Talk:Irredentism/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

Sacred & Communist China?

The suggestion that Communist China pretends that Formosa is a "sacred" part of Greater China is weird and preposterous. I am certain that they, being atheists, would have used some other word than "sacred"! WikiSceptic 08:50, 15 November 2005 (UTC)

The term "sacred" was used in the English translation of the Chinese constitution that I read. Nudge 18:43, 26 November 2005 (UTC)

Communism is a religion, so that's not surprising. I've always thought it preposterous that a communist, internationalist, non-nationalist (as communists are supposed to be, but rarely are) "revolutionary" state to lay claim to all the fiefdoms and subject kingdoms and realms of the Manchu Emperor; it was the Qing, for instance, who signed the dual-sovereignty treaty with Lhasa; but the CCP invoke the Qing treaty as the basis for their annexation of Tibet, as if the Qing had "imperialized" it in the same way, which of course is preposterous. If the CCP really wanted to push it, Vietnam and Korea were also subject realms, although their emperors were "fraternal" to the emperor, not of the same relatively lowly rank as a mere regional lord within China. If the CCP wanted to extend it to all neighbouring states which paid tribute to the Son of Heaven, then Burma, Cambodia, Thailand, Laos and Japan would also be on the block, and some of the Malay kings, too, I think. Still don't understand their claim to Siberia and the Russian Far East, though, given the fact that they've ignored the region hitherto for all their supposed six thousands years of civilization; the Russians are a more primitive people than they are, to listen to them tell it, because they were in silk while Europeans were living in caves and wearing furs etc; but the reality is the Russian Empire and its people had the gumption to slog across the taiga and deal with the bitter cold, and they didn't. Now that central heating technology and motorized transport is a reality, all of a sudden they've decided that it's rightfully China's....and the logic that's being put forward is that of lebensraum, at least not with the population-extermination thing attached to it (they already tried that at home with the Civil War, the Cultural Revolution and the Great Leap Forward);Skookum1 09:47, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

Territorial disputes

An example of a territorial dispute without irredentism? --Error 18:12, 31 July 2005 (UTC)

"Fifty-four forty or fight"! --Wetman 00:19, 1 August 2005 (UTC)

No, that was explicity an irredentism - overlapping imperial/national claims, albeit overlapping into supposed empty territory (actually the Oregon Country/Columbia District was home to 1/4 of the aboriginal people on the continent or more, with some long-term resident chieftaincies and histories traceable back, in some cases, centuries). The Puget Sound region was briefly irredentist, though largely unknown in this capacity, as British colonial politicians agitated for its repossession after the Oregon Treaty, and wanted to invade it during the American Civil War. The Fenian Raids from the American side (which never came) were part of an American irredentism campaign to go to 54-40 (this is long after Jackson and Polk I'm talking about; more like 1870s-80s).

A territorial dispute without irredentism would be that island that Denmark and Canada almost launched the nukes over this last year; some rock up in the straits between Greenland and Ellesmere. Norway's and Russia's dispute over Jan Mayen Land and other localities might constitute as a territorial dispute that's not an irredentism; national histories and populations are not involved; only ambitions and egos. Historically another that comes to mind is Spanish control, or attempted control, of the Netherlands, and the Austrians turn at it after Holland split itself off.Skookum1 09:55, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

==2003==kljkluhjkjhkjhkjhktfgk fubn

For a more clear-cut history and different, clearer, POV I'm going to change the Israeli & Palestinian list items. JoeHenzi 09:04, 24 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Do irredentist actions qualify as irredentism? I would submit that Mao Tse Tung's occupation of Xingjiang and Tibet were both irredentist in nature.

Bathrobe 07:37, 6 May 2005 (UTC)

Somewhat interesting how you mix and match nomenclature systems. Mao Tse Tung is Wade-Giles Chinese romanization, Xingjiang is an incorrect version of the Hanyu Pinyin Chinese romanization favored by the PRC, and Tibet, if memory serves correctly, is derived from the name of the indigenous population for the territory. If you use Tibet, why not use East Turkestan in lieu of Xinjiang? If you use Mao Tse Tung, why not Sinkiang for Xinjiang? If you use Xinjiang, why not Xizang in lieu of Tibet?

I only noticed this dig now. I am quite happy to mix and match romanisations. Are you trying to imply I should religiously follow the official Chinese romanisation system? I am writing English, not Chinese. (By the way, 'Xingjiang' was a typo).

Bathrobe 01:02, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

Oh, by the way, why is PRC claims to Taiwan considered irredentist? It looks more like the result of an unresolved civil war, where one government retreated to the territory, and the other government is prevented from laying the killing blow by other powers. If I understand properly, irredentist means the territory was snatched by a foreign power. Thus, you could properly call Chinese claims to Southeastern Siberia irredentist. I'm wrong, am I? Instr 10:02, 5 November 2005 (UTC)

Er, somewhere I don't have a book anymore...formal geopolitical theory has a precise definition of irredentisms, but I don't have the tomes anymore; and it's not in Ratzel I remember, but in a pair of So-and-so-and-So-and-so writers in a textbook on political geography, name forgotten. They were the guys who coined the term shatterbelt, in reference to places like the Caucasus, Palestine/Mid-East, Balkans, Central America, Southeast Asia (the era of the textbook was '60s-70s); irrendentism wasn't their term of course but they cited a definition for it and a bunch of examples, some of which I don't see on the main page as yet which I'll add when I can find some cites/details. There were two main categories;

1) conflicting claims or "fuzzy boundary", intermingling of ethnic territories and dynastic jangle-ups, i.e. where nation-state boundaries differed from, or were indefinable by, the geography of nationality and/or of dynastic claims (as in Eastern and Central Europe, for centuries the cause of much warfare and boundary-fiddling). This is the category that nearly everything on the obverse main page is in, and which includes things I'll list below; then there's ones that fit a third, disqualified category (from the definition/meaning as I was taught it 30 years ago, which means nothing except that that's what was taught then) which will follow the two operative ones, the second of which is:

2) isolated pockets of territory, sometimes fragmented along a boundary that on small-scale maps looks like an ordinary line, even a more or less straight line; but on large-scale maps it's revealed to be a belt of "islands" of each country in the either; the most famous and intricate of these is the Bengal-Bangladesh boundary, and to some degree Bangladesh-Assam, where Moslem principalities, villages and towns went this way and Hindu villages and towns went that. And like the map of renaissance and medieval dynastic Europe, it wasn't so much consolidated territory as inherited title that deterimined where the different cards lay between what would become two different countries. Farmland, delta, riverine waterways, not something easy to consolidate anyway. Can't think of any more of these at present but there's a few; just none as extensive as India-Bangladesh, other than the "original case", as if you have a real up-close look at the modern Italian-Austrian boundary, and even more so at pre-World War II and pre-World War I boundaries you'll see that there's all these little "islands" of territory - partly caused by realities of mountain terrain and access. In the other sense the Alto Adige is a Germanic/Austrian irredentism in Italy, because of its German character and mixed dialect of Italian and German (or there once was such a thing, anyway; probably standardized out now, I wouldn't know). I think the Dutch-German boundary is quite a bit like this too, and also the Dutch-Belgian one. West Berlin of course was one when East Germany was still separate.

