations with them constitute non-recognition? I'm sure a few other nations in the world fit in that same situation, like Bhutan for example. That-Vela-Fella 09:43, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

If there are 192 UN members, and only 176 recognise the Vatican City, who's the remaining 16 members? Why single out the PRC in particular?--Huaiwei 09:55, 27 August 2007 (UTC)


 * It's not singled out by itself, but cause it's not part of the UN, thus is mentioned as one of the nations involved with the two China issue. Btw, I found what 16 nations are not DIPLOMATICALLY with the Holy See (proper term as it's not really the Vatican itself). It's listed here:

The ones missing are as follows (btw, it has a 'special' relationship with Russia): Afghanistan, Bhutan, Botswana, Brunei, P.R. of China, Comoros, N. Korea, Laos, Malaysia, Maldives, Mauritania, Myanmar, Oman, Somalia, Tuvalu, & Vietnam.

But like I said before, Bhutan (for example) should be listed also then as it's in a very similar situation. That-Vela-Fella 03:54, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
 * I see a confusion here. Vatican City and the Holy See are not fully the same. The Holy See rather than Vatican is a non-member observer of the UN.--Jusjih (talk) 01:07, 30 August 2008 (UTC)


 * I have to disagree. Countries can recognise other countries that it does not have diplomatic relations with.  Indeed declaring war on a country is directly recognising its existance.
 * I am not sure if China doesn't recognise the Vatican or those states which have relations with Taiwan. The Government may, as in many cases with China's foreign policy, prefer to be ambiguous on the question.  Kransky (talk) 18:21, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

Kosovo
I did have a look at the archives but the discussion is thin. Kosovo is not an unrecognised country because it does not presently claim recognition. That's the bottom line.

It is, of course, the subject of a long-running dispute between Serbia and the Kosovo Albanians but that is not the same. Kosovo Albanian parties did announce a Republic of Kosovo in 1999 (only Albania gave recognition), but when the United Nations took over administration an agreement was reached (the Constitutional Framework) under which all parties agreed to contribute to the interim civilian administration; the Republic of Kosovo was (quietly) dropped at this point and you will find no further reference to it anywhere.

Kosovo Albanians still desire and seek independence, for which they are contributing to UN-backed status negotiations. They may get it. This is in no way the same as being an unrecognised state. There is no putative state to which recognition could be given. The Kosovo Albanian parties seeking independence are in this way no different from (say) the Scottish National Party in the UK which desire and are working for independence and are in control of the devolved administration: yet no one is claiming that Scotland is an unrecognised state.

I'd be interested to hear opinions, but it is pretty clear to me that Kosovo belongs on lots of other lists, but not here. DSuser 16:14, 12 July 2007 (UTC)


 * As there is no established sovereign de jure authority or controlling de facto authority (or, more specifically, international forces are the de facto authority), I would agree with you on this point. I'm sure good references can be found on this.<span style="font-size:9pt; font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;"> &mdash; Pēters J. Vecrumba 02:40, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Here, here Kosovo clearly doesn't belong. -Justin (koavf)·T·C·M 04:29, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

I restored Kosovo on the list. They first voted for independence in 1992. Today, native Kosovo administration continues to insist full independence as the only viable solution to the current situation. As for the international administration, that really does not change the situation. For example, the de facto ruler of the Turkish Cyprus is the army of Turkey, but here they are on the list anyway. --Drieakko 18:39, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

As for the UN "rule", it is today mainly limited to the matters of military and foreign relations, while all else is in the Kosovian hands. --Drieakko 18:46, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

