Talk:List of sovereign states in the 2010s

Azawad

As Azawad has now been deemed to fulfill the requirements to be included on the List of sovereign states, I thought it only right and proper to add it here and to make the relevant changes to the Mali entry. Any disagreements? 86.178.182.255 (talk) 19:20, 6 April 2012 (UTC)

Syria/SNC

I'm not sure that the SNC fulfills the criteria for being a sovereign state, because it's based outside the country and thus doesn't have permanent control over any territory in the way that the NTC did which qualified it for entry here. Obviously that could change, but it seems a little unrealistic to list Homs as the de facto capital of opposition Syria when Bashar al-Asad was being paraded around it a week or so ago. At the moment, I'd say the TNC is basically a government-in-exile, which wouldn't qualify it for inclusion.

I'm not going to remove it for now because I'd welcome other people's views to see if I'm the only one who thinks this, but that's certainly the angle that I'd take. 86.178.182.255 (talk) 19:34, 6 April 2012 (UTC)

Disputed

Palestine is not a sovereign state and many references indicate this. The entry should be deleted from this article, but until then the disputed/no source tags are appropriate. This is currently under discussion on the Dispute Resolution board. 99.237.236.218 (talk) 15:05, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

Palestine

I had a go at updating the Palestine section with regards to the UN permanent observer thing, but I wouldn't consider myself an expert in international relations so I'd be glad for someone to check it over. Frickeg (talk) 12:22, 8 June 2013 (UTC)

I'm confused about the longform name, I thought it was always State of Palestine? – Illegitimate Barrister (talk • contribs), 03:15, 22 November 2019 (UTC)

Separating Libya into two nations during this timeline

To explain my edit of separating Libya into two political entities during this portion of the time line I would like to draw your attention to the american civil war where the CSA is considered a defacto state itself despite fighting for independence. I know that the rebels claimed to be the legitimate government during the civil wayr but much like the congo crises there were two governments vying for legitimacy with the national community. Therefore I have split each Libya apart because both sides controlled land and a fore filled the general description of statehood. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Benuminister (talk • contribs)

So you accept that there was only one sovereign state during this period but still want the article to claim that there were two?

(The situation is - fairly obviously - in no way analogous to the Confederacy,which claimed to be a separate state, not a separate government of the same state.) Kahastok talk 22:48, 19 December 2014 (UTC)

Not at all, I mean to say I find it more neutral to mention both here as there were effectivly competing governements at the time. I also mentioned the Congo Crisis where, after the execution of Patrice Patrice Lumumba, the nation split not only into separatist elements but competing governments both in Staleyville and Leopoldville. As with these mentioned entities, there was a point at which some international government recognized one group over another. So this means effectively both could be considered sovereign states at the same time.

As mentioned before I find it would be more neutral to list both separately because of this odd circumstance.Benuminister (talk) 23:14, 19 December 2014 (UTC)

What you're arguing is effectively like saying that we should add a new entry for the US after 2016, because there'll be a different government. Or, there should be two entries for France, one for the period before 2012 under Sarkozy, the next for the period after 2012 under Hollande. No, it was the same state, with a different government.

You won't be surprised to learn that this came up at the time on the various lists. The recognition point came up, and it was not accepted, because it was about recognising governments and not states. No state at any stage recognised or even suggested that the Libyan rebels constituted a different state from Gaddhafi's Libya, only that had replaced Gaddhafi's government as the legitimate government of the continuing Libyan state. At no stage, therefore, were there two Libyas on the lists. There's no reason to change that decision here. Kahastok talk 23:33, 19 December 2014 (UTC)

For one not arguing for that point. What I was arguing is that because of the formal split in international recognition of the sole legitimate government, there existed a point in which both side of the conflict could be considered a sovereign state. Much like Vichy France was considered an independent state apart from France and it's government in exile or the recognition of the Baltic States despite their territory being under Soviet control. (Thank goodness for talk pages) Benuminister (talk) 23:50, 19 December 2014 (UTC)

Vichy France had separate territory from occupied France. There is only one Libya, just a change in Govt and two competing governments for a while. Legacypac (talk) 03:33, 20 December 2014 (UTC)

Including or Excluding IS or ISIL?