Pre-unification Germany and Italy were one big interlocking irrendetist jigsaw puzzle, with one duchy or princedom owning ten or twenty or thirty different non-contiguous chunks of land.

Oh yeah - Nagorno-Karabakh, and its Azeri counterpart to the south of Armenia; and the like in the region; not Abhkazia though sometimes the Ossetias are considered irredentisms in Georgia and Russia respectively, but really they're an incipient state like the rest of the ethnic mess in that area (which thankfully isn't as interspersed as the interethnic irredentisms of village live in Bosnia or the Sanjak or the Krajina during the Yugoslavian Wars). I think maybe the Turkish-Syrian boundary is a little messed up, too. As with rebel splinters or absorbed states/peoples, incipient states don't count. It's more a question of border-crossing, or border-smudgingk, that "classical irredentism" is about.

Sometimes protruding pockets of territory, like Sopron, have been referred to as this kind of irredentism; nearly-surrounded apparently counts in some way. Guantanamo, Ceuta, Tangiers, etc.

3) This is the third, negatory category, things that are not irredentisms but get called them: Rebellious splinters do not count (Taiwan, technically - according to CCP and KMT political theory alike - neither is Tibet nor Eastern Turkestan as these were, though self-governing, theoretically suzerain to the Chinese Emperor.

Also not counting as irredentistic, in classic terms, are ordinary territorial disputes and the boundaries that shift with them, like the Golan Heights or the infamous (and if it were not for the high mortality rate rather farcical) 1979 war by China to try to seize some of North Vietnam while the Soviet Union was busy in Afghanistan; there were territorial-pocket No.2 irredentisms in this area and may still be; and along the Thai and Myanmar borders with China, and with each other, and also between Myanmar and Assam and also between Laos and Thailand and so on, for much the same reasons as between Bengal and Bihar.

Also "not counting" are occupied territories or displaced boundaries, other than when ancient claims are revived against contemporary boundaries, as in the Hungarian vision of a "Great Hungary" incorporating Croatia, Transylvania and Slovakia, plus lost Ruthenia (now in Ukraine) or Greater Serbia; and there are "dead issues" like East Prussia, the remaining splinter of which there is no question of returning to Germany (despite obvious advantages and local agitation for same for purely economic reasons, not national sentiment as all in Kaliningrad/Koenigsburg now are Russian). Polish designs on Ukrainian Galicia fall into this category; or the Dano-German boundary, at times in the past farther south, at times farther north, but now a dead issue.

Also "not counting" would be cases where the actual terms of a boundary treaty conflict with the reality of the boundary on the ground, but there is no dispute. A good example of this is the Canadian-US boundary from Manitoba westward, along the 49th Parallel. Because its survey was done with older instruments - and across forbidding terrain to boot, it's often off as much as by a hundred yards, to the tune of hundreds (thousands?) of square miles between Boundary Bay and the southwestern corner of "The Angle" in Minnesota (another potential dispute of the same kind, but shelved at the time of survey). Even across the Whatcom County-Fraser Valley boundary there is significant variation at different border crossings (can't remember which way it goes; I think Sumas WA should be in Canada by about 50 yards, and the Douglas border crossing buildings should be the border, not the Peace Arch; something like that; on Point Roberts the Canadian checkpoint is south of the 49th Parallel, I remember that. Deal is that there was some legalistic foresight when the treaty was drafted, as the boundary was to be the line as surveyed, not the actual line of the 49th Parallel. Simplified things when it came down to stuff like this; and was also the reason The Angle had not been resurveyed when the "mistake" was realized by the British half of the party and the joint expedition was decamped half a degree (a degree?) to the south, and the 49th Parallel re-commeced from there - rather than at Lake of the Woods, as had been the terms of the Treaty as to the point of commencement. But because it was the line as legally surveyed, because the legal survey party had surveyed it, it was now the boundary, and could not be revised without renegotiation and amendment. Muskeg and marsh for the most part, so the British demurred and went on without much fuss, although it was hell to pay over the Boundary Bay-Point Robets thing - Point Roberts is a category 2 irredentism, sort of - it has direct marine contact with its political mainland so it's not really irredentistic, but it is sort of.

Short list and more later:

• China's claims to the Northeast Frontier Province and Ladakh and, um, Nepal and Bhutan (Sikkim is technically Chinese constitutionally, as it was subject to Lhasa and Lhasa was subject to the Celestial Emperor; on the other hand, as gets pointed out by Tibetan nationalists, the Son of Heaven and the Ocean of Wisdom exchanged mutual suzerainties, the Dragon Throne gaining temporal suzerainty over Tibet (but not interference in government, other than to ratify the selection of the DL) while the Living Buddha gained spiritual sovereignty over China; theoretically the Buddhist Emperor was as subject, or more, to the Dalai Lama than a European king was to the Pope. Why a Communist Republic would assert the political claims of a hated imperial system and its dynasty on the one hand, and claim the prerogatives of associated religious authority (and the territory associated with that authority, much like a giant self-governing archbishopric on the Roof of the World, a mega-Salzburg.

• The claims to Eastern Turkestan are vaguer and get murkier when you bring in the White Russians who helped establish that name in the 1920s and 1930s, when the KMT and CCP couldn't do f-all about it; and that Kashgar and other cities in the area, as Khanates, go back thousands of years, perhaps to the days when the Tarim basin mummies roamed the region, and until intensive Han settlement moved in (like Tibet, and Manchuria and Inner Mongolia before them) the area may have been subject to political claims by the Manchu Empire and its various political heirs, it's not identifiably Chinese by culture, nor is Tibet.

• Western Mauretania/Moroccan Sahara; was that on the other page?
• that northern strip of Chad that Qaddafi has invaded a couple of times, only to get booted back by the French
• Kvenland, a Finnic-speaking ethnic area of northern Norway (the Kvens are not a majority, and no more native to the region than the Norwegians - the area is Sami originally - but it's a hot potato and even the way I put that will probably get somebody weigh in here against my choice of terminology.....sigh.). Not really an irrdentism, as Finland doesn't actually want the place, but the Kvens mumble about joining up with the Finnish-mixed provinces of northern Sweden (?? or something like that).
• Technically Karelia is an irrdentism, and the mix of Slav and Russian ethnicities along that boundary has shifted it back and forth over the centuries. Most Karelians are Russified culturally though some speak Finnish; there's no remaining cultural similarities after decades of Stalinism, and I'm sure the Finns in Finland aren't really interested in territorial expansion, and although their Karelian cousins are pretty much Russified they're still technically an irredentism by the fuzzy-boundary definition.
• Iranian (and before Iran, Persian royal/imperial) rule of bits of Azeri, Arab (Khuzi), Kurd, Baluchi and other border-ethnic regions/peoples
• Tamil Eelam, in its own way, although it comes from a migration rather than a political boundary imposed atop a social one;
• in the same way Kosovo Albanians were relative newcomers to that specific region vs the Serbs; if it was part of Albania it would have been an irredentism because Serbia claimed it, even though it was national sentiment, not historical populations, that underlay the claim; over a battle lost, not won, no less.
• Skåne, the county/province of Sweden across from Denmark, originally part of Denmark. Pretty much a dead issue between the kingdoms but apparently the people of Lund and Malmo, whose dialect is more like Danish than Stockholmese, occasionally make rumbles about getting a better deal from Copenhagen.
• I'll think of more. Once you get going it's endless

Tibetan Irredentism

Unlike Ladakh, Bhutan and Sikkim (which China no longer claims), Aksai Chin and Arunachal Pradesh are considered as part of Tibet Proper.