Worth reading Constitutional status of Kosovo and Kosovo status process, and indeed referring to our past discussion on the Kosovo talk page. Kosovo remains sovereign Serbian territory under interim UN administration. Local, provisional institutions of self-government have authority only under that of the Special Representative of the Secretary-General and only those powers devolved to them by UNMIK; all of those powers could be removed at a moment's notice. This is a territory run by the UN and thus not applicable for this list. Please see also United Nations Security Council Resolution 1244. Representatives of Kosovo Albanians declared independence in the 1990s but the UN renegotiated a political settlement one they took over such that the Kosovo Albanians no longer claim independence or seek international recognition as a state. That is not to say that Kosovo Albanians might not prefer independence; it is definitely what they are negotiating for. But they have not declared independence and do not seek recognition: therefore Kosovo does not, definitively, belong on a 'List of unrecognised countries'. To do so would be to claim recognition for them that they themselves do not seek, which is not our place in an encyclopaedia. Think of Scotland, for example: the devolved administration is presently run by the Scottish National Party, whose main goal is independence from the UK, but they have not declared independence and do not seek recognition, and so (also) do not belong on this list. DSuser 11:13, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Kindly note that Taiwan or Palestine have not declared independence either. --Drieakko 11:35, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

It would be difficult for the Republic of China to declare independence as it was never part of any other entity; it was forced from the mainland by the Communists in 1949. It claims itself an independent state and seeks recognition from other states. This is not the case for Kosovo or Scotland. The Palestinian Authority is not a territory controlled by the United Nations, has not declared independence and it does not claim or seek international recognition. The Palestine listed on this list is not the Palestinian Authority but the Palestine Liberation Organization which has received international recognition (including UN observer status as 'Palestine') as the 'sole legitimate representative of the Palestinian people'. The PLO claims and has received such recognition; Kosovo and Scotland have not and do not belong on this list. DSuser 13:20, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

De jure part of Serbia
Whatever position you personally take regarding Kosovo - should it be recognized or not - the objective facts are that it is AT PRESENT (i) a self-declared republic, (ii) recognized by certain states, (iii) de jure still a part of Serbia. This last fact keeps getting edited a way, now this is just not fair folks! Legally, that is according to international law, Kosovo is still a part of Serbia. This is objective fact, so why edit it away?
 * But for the love of god, stop changing it! It's a fact, it's not just "considered by some to be" it's objectively de jure a part of Serbia just like Abkhazia is de jure a part of Georgia but de facto independent. And if you change it, give us a reason why! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 193.157.236.219 (talk) 20:08, 19 February 2008 (UTC)


 * According to UN resolution 1244 (1999) Kosov is not mentioned as part of Serbia but as part of Federal Republic of Yougoslavia. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 193.0.254.46 (talk) 08:46, 31 March 2008 (UTC)
 * That's right. Also, that tid-bit only appears in the PREAMBLE of the resolution, which is legally non-binding. The word "de jure" is simply Serbia's claim. Exo (talk) 03:45, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

Islamic Emirate of Waziristan
I'd remove Islamic Emirate of Waziristan from the list. The area is not seeking international recognition so listing it here is rather pointless. --Drieakko 15:13, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Sure Its an unsourced "some people say" line. Some people say lots of stuff. -Justin (koavf)·T·C·M 17:59, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

Turkish Republic of Northern Cyprus
WPTRNC-Invitation Till 21.07.2007, the phrase "UN Secretary General Kofi Annan's 2004 Report (after referenda in both sides of the island) writes the urgent need to remove the isolation of TRNC" is located in the TRNC section. It was deleted on 25.07.2007 without any explanation. 2 days later (27.07.2007) some explanations for removal has written. All are inplausible of course. Notes: 1. This phrase is a consensus, this phrase was in TRNC description till 21.07.2007. It is not an opinion of one or two people. It is the consensus of Wiki writers. 2. This phrase extends the TRNC section only one line and TRNC section becomes 4 lines instead of 3 (Still, Macedonia, Myanmar: 7 lines, Safrawi: 6 lines ). So length objections are completely illogical. 3. This phrase is NOT POV. This phrase is written on the Annan's 2004 Report. United Nations Report is NOT POV, but an info, a data.
 * Everyone surely understands the importance of Kofi Annan's statements. They are just not within the scope of this article. --Drieakko 16:15, 27 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Kofi Annan's comments do not make any difference to the non-recognition of the TRNC, and as such do not belong within an article section about this. Vizjim 18:04, 27 July 2007 (UTC)