Now I;`ve been seeing some frantic editing removing and readding the Islamic State (Islamic State in the Lavant) to this list. Although I may disagree politically to their existance I would argue that they do meet the requirements of statehood. However I would like to discuss this topic before readding them to the list as it seems to be a touchy subject. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Benuminister (talk • contribs)

It's been dealt with at Talk:List of sovereign states and ISIL's inclusion has been rejected along with the DPR and LPR. - SantiLak (talk) 21:11, 19 December 2014 (UTC)

Indeed. That they should be excluded is now well-established consensus. There is no obvious factor that applies here that does not apply there, that would lead us to a different conclusion. Kahastok talk 22:50, 19 December 2014 (UTC)

Noted but may I see this consensus? Because for a while ISIL as well as the DPR and the LPR was listed on the page with little to no problems. Benuminister (talk) 23:17, 19 December 2014 (UTC)

This is the most prominent and most formal example, but the same editors made the same points repeatedly so you'll easily be able to find plenty of other examples with a brief look through the archives. Kahastok talk 23:35, 19 December 2014 (UTC)

Ahh, I see because the sovereign states list does not include those countries in armed transition. It would take a period of peace between neighbors to recognize states (noting this would also defeat my libya dicussion above). If that is the criteria I will submit on that point. Is there any way to sticky that to the top of the page itself?Benuminister (talk) 23:54, 19 December 2014 (UTC)

Suggestion: Adding a Separate Category for Conflict States

As stated above I suggest we add this section to the article to cover those states that are formed in conflict but never gain complete control over their complete area. Ie states created in the russian civil war that lasted for a short time. LPR, DPR, ISIL, or any polity resulting from separatist movements like Tamil Eelam. I still need to come up with a more concrete discretion for these type of states so I would like some help doing that.Benuminister (talk) 00:02, 20 December 2014 (UTC)

Nothing should be added to this page that does not pass the agreement on the List of sovereign states page. I am about to rollback a series of innappropriate edits adding the breakaway sections of Ukraine. Legacypac (talk) 17:49, 17 January 2015 (UTC)

Republic of Crimea

Well, I can understand that many of users here couldn't recognize Crimea as a self-governing state for a several days, it can be. But in question of belonging to Russia or Ukraine English Wikipedia having some mismatches now. Firstly, according to "Russia" section of current page, Russia has 21 republics and 2 federal cities. At the same time, according to that page we can see that Russia has 22 republics (with image where Crimea is a part of RF), and according to that - has 3 federal cities (with image where Sevastopol and Crimea are parts of RF). Secondly, according to "Ukraine" section of current page, "Ukraine HAD one autonomous republic: Crimea". Usually that means that Ukraine lost that territory, but according to that page, we can read next: " is a de jure autonomous republic of Ukraine covering most of the Crimean Peninsula". So Ukraine lost it or not?

And finally, the most interesting thing: According to "Russia" and "Ukraine" sections of current page Crimea is STILL NOT the part of Russia, but ALREADY NOT the part of Ukraine. So, logically, it means that Republic of Crimea must be self-governing? No, as it turned out, because these edits were cancelled from the page.

Sorry for my not ideal English.

Mc9902 (talk) 12:03, 6 March 2015 (UTC)

To be clear Crimea is currently controlled and claimed by Russia whose claim to it is recognized by a limited amount of states and disputed by other states, especially Ukraine. Technically as it is a de facto part of Russia and controlled by them, it isn't a sovereign state itself. It is governed by the Russian federal government, it isn't independent or sovereign just like the other Russian republics aren't. - SantiLak (talk) 00:46, 7 March 2015 (UTC)

I don't argue that now Crimean Republic is not independent. But Crimea formally accessed to (not annexed by) Russia at March 21, 2014. But before it here we can read that on March 17, "...declared ... the formal independence of the Republic of Crimea...". So during the period of March 17-21, 2014 Republic of Crimea was self-governing. Mc9902 (talk) 08:35, 7 March 2015 (UTC)

It declared itself an independent republic while being occupied by "little green men" as they were called, who happened to share the same weapons, equipment, and tactics of the Russian armed forces. It was annexed, lets be real and even if we want to stick with the story the Russians give, it doesn't qualify as a sovereign state with its 18 days or so of "autonomy" where it doesn't meet the criteria. - SantiLak (talk) 09:36, 7 March 2015 (UTC)

Well, but I want to say one important thing: Russian armed forces was at Crimea according to the Kharkiv Pact, but you can think as you like, I won't interfere. Mc9902 (talk) 10:23, 7 March 2015 (UTC)

As it was recognized by russia, it meets the criteria for inclusion under the constitutive theory of statehood regardless of whether or not it meets the declarative theory. It therefore meets the criteria to be included on this page, just as the South African bantustans do for the 1980's and 90's.XavierGreen (talk) 22:55, 16 June 2015 (UTC)

I agree that the Republic of Crimea should be included for the short period during which it claimed independence. In my opinion these lists should reflect reality, without much regard to legality. For example in case of annexation the annexed state ceases to exist, regardless of the legality, and shouldn't be included is a list of sovereign states anymore, and likewise with secession. ZBukov (talk) 08:20, 17 June 2015 (UTC)