If there is a Tibetan irredentist claim, it should be over the provinces of "Inner Tibet" (from the Chinese viewpoint) or East and North Tibet, besides Ladakh, Lahaul and and the artificially manufactured and intrinsically alien identity "Arunachal"; parts of Tibet now included in Bhutan and the State of Mustang and other historic Tibetan lands included in Nepal. WikiSceptic 08:50, 15 November 2005 (UTC)

Since there is no longer a Tibetan sovereign state, then any "claims" that Tibet might have to administer lands outside the current region called "Tibet" fall into one of two categories:

¤ Tibetan wishes for lands of the Older "Greater" Tibetan honmeland transferred to Qinghai and Sichuan to return to the modern Tibetan region

¤ Chinese claims (on behalf of Tibet) to lands located in other states on the grounds that they formerly belonged to the Older "Greater" Tibetan honmeland, which China regards as being traditionally part of China.

--Big Adamsky 15:30, 28 November 2005 (UTC)

Tibet (and Xinjiang)?

I've made some edit. The cases of Tibet and Xinjiang have nothing to do with Chinese Irrendentism. Unlike those areas which China formally renounced [e.g. Outer Manchuria, Outer Mongolia (by PRC only) and the region lying on the south of Lake Balkhash], Tibet and Xinjiang have been continuously claimed by the sucessive Chinese governments, from the Qing monarchy to the Republics of KMT and CCP. Even though Tibet once declared independence in 1913, one year later Lhasa clearly renounced such claim by signing the Simla Agreement which reaffirmed her political subordination to China ("under the suzerainty of China"). In the case of Xinjiang, the area which was effectively controled by the short-lived East Turkestan Republic(s) formed only a small portion (city of Kashgar [1933-1934] and the "Three Districts": Ili, Altay and Tarbagatay [1944-1949] ) of present-day Xinjiang, so its more an example of the ability of a regional area to exert its local authority over the central government (ROC during civil war) than an existence of an All-Xinjiang (E.Turkestan) sovereign state, needless to say international recognition.--219.79.120.224 17:04, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

If your IP address turns out to be based in the People's Republic, your motives for these statements are all too clear. Of course, I've run into post-modern KMT types who also vociferously claim that China's claims to Tibet supersede any Tibetan aspirations for restored independence. That's right; "restored independence". The Qing-Lhasa relationship was one of shared suzerainty, with the Dalai Lama above Manchu Emperor on spiritual matters, the Manchu Emperor theoretically suzerain in temporal matters; much like the relationship between the HRE and the Pope, with formerly self-governing Tibet as the Papal State. I.e. Tibet/the Papal State was self-governing and self-administering, with no direct control from the Emperor. The Emperor's only power "over" Tibet was to ratify the selection of the Dalai Lama AND THAT's IT. Chinese money was not used, Chinese taxes were not levied, Chinese officials were not in place, Chinese was not in official or public use. TIBET WAS NOT CHINESE, but that doesn't stop the propagandists from constantly trying to wheedle that the Tibetans have no right to it.....

I've always found it ironic that Chinese nationalism - communistic or fascistic - invokes the Buddhistic relationship between the Qing Emperor - "the hated Manchu" - and the Dalai Lama as the basis of China's claims to Tibet, and justification for the bloodthirsty invasion and rape of that country and its ongoing colonization by Han industry and settlers, who never before would have dared enter "the Secret Kingdom". Han nationalists using Manchu treaties to justify themselves; all pretty pathetic. That there were no Tang, Yuan or Sung dynasty treaties with Tibet, and that before its pacifism Tibet was suzerain over large areas of China, they seem to want to forget mentioning. But the Manchu? Well, they may have been hated. They certainly are convenient, propaganda-wise, though, aren't they?

China used Tibetan irredentisms as an excuse for the Ladakh conflict and also its inroads into Arunachal Pradesh, and also as regards its onetime political statements about annexing Nepal, Sikkim and Bhutan (all, in the old days, technically subject to Lhasa). Skookum1 19:52, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

PS I was very vigilant on talk.politics.tibet about policing Chinese lies about Tibet; and will be advising my pro-Tibetan colleagues about the new entry in the propaganda sweepstakes here on Wiki. CCP/KMT propagandists BEWARE.Skookum1 19:52, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

Yawn.....The exact name, that you and your intelligent-pro-Tibet colleagues may not know, is "Cho-yon". It's an exact term applied in Protector-Lama relationship (the example of HRE-Pope does not fit well, see below). Furthermore, the Qing-Tibetan relation was not simply religious Cho-yon and the Emperor-Lama relationship itself was not equal at all but rather one of superior to inferior(The Patron established protectorate while the Lama[s] provide spritual guidance). For example, the Ordinance For the Government of Tibet, jointly drafted by the Dalai Lama, the Panchen Lama and a Military General named Fukangan[ M.C. Goldstein, 'The Snow Lion and the Dragon', p134, n15 ], and later promulgated by the Emperor in 1793, clearly decided on the organization of the Tibetan locality.[ibid, p20]. The Three-Priests-One-Secular system of Kashag Government which still existed until 1959, was established according to the Emperor's earlier decree in 1751 and codified in the 1793 Ordinance. And according to the Ordinance, the Imperial Resident Minister in Tibet (formal name of Amban), but not the Emperor himself, was placed on a par with the Dalai Lama and the Panchen Lama. The Resident Minister, unlike HRE over the Papal State, was in absolute charge of financial, diplomatic and trade matters(of course including local levies/taxation and the coin-minting facilities). Instances existed when the Emperors, Mandate of Heaven, exercised its sovereign rights by punishing and even deposing the Dalai Lama and other high-rank local officials [1706, 1904, 1910]. Please also kindly update your "knowledge" that the Amban's decrees and notices (namely Che Ling), which could be seen on streets in Qing-era Lhasa, were written in Chinese. DL's Seals and Appointment Certificates bestowed by the Emperors were written in four langauages including Chinese.

Kashag government indeed paid no tax to Beijing, but neither do TAR and HKSAR need to pay nowadays, and both HKSAR and RAEM even have its own currencies while CCP officials were nonexistance, anyone who has basic knowledge would not say these regions are independent of PRC!....."HONG KONG WAS NOT CHINESE"?