 * That's right, it should be if anything a footnote or link to the source only. That-Vela-Fella 07:50, 29 July 2007 (UTC)


 * They are within the scope of the article, and Kofi Annan's comments was the consensus among Wiki writers till 21 July 2007. Somebody removed Kofi Annan's report without the allowance of Wiki community. Kofi Annan's report on Cyprus added to TRNC paragraph upon long discussions of Wiki authors. Now, the link of Kofi Annan's Report added finally. Consensus cannot be removed with the thoughts of a couple of writers. Wiki consensus is crucial.TruthTeller 18:04,30 July 2007 (UTC)
 * As discussed above, the consensus is that it is *not* within the scope of the article. It seems that you attempt to force a POV that Kofi Annan's statement and TRNC's recognition are somehow connected, which is incorrect. --Drieakko 06:38, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
 * The consensus existed after almost a work of 1 year. See the 21.07.2007 or earlier modifications. It is within the scope of the article and this fact became a consensus. This consensus destroyed in 25.07.2007 without any explanation. If, as you claim, it was the outside of the scope then explain why it was within the scope till 21.07.2007. Vista2010 10:41, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Oh, please do not go into this creation of a new user name for each post. --Drieakko 11:12, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
 * I can't be bothered to find out exactly when the change was made, but the Annan comments were not there six months ago. Even if they were, that would not mean that consensus existed, simply that an editor had put them in and nobody had objected until now.  There is a clear consensus here that the comments do not belong within a list of unrecognized countries: there would be an equal consensus that they DO belong in the linked TRNC article.  It is not that there is anything unreasonable in general about noting Annan's comments, nor indeed the European Union's position or similar international bodies, just that it is unreasonable to do so in this article.  Vizjim 16:47, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

Just so to introduce myself, I'm Greek so please consider me an "involved party" in saying this, but I didn't spot any other relevant comment above: The Annan reports and comments are numerous and for various issues. Indeed, the anon/polyonymous user is right: the comment exists in one report. But the selection and isolation of the particular comment, with the other comments excluded in the same time, is in my view POV. Selective information falls within WP:UNDUE in my view. I would argue that it is impossible to include an adequate summary of Annan's comments (let alone whoever else's involved for that matter). NikoSilver 16:56, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

Annan's report upon cyprus referendum is clear: 28 May 2004. Hyperlink was given in the article. Kofi Annan's 2004 Report (number: S/2004/437) ''' I would hope that the members of the Council can give a strong lead to all States to cooperate both bilaterally and in international bodies, to eliminate unnecessary restrictions and barriers that have the effect of isolating the Turkish Cypriots and impeding their development''' You cannot close your eyes till infinity 23:06, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

Kofi Annan writes in his Report on Cyprus dated to 28 May 2004 (Report No: S/2004/437) that I would hope that the members of the UN Security Council can give a strong lead to all States to cooperate both bilaterally and in international bodies, to eliminate unnecessary restrictions and barriers that have the effect of isolating the Turkish Cypriots and impeding their development. So, Annan's comments on Cyprus is not numerous as NikoSilver says. 83.66.22.10 06:10, 31 July 2007 (UTC)


 * He has made numerous comments himself apart from this, and he is not the only authority in the world making comments either. Plus it's irrelevant. NikoSilver 13:26, 31 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Judging purely from the excerpts reprinted here, Annan is merely saying that the present situation must end, not that the unrecognised state should be recognised. The situation could equally end with a federated Cyprus, or with the re-absorption of the breakwaway pseudo-state by the Republic of Cyprus. I think virtually everyone agrees that the present situation must end, but 99% of the world's states do not presently think it should end with the recognition of a separate state of Northern Cyprus.  Which is why the country should appear on a list of unrecognized states, and why Annan's comments simply do not contribute to this page of the online encyclopedia, Wikipedia. Vizjim 13:37, 31 July 2007 (UTC)