• Fixed. The problem here is that legislature of Crimea was taken over by Russian special forces during the "vote" for "independence". Therefore, vast majority of sources do not consider the "republic" as ever existing independently. As a part of Russia or Ukraine - yes, sure. My very best wishes (talk) 12:17, 27 September 2017 (UTC)

In other words, the events are considered annexation of Ukrainian territory, not an annexation of an independent country. My very best wishes (talk) 12:42, 27 September 2017 (UTC)

Crimea was not independent for a few days. It was annexed by Russia (if that will stick, is yet to be decided). Legacypac (talk) 21:24, 27 September 2017 (UTC)

More precisely, it was officially (according to the "Russian position) "independent" during two days, while occupied by Russian forces, including their parliament taken over by special forces. My very best wishes (talk) 20:13, 4 December 2017 (UTC)

The fact that it was recognized by Russia as a sovereign state for any length of time warrants its inclusion under the constitutive theory of statehood, recognition by a UN member (which Russia is) has always satisfied the inclusion criteria for this and all the other "list of states" pages. I have added a citation to the page relating to the Russian recognition.XavierGreen (talk) 14:29, 5 December 2017 (UTC)

According to nearly all sources, the territory was annexed from Ukraine. The Russian officials could claim something, but it was already de facto occupied by Russia at the time of the "referendum" to join Russia. So, it was not de facto or de juro independent even for a single day. Regardless, most contributors above agreed this should not be included. My very best wishes (talk) 21:43, 5 December 2017 (UTC)

That is irrelevant, it is not required that a state be defacto independent to be listed on this page, only that it be recognized as independent by at least 1 UN member state, which Crimea was. This is in line with the constitutive theory of statehood, and has been argued many times before on the associated list of sovereign states talk page.XavierGreen (talk) 19:26, 6 December 2017 (UTC)

• No, it is absolutely required that a state in the "list of sovereign states" was described as an independent/sovereign state in majority of RS on the subject per WP:NPOV. This edit only documents a claim by Russian government that it was an "independent" country at the time when it was in fact occupied by Russian military forces. Most sources and international community do not tell that the territory was an independent country and consider this whole thing as an annexation or an occupation of Ukrainian territory. If you feel strongly about it, you are welcome to post an RfC. My very best wishes (talk) 19:42, 6 December 2017 (UTC)

You are telling that it "has been argued many times before". OK, can you please give any links to these discussions? Thanks, My very best wishes (talk) 19:47, 6 December 2017 (UTC)

The situation with Crimea is exactly akin to that of Northern Cyprus, both were recognized by a single UN member state and thus meet the inclusion criteria. Go search the talk page archives of the list of sovereign states and list of states with limited recognition pages, there are literally dozens of archived talk pages discussing the inclusion criteria, and the constitutive theory of statehood has always been reflected in inclusion criteria as recognition by a UN member. There have even been lengthy discussions regarding whether or not recognition by a defacto state would warrant a polity's inclusion (ie the Donetsk Peoples Republic is recognized by South Ossetia).XavierGreen (talk) 21:11, 6 December 2017 (UTC)

I remember there were a couple of discussions about Donetsk Peoples Republic, and it was decided do not include it even to the list of states with limited recognition (although I am not sure that consensus was clear). Can you give me any links to discussions with a clear consensus about criteria for inclusion, such as Sovereign_state#Constitutive_theory, for example? If you can't, I have to assume there was no such discussions. Now, if I understand correctly, Northern Cyprus is not an official part of Turkey (so your analogy is not good), but this is another question. My very best wishes (talk) 21:45, 6 December 2017 (UTC)

This is a page of historical sovereign states, it matters not if a state was eventually absorbed or annexed by another for a state to be listed here. In fact, there are many such states listed throughout this series of pages. For instance, if you look at the List of sovereign states in the 1990s page, you will see a whole host of de-facto states that have since been absorbed into other states. For example, Venda and Transkei were two states recognized as independent only by South Africa. They were subsequently reabsorbed back into South Africa, but are listed on the page because they existed as defacto sovereign states under the constitutive theory of statehood. Northern Cyprus is exactly akin to the situation Crimea was in while it was recognized as an independent state by Russia. Northern Cyprus is occupied by Turkish troops, and is only recognized as a sovereign state by Turkey, akin to how Crimea was occupied by Russian troops and recognized only by Russia in its brief existence.XavierGreen (talk) 14:39, 7 December 2017 (UTC)

I will have to check the links, but if you insist, the page should be reverted to previous (consensus) version, and an RfC should be posted. Do you agree? My very best wishes (talk) 22:01, 6 December 2017 (UTC)