Even before those Ordinances were promulgated, the Chinese Emperor had had final say on the Tibetan affairs, since the 1720s the Chinese court has set up government in Tibet under Military General Yenshin and stationed a 3000-man garrison(Han, Manchu and Mongol) in Lhasa.[Zahiruddin Ahmad, The Historical Status of China in Tibet, The Tibet Journal, 1975] The Government under General Yenshin, in the words of a Christian Missionary who witnessed it, "had absolute dominion over Tibet"[ibid]

When the earliest British Mission first arrived at Tibet in the mid-18th century, the Tibetan leadership clearly told them that their country is a subject of the Chinese Empire and "all contacts had to be through Beijing"[A.T. Grunfeld, Making of Modern Tibet, p48]. It clearly shows Bejing's responsibility for Tibet's diplomacy and external trade, and the Mission eventually released their report in 1775 defining the status of Tibet:

"The Emperor of China is acknowledged as the sovereign of the country; the appointment to the first offices in the States is made by his order, and in all measures of consequence reference is first had to the Court of Peking" [C.R. Markham, 'Narratives of the Mission of George Bogle to Tibet and of the Journey of Thomas Menning to Lhasa']

Regarding the relations between Qing and the Republics, kindly note that since the 1689 Nerchinsk Conference, the Qing Government had continuously, without exception, refered itself to as "China" in all international documents signed by their plenipotentiaries. For example, the 1906 Anglo-Chinese Convention relating to Tibet:

"The Government of Great Britain engages not to annex Tibetan territory or to interfere in the administration of Tibet. The Government of China also undertakes not to permit any other foreign State to interfere with the territory or internal administration of Tibet."

The Tibetans also signed, before and after the Manchu court collaped, treaties which mentioned "under the Chinese officers' supervision and directions."(1908 Agreement on Amending Trade Regulations, Art. 3), "under the Suzerainty of China"(1914 Simla agreement, Art. 2), "forms part of Chinese territory"(Simla, Note Exchange), I dont see there is any question if anyone here regards the Republics as the succession states of the Qing Empire. So why did you deny what the Manchu and Tibetans have historically agreed? Or should they be regarded as CCP/KMT propagandists?

In the case of Arunachal Pradesh, British official maps published as late as 1914 still shows the Tibeto-Assamese boundary lying on the foothill of east Himalayas(also see this 1933 map). Once the Chinese-promulgated Imperial Ordinance became effective in Tibet in 18th century and the suzerainty/sovereignty over Tibet were thus confirmed and recognized (e.g. British Mission, and the GB governments who signed Tibet-related boundary treaties with China ), any claims made by the Chinese government, Imperial or Republican or Communist, over the region of present-day AP should not be regarded as "unreasonable".

Most importantly, irredentism means reincorporating lands administered by another sovereign state on the grounds of prior historical possession. Since successive Chinese governments have never renounced claims over Tibet, this case should not be classified as "irredentism".

I look forward to discussing further with you.....and your ""colleagues"" --219.79.120.224 08:55, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

If that is the case, does the ROC claim to Mongolia rate as irredentism?

Bathrobe 11:24, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

Yes it does, although disputably, ROC regarded Outer Mongolia as independent from 1946 to 1953

--219.79.120.224 12:13, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

West Germany

The article claims that West Germany's claims after World War II to former territories beyond the Oder-Neisse Line (now in Poland) and to East-Prussia (now the Russian exclave of Kaliningrad Oblast) is an example of a prominent irredentist dispute. On the face of it, this is absurd: prior to unification, West Germany was not making any claims against Warsaw Pact counties that bordered the DDR. It is also out of keeping with the conduct of West German diplomacy, which was to accept sacrifices to show that the nation has put the evils of Nazi Germany behind it. I've deleted the text. --- Charles Stewart 19:55, 29 November 2005 (UTC)

That is not entirely accurate. Prior to the Treaty in 1990, the West German government always formally upheld claims to the so-called Ostgebiete. Of course your moral argument still stands, though. Crix 03:11, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

"Triadic nexus"

Maybe this will be controversial, but I've deleted the stuff on the "triadic nexus" which Rogers Brubaker wrote about in his book Nationalism Reframed. I fail to see that the text adds any information to the article, I don't see any significance of Brubaker (aside from having written a book), and, let's face it, a "triadic nexus" by any other name is a bloody triangle ;). If I've missed something here please do restore the text and/or comment on my talk page: Brianski 03:13, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

constitutional vs. prominent claims

What's the rationale for listing only "constitutional" irredentist claims? The American standard of what constitutes a constitution, how easy it is to change, etc., is hardly universal, and as far as I am aware, international law makes no distinction between "constitutional" law and other law. More importantly, whether constitutional law is legally considered in a state to preempt international treaties varies — this is extremely important, in this context, as some "constitutional" claims might no longer be legally binding, comparable to US laws that have been declared unconstitutional.

In short, I just don't see the distinction as being important, and in fact we appear to be lacking reference to what I would consider the two main examples of irredentist claims, West Germany's claim to "all of Germany", while failing to define what precisely what that encompassed (note that while the citizenship definition in the 1948 constitution hinted at including parts of what's now Poland, the 1990 constitution explicitly revokes irredentist claims beyond the 1990 borders); and Serbia claiming Kosovo, which is de facto an independent country. (I'm not sure about the Falkland islands?)

I think it would be easier to write this article, and a better article, if the rather arbitrary constitutional/other distinction would not be so prominent. Anyone who'd like to keep it?

RandomP 08:36, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

international relations term

"Irredentism is an international relations term". This needs a source in English like an example from an international teaty or article in a respectable souce that uses the term, othewise the definition used should take the form used in other encyclopedias like: irredentism. The Columbia Encyclopedia, Sixth Edition. 2001-05 or Britannica: Irredentist. --Philip Baird Shearer 11:12, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

Irridentism/Expansionism/Pan-Nationalism Merge Discussion

I believe that all three of these concepts are distinct and we should Keep them as they are. Expansionism is the most distinct in that it often entails bringing people of one ethnicity under the government of another. In some cases irridentism and pan-nationalism can be the same, but I will give an example where they are not: Pan-Africansim, Namibians and Nigerians are both governed by Africans and those wishing to unite them are then pan-nationalists, not irridentists. --Cjs56 14:06, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

I agree entirely. The idea of merging those three different ideas into one article is ludicrous. They obviously are all separate concepts and deserver their own articles. --Hibernian 02:16, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

I agree with Hibernian and Cjs56 --Conudrum 16:49, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

I agree with the above comments. Though they may be related concepts, they should be given distinct articles. If you put them all together as 'expansionism', the next step will be merging them all with 'imperialism' :) Bathrobe 01:24, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

I think it useful to add the distinctions between the three. Irridentism may justify a resulting expansion or maybe just result in expansion as those nationalists outside of their 'mother country' might choose to allow those borders to extend over their own. Germany/Austria in 1938 I think happened that way. The three terms are related and can facilitate the same outcome in some instances while they are completely different in others. Address that.

I am not in favor of the suggested merger! Expansionism is a much more general term than irridentism. The article here emphasizes territorial expansion--but expansionism is not limited to that! In the future the expansionist policies of most importance (with respect to policy debate) may be "growing the economy" ones, and such policies may be opposed by those promoting a no growth / sustainable society. Globaleducator 16:57, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

Well i think we reached concensus--Andres rojas22 14:53, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

ROC territorial claims

Given that this article is lacking in good maps, and given that the map of the ROC's territorial claims is causing dispute over at the article on China, I've tentatively placed it here. I think it fits into the article rather well. I would welcome comments on my insertion of the map (either for or against). Irredentism being a touchy subject, I realise that not all editors are likely to be in agreement. Bathrobe 03:27, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

Removed Ireland

This is incorrect as the Government of Ireland of 1920 was superseded by the Anglo-Irish Treaty of 1922 with respect to the Irish Free State, and the Statute of Westminster in 1931.