 * NikoSilver, I have seen the 2006 United Nations Report of UN Sec. Gen. as well. I will give its hyperlink in a short while as well. In that report - presented to the Security Council of UN - he again stress the illogical isolations toward TRNC once again. To Vizjim, present situation will result in de jure independent Turkish Republic of Northern Cyprus in the light of many perspectives (the last one is Kosovo; previously Check + Slovakia). The TRNC President was confronted in Sweden official ceremony that is applied to presidents. Greek cypriots rejected unification of TRNC and Rep.of Cyprus in 2004 referendum. Hence, the process is impossible to end not only with  re-absorption but also with federation. Federation rejected by Greek Cypriots in 2004 referendum. I do not know in which planet you are living, why dont you watch TV or read newspaper for what is happening in the world!! 88.228.7.188 17:20, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

Race: North Cyprus: Turk South Cyprus: Greek; [contrary to Federal Germany and D. Germany & North Korea and South Korea] Language: North Cyprus: Turkish South Cyprus: Greek; [contrary to Federal Germany and D. Germany & North Korea and South Korea] Religion: North Cyprus: Muslim South Cyprus: Christian; [contrary to Federal Germany and D. Germany & North Korea and South Korea] Democracy: North Cyprus: Many parties, democratic South Cyprus: Many parties, but party ideologies are synonymous of each other. Is there anybody who observed something in common? There is: Both North Cyprus people (Turks) and South Cyprus people (Greeks) (the whole island) was ruled by Turks from 1571 to 1872!! 83.66.22.10 09:53, 2 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Some facts for those who still do not know what the Cyprus is: For TRNC (North Cyprus) and Rep. of Cyprus (South Cyprus):
 * Why is this relevant? ¿SFGi Д nts!  ¿Complain! ¿Analyze! ¿Review! 16:37, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

As a result of the above table; the number of marriages btw Turkish Cypriots and Greek Cypriots (multi-etnic marriages) btw 1960 and 2007 is only 5 !! Justice Forever 07:30, 13 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Can you provide references to back this up? I don't doubt it, but I would like references. ¿SFGi Д nts!  ¿Complain! ¿Analyze! ¿Review! 16:37, 13 August 2007 (UTC)
 * This User:Justice Forever, with his additional IPs and multiple usernames, is just attempting to hijack the article to promote his TRNC agenda. --Drieakko 16:48, 13 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Yes, I have noticed. Perhaps a report on AN/I? ¿SFGi Д nts!  ¿Complain! ¿Analyze! ¿Review! 17:20, 13 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Already reported, they block his sock puppets as they appear. --Drieakko 17:21, 13 August 2007 (UTC)
 * I see he was blocked a few hours ago. ¿SFGi Д nts!  ¿Complain! ¿Analyze! ¿Review! 17:22, 13 August 2007 (UTC)


 * The Greek Cypriot Vandalists are contiously destroying the TRNC-related materials and blocking those who prevent them. The words of today is from Angela Merkel: We made a very big error by taking the Greek Cypriots in to the European Union (2007) Truth1Continusly 07:30, 13 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Do you have any sources for that quote? I doubt it. And don't pretend that Turks don't vandalize Greek articles--Waterfall999 07:48, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

Nagorno-Karabakh
The article says "It declared its independence based on USSR constitution and according to international forms." I should note that this statement is quite blatantly incorrect or at the very least highly disputable. Former autonomous republics of the USSR had no right to declare independence, while Union Republics did have such a right. Nagorno-Karabakh was an autonomous oblast (not even an autonomous republic) within Azerbaijan and therefore had no right whatsoever to declare independence from the USSR. This is a quasi-legalistic trick (more properly a propaganda lie) used by the NK separatists to justify their claims. Any lawyer with a working head will confirm that what I said is correct. And what is meant by "international forms"? Well, to sum up, this whole sentence makes no sense, conveys wrong factual information and, therefore, should be deleted.