For the relevant discussion on the talk pages which established the current inclusion criteria, see these archived talk pages [[1]], if you look at the sidebar of the page you will see links to 8 archived talk page discussions which established the current inclusion criteria, including the bit about recognition by a UN member / constitutive theory of statehood. Its worth noting that from the point of recognition by Russia, Crimea was included in the main list of sovereign states. It seems to me that the consensus is to include Crimea, and you are the one trying to change that.XavierGreen (talk) 14:39, 7 December 2017 (UTC)

Thank you. No, Crimea was not included in the list of sovereign states. This page only includes Ukraine and tells: Ukraine contains an autonomous republic, Crimea. In 2014 Russia annexed the region along with Sevastopol turning them in one of its federal subjects as Republic of Crimea and city of Sevastopol.. OK, this is correct information, but it does not justfy inclusion on this page. I also quickly checked the links about criteria for inclusion. These discussions are kind of messy and tldr. I do not really see a strong consensus about anything. Probably this is the reason none of these discussions was officially closed by anyone. My very best wishes (talk) 15:10, 7 December 2017 (UTC)

Crimea was indeed listed on the main list of sovereign states page after it was recognized by Russia, here], it was subsequently removed after it was annexed by Russia a few days later.XavierGreen (talk) 17:30, 7 December 2017 (UTC)

In regards to the inclusion criteria. There were multiple RFC's and dispute resolution processes that were held to come up with the current inclusion criteria and framework, if you dispute its validity, i suggest that you open up a new discussion on the list of sovereign states challenging the inclusion criteria, but you won't get very far if you do. It literally took years of discussion to come up with whats there now, and overall it seems like the community is pretty satisfied with whats currently there.XavierGreen (talk) 17:30, 7 December 2017 (UTC)

What we do with other states is irrelevant, I am not sure any RS have called Crimea a sovereign state. As to the others, they should be removed too.Slatersteven (talk) 15:17, 7 December 2017 (UTC)

For purposes of NPOV, it is entirely relevant. There are a host of reliable sources which state that Russia recognized Crimea as independent during the brief time the Republic of Crimea claimed independence. One such source from the Russian government itself is linked in the article. The Russian government is a reliable source as to what its own laws and treaties are, ect.XavierGreen (talk) 17:06, 7 December 2017 (UTC)

• Per WP:NPOV and WP:RS, you need a consensus of reliable sources telling literally this: "The Crimea is/was a sovereign state", not that "Russia claimed a certain territory to be a sovereign state" (at the time it was de facto occupied by Russia). Same can be said about any other country included to the lists (such as Cypus or whatever) , but this is slightly outside the scope of the discussion. My very best wishes (talk) 17:46, 7 December 2017 (UTC)

We have sources stating that Russia recognized Crimea as a sovereign state, that is sufficient for inclusion. The sovereignty disputes surrounding these entities are the entire reason they have their own section near the bottom of the page, the NPOV issue has already been accounted for with the notation on the page that the status of Crimea is disputed.XavierGreen (talk) 19:19, 7 December 2017 (UTC)

No, that wold be against WP:NPOV. You must have multiple scholarly sources telling "Country/territory X is a sovereign state". I do not see it all. Moreover, this assertion should not be challenged by a large number of other good RS. If this happens, the inclusion of country X is controversial and should be decided by WP:Consensus. My very best wishes (talk) 19:58, 7 December 2017 (UTC)

As follows from discussion at NPOV noticeboard, Crimea did not satisfied even declarative theory of statehood, as explained here. Hence removed. My very best wishes (talk) 04:33, 12 December 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on List of sovereign states in the 2010s. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080626003221/http://www.orderofmalta.org/attdiplomatica.asp?idlingua=5 to http://www.orderofmalta.org/attdiplomatica.asp?idlingua=5

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 13:13, 23 May 2017 (UTC)

Official state names

Hi,

In order to prevent an edit war or some such nonsense, might as well explain why I've been making edits.

Basically, in most of the "sovereign states in x decade" articles, the official names of some sovereign states are incorrect. All I've been doing is correcting said names so they are consistent with the rest of wikipedia. Cheers — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.168.92.239 (talk) 00:42, 5 February 2021 (UTC)

You changings often ends of non-official wordage even in English.(KIENGIR (talk) 03:07, 5 February 2021 (UTC))

Isis and Catalonia

isis and catalonia should be here because they are both considered their formation in this decade. For example isis, it is present in the 2020s but not here, although his control of territory was considered in this decade and mostly present in this decade. Delfi707 (talk) 21:12, 9 June 2024 (UTC)