Owing to the manner in which the island of Ireland became partitioned, most seceding from the United Kingdom in 1922, the United Kingdom continued to claim jurisdiction over the entire island until 1999 through the Government of Ireland Act 1920. This asserted that "the supreme authority of the Parliament of the United Kingdom shall remain unaffected and undiminished over all persons, matters, and things in Ireland and every part thereof."

Roadrunner (talk) 16:29, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

Constitutional irredentism

I have deleted this paragraph since it does not seem to be an example of irredentism:

Australia While not an irredentist claim, Section 6 of the Commonwealth of Australia Constitution Act names New Zealand as a State. "The States" shall mean such of the colonies of New South Wales, New Zealand, Queensland, Tasmania, Victoria, Western Australia, and South Australia, including the northern territory of South Australia. New Zealand was part of the colony of New South Wales until 1841.

See Talk:Constitution_of_Australia#New_Zealand. Thincat 12:54, 4 November 2005 (UTC)

I think that the Falklands should also be removed, in fact it is an even clearer case - the islands' inhabitants are ethnically British, not Argentinian (and as far as I know this was also the case before the Falklands' War). Amorphia 19:39, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

The Falklands (by whatever name) were initially claimed by France, but France passed them on to Spain. I think it must have been 18th century, as Bouganville was involved (please check). The British then invaded the islands (which war against the French? - there were so many :-) ) and supplied settlers, whose decedents live there today. Some think 200 years of squatting is enough (see Australia) while others don't (see South Africa). France originally had some settlers, but they were resettled elsewhere (French Canada?), but Spain never really settled the islands. Argentina, as the successor state to Spain, maintained the claim for sovereignty based on legal ownership, rather than by ethnicity. The point then is to decide if irredentism covers the inheritance of legal ownership or claim, as well as ethnic considerations. I think there is a fair claim based on equivalent outcome - a reasonable but contentious claim. Badja (talk) 10:21, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

Spain/Portugal

I have deleted the part mentioning the so-called "Portugalician Question" in the first place for not being, by any means, a case of constitutional irredentism, and in second place for being a more than minoritarian claim in both countries, Spain and Portugal. Although I can't say that the Olivenya Question is not a case of constitutional irredentism, I do have deleted the mention to "cultural genocide" for being a rupture of the neutrality and an extra-limitation on what should be a draft of territorial disputes. I also consider the references to the two websites listed on bottom as not neutral and partidary, and as such a clear case of self-promotion. --91.57.90.65 (talk) 11:07, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

The Olivenza paragraph makes no allusion to constitutions. It should not be there. --Error (talk) 20:26, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

Syria/Lebanon?

How the heck do you miss this example?

• Yes, there should be mention of the SSNP and Greater Syria. This is still relevant today, as shown during the 2008 fighting in Lebanon. FunkMonk (talk) 16:40, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

NK

I wonder why Dacy added this when he knows it is wrong. Irredentism refer to the annexion from a territory administrated by another. NK was never administrated by the republic of Azerbaijan, both declared their independence about the same time, and NK self ruled itself since then. The source is not credible and is contradicted by most, and I'm sure Dacy knows that it does not make sense, as the inhabitants of NK can not be irredentist under the definition of the word. And from when has Armenia annexed 15% of Azerbaijani terriory I wasn't aware that occupation equaled to annexion, also Armenia does not recognize what the NK army occupies outside of NK (since NK is not occupied) as part of Armenia. --VartanM (talk) 05:52, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

--I have strong reference. The most notable book on irredentism. So, pls. refrain from removing sourced information. And I don't want to launch dispute about NK affiliation before and after the collapse of the USSR. It is recognized as part of Azerbaijani territory - AzSSR before 1991 and Azerbaijan Republic after. If you have sources which denies irredentism there, pls. add. I don't mind. But do not remove well-known academic source. --Dacy69 (talk) 20:45, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

Don't divert the question and please answer me, since when did Armenia annexed 15% of Azerbaijan? VartanM (talk) 02:48, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

You can't delete sourced info. As for your question - it is your opinion. I am in opinion that it did. So did Thomas Ambrosio.--Dacy69 (talk) 15:38, 25 February 2008 (UTC) I added another source.

So, now anon user removing sourced information. That tactic won't work. The three sources are reliable and should remain in the text. I have not seen any decent counterarguments against these sources.--Dacy69 (talk) 18:01, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

I removed the quote because it is racist against armenians and pan turkist user dacy 69 aggresiveness is unnaceptable. also it is speculative and unencyclopedic. Qarabaq is not a union with armenia but rebels in mountains. however, since dacy is so interested in this topic of irrendentis, i will add more about azeri irredi in north iran, who poison peacful citizens of iran with grey wolf pan turkic nazi ideology, and also want to expand into north georgia and east-sout armenia border. now this attempt by goverment of azerbaijan is real irredentism! I will start adding about it, did you know there are dozens of books about azeri pan movements? very interesting! Azad chai (talk) 01:37, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

Pls. learn Wikipedia rules. here personal opinion does not matter. we have refer to references, particularly academic ones. I have three references. I have to refer to ANI for your disruptive behaviour.--Dacy69 (talk) 18:38, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

I registered with account, and I agree opinion does not matter so do not push your. if karabakh is part of great armenia movement, why is it already not annexed? I can find source to say anything too, it does not mean it is true ... sorry. Also, I will add about pan-turkist azeri terror irredentist attempts in iran, georgia and armenia tommorow. Azad chai (talk) 20:04, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Pls.learn wiki rules. You can't remove references if they are reliable. You can submit yours. And learn proper referencing.--Dacy69 (talk) 22:25, 10 March 2008 (UTC) I have tried to reason with this user, who intents on fanning nationalist flames here. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 149.68.31.146 (talk) 18:10, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

I warn your last time - stop making personal accusation. Now about your last edit. First, you should put dispute tag at the beginning of section, not before paragraphs you don't like. Secondly, add your reference after my edit, not before. And please refrain from frivolous changes. Moreschi suggested wording is more approproate.--Dacy69 (talk) 03:59, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

Your advocacy of the use of the phrase "Armenian irredentist project" amounts to racism. Are we next going to see you advocating the use of phases like "Zionist plot"? The sources that you are citing can have no credible evidence to back up their dubious claims, so they cannot be classed as reliable sources. There have been no attempts by the Republic of Armenia to claim territory in Azerbaijan, nor is there any official policy at any level to unite the NK Republic with the Armenian Republic. In fact, it is politicians in Azerbaijan who have recently started to make irredentist claims on Armenian territory. Meowy 15:11, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

I have rewritten the sentence, making it more NPOV and removing the offensive phrase "Armenian irredentist project". Meowy 15:21, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

I have removed the quote by so-called "prominent expert on irredentist movements" Thomas Ambrosio. His misuse of the word "annexation" disqualifies that quote from inclusion in a serious article. Annexation means the legal incorporation of one territory into another, no such event has taken place by Armenia in Nagorno Karabakh. (However, a annexation, on paper anyway, did happen - Azerbaijan abolished the Nagorno Karabakh autonomous region and incorporated its territory into Azerbaijan proper; perhaps mention should be made of that in the article.) Meowy 16:56, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