 * I removed this POV claim. Check the Iternational status section in the Nagorno-Karabakh article, specifically what Council of Europe says. "NKR" is considered illegal entity by international community, so the facts should be presented fairly. --Grandmaster 10:32, 2 August 2007 (UTC)


 * The passage as is needs clarification, but there is indeed some sense behind it. There was a law that said that in the event a union republic secceeded (Azerbaijan), autonomous entities had the right to determine their own future. Thus NK decided to stay in the SU and when the latter was dissolved, NK became independent. And I believe that NK was the only autonomous entity to explicitly appeal to this procedure at the time. sephia karta 10:37, 2 August 2007 (UTC)


 * No, the procedure only gave the autonomy a right to remain within the USSR, but not to declare its independence. So it was actually a violation of USSR laws. Grandmaster 10:54, 2 August 2007 (UTC)


 * It did stay within the SU, but the SU then disbanded, didn't it? Anyway, I'm not saying that this legitimises their independence because in the end, that is down to personal opinion, I'm just saying that the argument is not void and that, if presented tastefully, it can have a place here.  sephia karta  11:39, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

IMHO, this article should avoid making any additional comments on the countries, as it is clearly better to have the discussions on their respective talk pages than here. --Drieakko 12:09, 2 August 2007 (UTC)


 * USSR disbanded, but NK was not one of the 15 Soviet Republics. Soviet constitution granted the right of secession only to the 15 Soviet republics. In any case, I agree that it is better to keep questionable interpretations out of this article and mention only indisputable facts. --Grandmaster 12:16, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

Claims of independence/sovereigny/countryhood of any of the frozen conflict zone territories is WP:OR. All started by editors claiming that part of part of the Montevideo criteria narrowly applied should be the Wiki-basis to imply "de facto" sovereignty (an oxymoron to boot).<span style="font-size:9pt; font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;"> &mdash; Pēters J. Vecrumba 18:27, 2 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Recognition is no less OR than Montevideo unless explicit sources are provided. It just is not that clear cut. sephia karta  19:26, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

"partial control" vs. "complete control"
What is this distinction meant to signify at present? Neither the TRNC, nor Nagorno Karabakh, nor Somaliland controls all of what it claims. If the classification is instead meant to indicate the degree of control with which the unrecognised states control their territory, then we really need sources to back this up. sephia karta 09:52, 8 August 2007 (UTC)


 * TRNC controls all of the territory it claims. It controls %37 of the Cyprus island and claims this %37 portion only. If you go to Northern Cyprus the only flag you will see is the TRNC flag. Can you tell me even a single km2 territory that TRNC claims but not control? Legal status of buffer zone (%3 of the island) that seperates TRNC and Rep. of Cyprus is currently ambigous but certainly should be claimed by TRNC as well as Rep. of Cyprus in the future (after UNICYP withdrawn)OfficialDocument 12:12, 8 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Sorry, you're right. Because the TRNC does not recognise the Republic of Cyprus, I took that to mean that it claims the whole island, but that of course does not automaticaly follow. sephia karta  12:56, 8 August 2007 (UTC)


 * The Republic of Cyprus does not control all of what it claims, because 37% of the island is occupied by Turkey. OfficialDocument, can you name one good reason why Turkey should occuppy the buffer zone as well? You have no right to occupy any of Cyprus. Cyprus was Greek for thousands of years, yet the Turks didn't arrive there until 1570. The population of Cyprus was only 18% Turkish in 1974, and yet you took 37% of the land, and are so hungry for more blood that you also want the buffer zone, you should be ashamed--Waterfall999 07:48, 3 September 2007 (UTC)
 * I guess that every place that ever was ruled by or was home to Greeks should just relinquish their sovereignty and submit to Greek rule because it was Greek land thousands of years ago. Forget the Megali Idea, let's just bring back Alexander's empire! As for the Turks, they're just all squatters on Greek land they conquered between 1071 and 1453. They should go back to the steppes of Asia where they came from. Sarcasm mode off... Jsc1973 (talk) 03:43, 17 January 2008 (UTC)