Who is this Nadia Milanova, and why should we care about her opinions? VartanM (talk) 05:58, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

Pakistan/Afghanistan

I have revised the sections pertaining to both countries since both sections reeked of anti-Pakistan bias. I have not omitted any details from the original content; merely reworded the sections and also added a few facts to make it more balanced. Please refrain from diluting facts or adding personal judgements.Truthseekerx (talk) 19:09, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

And it has been reverted. I would suggest you do not revert again because it appears to be your own personal view and original research. I would would also suggest you read WP:NOR, WP:NPOV and WP:RS, which are the bed rock policies of Wikipedia. And with a name like "Truthseekerx" I would suggest you also read WP:SOAP as well. Another good read is WP:BRD and WP:3RR. Your own personal opinions and strongly held beliefs do not trump Wikipedia's policies. Justin talk 10:20, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

And I shall revert it back to what I had added, given that none of my additions were my 'opinion' or 'conclusion'. International Law is not something I invented in my basement; it is embedded in United Nations principles. E.g: the universally applied Law that ALL treaties negotiated with a colonial power are transferred to successor states and uti possidetis juris. This has been Pakistan's OFFICIAL stance on the Durand Line subject, NOT my opinion, judgment or belief. Your ignorance & repetitive editing of the Durand Line segment to present a prejudiced & one-sided [pro-Afghan] story is preposterous to say the least. Simply pointing out a list of Wikipedia rules doesn't equate to you understanding them.Truthseekerx (talk) 15:27, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

I am neither pro nor anti-anything and again I would suggest you take the time to read the policy documents that I pointed to. WP is not your soapbox, nor it is intended to favour a particular viewpoint. I can also add WP:AGF and WP:NPA, seeing as you have managed to violate both already and just to remind you, you can be banned from editing wikipedia for personal attacks. Please desist. Justin talk 16:11, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

And it certainly is not your soapbox either. Nothing in my editing suggests any 'favor' to a particular side. I have merely balanced a biased article in line with WP policies. You are abusing your seniority level to obstruct an editor from presenting a Neutral point-of-view in an article that clearly took sides prior to the editing.Truthseekerx (talk) 16:32, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

I have no seniority, nor am I taking "sides" and you are also not presenting a NPOV. You are also continuing to respond with personal attacks that are unnecessarily antagonistic. Please stop. Justin talk 16:35, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

Engaging in rhetorical polemic is unnecessarily antagonistic as well. It would be more prudent, instead, to point out HOW or WHY my editing does not represent a NPOV.Truthseekerx (talk) 16:44, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

The rights or wrongs of Pakistan's case is not at issue here, the article is about irredentism. In insisting Pakistan is in the right you miss the point of the article and favour a particular POV. Justin talk 22:28, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

Sock Puppet Case Opened

Given that an editor who has not edited for 6 months has appeared to revert when Truthseekerx faced a block for 3RR if he reverted again, I suspect there is sock puppetry at work here. I have therefore opened a case here. Justin talk 22:28, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

Removed the Serbian Yugoslav Wars reference

There was no back up to this and it wasn't even close to being a fact but rather a person's opinion. Even in votes the reunification with Serbia was so close it can hardly be called irredentism. If you can get some factual information please restore it but not before than, because without it, it is only pure speculation 99.53.169.153 (talk) 20:02, 27 July 2009 (UTC)Mabel

Bolivia picture

Seeing that this article is lacking pictures i added this picture:

Bolivian irredentism over losses in the War of the Pacific (1879-1884): "What once was ours, will be ours once again", and "Hold on rotos (Chileans), because here come the Colorados of Bolivia"

This picture shows clearly a irredentism that exist in Bolivia toward Chile about territorial losses in the War of the Pacific. Under the mural it says; The mural shows a Bolivian soldier killing a Chilean one and says below:

"What once was ours, will be ours once again", and

"Hold on rotos (Chileans), because here come the Colorados of Bolivia"

A user, Justin, has reverted my 2 times saying that is not relevant. Why is it not relevant? isnt it an example of irredentism? Dentren | ^Talk 07:05, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

Because as I said, twice, there was no mention of Bolivia in the article, until you added a section. The picture was therefore unrelated to the text. Justin talk 08:13, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

Of course it is related to the text. The text is about irredentism and the picture shows a glass-clear example. It is more the picture shows the agresive and hostile stances of many irredentism movements toward the countries that controls the irredenta. Now, the specific case of Bolivia is mentioned in the text, which you have put forward as a requisite to have the picture (I dont know of any such wikipedia policies), so I will put the picture back. At Wikipedia:Images it says; Intangible concepts can be illustrated; for example, a cat with its claws out portrays aggression, while a roadside beggar juxtaposed with a Mercedes-Benz shows social inequality.. Again, this image illustrates the very well the concept. Dentren | ^Talk 11:49, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

Why New Zealand and not Canada?

I added this to article but it was removed, it is an analogous situation with Australia and New Zealand:

"Similarly, in the incipient United States, Article XI of the Articles of Confederation invited Canada to join the United States."

Should be readded or discussed.99.21.181.46 (talk) 07:28, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

Also, however it is different from the NZ case, it is only one line that does relate with the paragraph and possibly offer context or an analogy.99.21.181.46 (talk) 07:30, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

I'm going to readd it. Justin Kuntz--who removed it initially--if you have a problem with the line joining or following the paragraph please clarify your position here before removing it again.99.152.34.98 (talk) 14:50, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

Personal sentiments toward Serbia

The line: as well as continuing aspirations towards the Bosnian entity Republika Srpska, Kosovo and today's independent Montenegro offer a similar example. should be removed, as President of Serbia stated that Serbia doesn't have any claims towards neighboring countries. Kosovo is st 212.200.159.171 (talk) 21:39, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

Sikh Separatism

I've removed the following bit:

"In India, the goal of the Khalistan movement is to create a Sikh homeland, often called Khālistān (Punjabi: ਖ਼ਾਲਿਸਤਾਨ "The Land of the Pure"), in the Punjab region. Harking back to the 18th century Sikh Empire, the envisioned Sikh state would include all Punjabi-speaking areas, viz. Indian Punjab, Haryana, Himachal Pradesh and some other Punjabi speaking parts of states like Gujarat and Rajasthan. People have also claimed that Khalistan will include parts of the Pakistan Punjab as well because it is home to many holy Sikh shrines."

which is about Sikh Separatism, not irredentism. MayerG (talk) 08:10, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

Albania

It is a little unfair to claim that it is Albania that is claiming territory in Kosovo and other areas of the former Yugslavia where Albanians are present. Kosovar Albanians, for example, seek independence from Belgrade rule rather than unity with Tiranë. Of course, if their venture is succesful then it will be a different thing altogether should Kosovo and Albania merge to create one greater national state. If ever this were the plan until now, it has not officially been published and besides, it is neither here nor there: Kosovar Albanians have since making headway in the 90's spoken of independence, ie.an independent Kosovo under Kosovan Albanian rule and not Republic of Albania. as such it would be folly for this new proposed state with almost 90% of its people composing the principle population to hand over sovereignty to an already existing independent state. Celtmist 20:21, 10 September 2005

Certainly the article should describe Irredentism without evincing it. --00:20, 11 September 2005 (UTC)

Well it isn't "Albania" that is claiming the territory, but Albanians as a people. If you look up the first "declaration of independence" it was plainly about joining with Albania, it is simply the case that the latest claim is more evolved politically, there is more of a drive towards a consecutive type of progression. ie It is easier and more morally acceptable by the international community to claim independence from the original owner by claiming genocide etc (even if the original owner has full claim to the land) and later integrate the territory into your country than to outright claim annexation of an area that previously wasn't yours. There is less bloodshed the former way and the end result is much the same (ie a Kosovo under ethnic Albanian rule). 99.236.221.124 (talk) 08:43, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

Expansionism identical with irredentism?

The definition as given in the article Expansionism gives the reader the impression that it is the same as Irredentism. But isn't the difference in fact that irredentism refers specifically to reincorporation of lands outside a state's borders on the grounds of prior historical occupation? Manifest Destiny and imperialism across Siberia and the Caliphate were instances of territorial enlargement that did not purport to justify themselves in reference to histicoal ownership or occupation. //Big Adamsky 09:57, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

Irredentism is an excuse used for Expansionism. 99.236.221.124 (talk) 01:31, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

Macedonian Irredentism in Greece

It interesting to mention that Greece renamed "Province of northern Greece" into "Province Macedonia" in 1989, while the name of its neighbour was "Socialist Republic of Macedonia". That name is by constitution of the Yugoslavian Federation in 1974. Before that, the name was Peoples Federative Republic of Macedonia (1958) and before that was "Peoples Republic of Macedonia" in 1944 (First liberation) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.29.220.172 (talk) 14:38, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

The entire region covered by the Provinces of Macedonia is called "Macedonia". One province used to belong to Greece and one to Yugoslavia. It is interesting now that one of them is a country to see what will happen. 99.236.221.124 (talk) 01:33, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

Irredentism, nationalism, expansionism, imperialism, colonialism

All these words have definitely different meanings and should not be confused. In fact not all the territorial gains and claims mentioned in the article are to be correctly considered cases of irredentism.--Deguef (talk) 15:16, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

Citation Needed flag on Argentina

The flagged section on Argentina begins with a citation of where the quoted passage comes from. Shouldn't this flag be removed? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Fraktol (talk • contribs) 05:56, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

The military junta in which ruled Argentina from 1976 to 83 and proposed annexation of not only the Falklands, South Georgia and South Sandwich islands, they declared Chile "shall be defeated and annexed" while the two were locked in a border feud over a few islands by Tierra del Fuego (see also Beagle conflict). + 71.102.11.193 (talk) 07:09, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

Italy

"This originally referred to Austro-Hungarian rule over mostly or partly Italian-inhabited territories such as Trentino and Trieste during the 19th and early 20th century."

Trentino? Really? I mean, Trieste, yes, but Trent well within Italy proper, and I don't think it was under Austrian control. Some other city, perhaps? /blahedo (t) 00:10, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

• Yes Trento and the northern part of the Lake of Garda were under Austrian rule up to 1918 even if the total population was ethnically Italian. In Trieste and Western Istria the large majority of inhabitants was ethnically Italian (with Slovenian, Croatian, German, Istro-romanian, etc. minorities). Also the towns of Fiume (today Rijeka) and Zara (today Zadar) had an Italian majority. In Eastern Istria and Dalmatia the Italians were a minority.--Deguef (talk) 11:42, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

Lack of citations--now three years!

I note that the foreshadowed removal of unsourced content from this article is long overdue. However, I have gone through and separately tagged some of the more obvious defects before taking the necessary action. Cheers Bjenks (talk) 16:27, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

• And where did this new information come from: "However, in the case of Hong Kong, irrendentism was incidental: The New Territories part of the British colony were only on a lease expiring in 1997 anyway and, with their surrender, it was thought the Crown territory of Hong Kong itself would be unviable as an entity independent of mainland China. Of course, irrendentism could be considered to have played a role in that the People's Republic of China had no intention of renewing the lease on the New Territories."; another gaily unsourced article!—Zujine|talk 04:24, 24 December 2010 (UTC)

Kurdish people

The article Kurdish people links here but this article has no information about ethnic Kurdish irredentism. Is the topic important enough to include? Binksternet (talk) 05:59, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

Bosna-Sandzak switches

Did the Bosnian Republic ever assert claims on the Muslim territories in the Sanjak (as it's spelled in English)? (which, for those unfamiliar with the Sanjak of Novi Pazar, is a narrow Muslim-flavoured strip from the corner of Bosnia across towards Kosovo, and dividing Serbia from Montenegro; the Sanjak is in Serbia completely I think; the title is that of a Turkish military province of key geopolitical and treaty importance - because of its cultural legacy from Ottoman days as well as being Serbia's access to Montenegro and the Sea. Srebrenica and Gorazde were, I think, in the Sanjak. I didn't look on the list overleaf in detail, but I gather the Krajina is on the list? It of course, is subject not only to being a Serb irredentism in Croatia, but also somewhere still on the list of lost territories of the Kingdom of Hungary......(of which Croatia was a fief, with Slovenia "belonging" to the Kingdom of Austria, or rather to its ruling dynasty, the Habsburgs; unlike the other Yugoslavian Republics Slovenia had once been part of the Holy Roman Empire; all of them, of course, had been part of the original Roman Empire).

It wasn't 'til I dropped by this page that I had any idea there were so many disputes as to what was an irredentism and what wasn't, and how political it all is. The thing about Germany above is, as I understand it, because of legal/constitutional claims and documents left over from the Reich (I mean the Zwischen Reich, not the Dritten); Silesia and East Prussia and Pomerania had been German duchies which, over time, had been absorbed by the growing Kingdom of Prussia; land-law and latent "ancient claims" could have been invoked by a later government if Willy Brandt hadn't signed off on the Oder-Neisse Line and given Silesia and East Prussia to Poland in perpetuity (well and part of East Prussia to Lithuania, its capital Konigsberg to be an isolate of the RSFSR - Kaliningrad).Skookum1 09:35, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

BiH is less than 50% Muslim, I don't think they can claim anything without having Croats claiming southern BiH, Serbs claiming north BiH and eastern Croatia etc. If Bosnia or Croatia claimed parts of Serbia, they stand to lose more territory in a counterclaim. 99.236.221.124 (talk) 08:47, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

Bosnia (as in short for BiH) never claimed any part of any of 3 neighboring states, publicly nor secretly. Moreover, public opinion on the issue of Sandjak (or any other territory), at least opinion of some 50% of Bosniak, is unanimous and unambiguous : no reason, need or base for any claims of any part of these countries, while no claims toward Bosnian territory will be tolerated anymore, ever again. Pretty fer, ha.--Santasa99 (talk) 10:48, 21 October 2011 (UTC)

Please remove the examples sections. This is an article on a controversial topic.

Please remove the examples sections of all the different irredentist claims. It is biased because the only ones included are ones that someone typically has a chip on their shoulder about. The only way to be far to all countries and all nations would be to include every single irredentist movement - that would be in the hundreds and is unacceptable. Removing the examples section, place a table at the bottom for all the irredentist claims, like Greater China, Greater Croatia, Greater Germany, Greater Serbia, Greater Syria, etc. but don't explain all about them, let the specific articles on them do that.--R-41 (talk) 22:17, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

Better add the details here instead of removing. Or some may have their own articles for that purpose. Removing actual examples is not a good idea. --lTopGunl (talk) 14:37, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

Israel and the Palestinian Territories

The section on the Palestinian Territories is misleading and not balanced.

As Wikipedia defines irredentism, the term means any claim made to territory "administered by another state." This definition is incomplete, because a) it limits irredentism to territory held by another state (whereas irredentism can also include claims to territory held by non-state actors), and b) by "another" it implies that the irredentist claim must be made by a state (whereas irredentism can be a claim by a political party, nation, organization, individual, etc.). As Merriam Webster defines it (and as most people understand it), irredentism is a political policy (by anyone, any organization, or any state) advocating incorporating irredentas into a nation based on historical or ethnic claims.

That said, the Palestinian claim to all of Jerusalem is irredentist (although not state irredentism, because there is no state). However, the Israeli claim to all of Jerusalem (and particularly the Israeli Basic Law on Jerusalem) is irredentist as well, because East Jerusalem (annexed or not) is not recognized as Israeli territory under international law.

As written, the Wikipedia paragraph on irredentism in the Palestinian Territories is inconsistent with the Wikipedia definition of irredentism (which I argue should be changed anyway), because the Palestinian Territories are not a state. It is also misleading, because the Palestinian claim is not irredentism because of the Basic Law-- it is irredentism because of international law. The Jerusalem Law annexed East Jerusalem, and Palestinian irredentism is based on a claim to West Jerusalem.

Moreover, for the sake of balance a section should be added on Israel that notes that the Jerusalem Law is also a form of irredentism, since it makes a historical (and legal) claim to an irredenta (East Jerusalem) not recognized as Israeli territory according to international law (see the Wikipedia page on "International Law and Israeli Settlements," which discusses the question of East Jerusalem in international law.)

98.218.147.56 (talk) 01:01, 13 September 2011 (UTC)Bethany W.

I would add that the sentence, "However, Israel has settled hundreds of thousands of its citizens in various Israeli controlled settlements in the West Bank, where Palestinians are denied permission to live, and has implied that it will never withdraw them." is both biased and inaccurate, and probably should be removed. ~~22:50 GMT, 2012 March 18 Ð’n^talk —Preceding undated comment added 22:51, 18 March 2012 (UTC).

References

Hong Kong

I removed several sentences from the UK issues section as they seemed to contradict themselves and the paragraph as a whole (removed text: "However, in the case of Hong Kong, irredentism was incidental as the New Territories part of the British colony were only on a lease expiring in 1997 anyway and, with their surrender, it was thought the Crown territory of Hong Kong itself would be nonviable as an entity independent of mainland China. Of course, irredentism could be considered to have played a role in that the People's Republic of China had no intention of renewing the lease on the New Territories."). Does anyone have any idea what these sentences were supposed to be saying and how to integrate that with the current text? --Khajidha (talk) 20:45, 11 November 2012 (UTC)

Republic of Macedonia irredentism

Clarification12 please stop you disruptive editing. It might not be a constitutional irredentism but it is an irredentism (see United Macedonia for more). In the same section (Other irredentism) other not-constitutional irredentisms are also listed, so please revert yourself. Macedonian, a Greek (talk) 08:43, 28 January 2013 (UTC)

Germany in Origins

The content on Germany in the origins section seems to be excessive. It's all relevant, but should perhaps go into another section. The question I have is where it should go. The rest of the article seems to be more current in its coverage whereas the Germany content is more of a historical reference. Are there other examples we could combine into another section maybe? —Zujine|talk 15:53, 28 January 2013 (UTC)

US AOC

I removed the section on the US Articles of Confederation. It has nothing to do with irredentism. The provision was included to allow Quebec (called Canada and administered by Britain) to join in the federation. There was no claim to it, just simply a provision that allowed the remaining British territory in North America to become part of the confederation if it so wanted. To say otherwise would mean the current US Constitution would apply an irredentism claim to the whole world since Article IV Section 3 allows Congress to admit new states. Caffeyw (talk) 13:48, 9 September 2013 (UTC)

Moved Bangladesh, not sure about India and Indonesia

I moved Bangladesh here [1] as clearly not belonging as there's nothing at all about there being anything in the Bangladeshi constitution about any irrendentist claims, in fact the section seems to cast doubt as to the existance of any irredentists claims suggesting it is fiction. I left Indonesia and India even though these sections have related problems. While both of these mention support of various politicial parties and in both cases there have been wars fought (and in the Indonesia case at least the wars were at least partly based on irredentist official government policy), in neither case does our article actually many the irredentism being part of the constitution which is what the section is supposed to be about. It may be that there is or once was irredentism as part of the constitution, if so that will need to be added to the text. The alternative is to move them as well. Nil Einne (talk) 07:42, 14 November 2013 (UTC)

why Philippines is Removed?

The Philippines had also a case of Irredentism claiming the Eastern part of North Borneo (which is Sabah) and the Spratly Islands — Preceding unsigned comment added by Philipandrew (talk • contribs) 04:38, 3 January 2014 (UTC)

Israel

The language and narrative of the Israel section seems incredibly far from WP:NPOV. The phrase that epitomizes that is "unilaterally annexed." "Annexation" implies that it is unilateral; saying it explicitly is linguistically unnecessary and just makes it sound like an accusation. It's like saying "Billy Ray Cyrus deliberately wrote 'Achy Breaky Heart.'" The whole section is written this way. I'm not "unilaterally" changing it, since this is a sensitive topic, but it really could use a rewrite. (Also, for the sake of balance, we should add Palestinian claims on the Temple Mount on the grounds that Mohammad took a mystical journey there in the 7th century.) Calbaer (talk) 03:11, 5 July 2014 (UTC)

This article lacks an introductory overview

The article makes reference to lots of individual irredentist claims, but lacks a theoretical framework that provides a coherent overarching explanation and discussion of the phenomenon.

Get cracking, people!

98.186.170.137 (talk) 19:10, 21 July 2014 (UTC)

What about Greek Irredentism?

Why is there no mention of Greek Irredentism? The Megali Idea may be the first modern Irredenist movement in the balkans; it should certainly be included

149.31.226.37 (talk) 01:54, 1 February 2014 (UTC)

Good point; I was wondering about that too. It used to be mentioned in the article back in 2006; I've added it back. --Florian Blaschke (talk) 00:10, 26 August 2014 (UTC)

Berwick

What is Berwick doing in this article? Seriously - can this be reviewed. 31.50.192.21 (talk) 22:22, 13 November 2013 (UTC)

The Berwick dispute may become important if Scotland goes independent. For instance both governments may wish to tax it. Andrew Swallow (talk) 18:53, 2 March 2014 (UTC)

Still, its situation has nothing to o with irredentism, at least not in the way it is described. I remove it. Snowsuit Wearer (talk|contribs) 23:12, 15 March 2015 (UTC)