Jump to content

Talk:List of states with limited recognition/Archive 14

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 10←Archive 12Archive 13Archive 14Archive 15

About recent edits

So I noticed changes to the article that I'd like to get more information on because there doesn't seem to be a (public) reason for those:

1) Where did the 15 UN member states that do not recognize North Korea come from? Most of the sources cited so far only mention Japan/South Korea/France/Taiwan and the rest simply talk about states not having diplomatic relations with NK (which is different from not recognizing it)?

2) Why was the order of the countries changed to a chronological one based on foundation? Mind you, this is moreso a stylistic preference, but I found it more logical when it was based on the amount of (un)recognition they had.


The first question is probably more important than the second one, but I'd be curious to know the reasons for those changes. Apologies if I missed anything. Ryota Mitarai (talk) 09:07, 7 November 2021 (UTC)

Regarding the second question, the stylistic choice has a second function: It groups related states together (e.g. the two Koreas, Abkhazia and South Ossetia) and makes the table easier to navigate from a historical standpoint. The other issue is that the original organisation of the table (i.e. by recognition) is not immediately obvious to the reader, although this could have been remedied with an additional column titled "Recognised by:" with data such as "5 UN member states, 4 non-UN member states" or "28 UN member states". CentreLeftRight ✉ 19:41, 7 November 2021 (UTC)

Ambazonia, West Papua, Donetsk People's Republic, Luhansk People's Republic?

There appears to be no change in consensus at this time to add Ambazonia, West Papua, Donetsk People's Republic, or the Luhansk People's Republic. I strongly suggest for future discussions that editors review past discussions first. If you feel the status quo needs changing due to new information brought to light then bring it up. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 18:23, 27 December 2021 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Would they be considered “disputed territories” as they’ve declared independence, yet they haven’t been recognized? — Preceding unsigned comment added by NaniEmperor (talk • contribs) 00:04, 7 June 2021 (UTC)

This was the latest RfC re the inclusion of DNR and LNR. There was no consensus as to whether they satisfy the criteria for inclusion. When/if there are more reliable sources calling them as such, this can be raised again. Alaexis¿question? 10:00, 7 June 2021 (UTC)

未來可以追蹤的臺灣外交進程的條目之一。 https://zh.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/%E4%B8%AD%E8%8F%AF%E6%B0%91%E5%9C%8B%E8%88%87%E9%A6%AC%E7%88%BE%E4%BB%96%E9%A8%8E%E5%A3%AB%E5%9C%98%E9%97%9C%E4%BF%82 鬼臉錢 (talk) 19:05, 13 August 2021 (UTC)

Lugansk and Donetsk should definitely be added they are recognised by south ossetia and themselves respectively they have elections and their own governments They have representative offices in Russia and South Ossetia and they have active relations with south ossetia— Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.30.52.72 (talk) 17 August 2021 (UTC)

Abazonia and West Papua do not control (any) territory in the their claimed territory and would be regarded as "Governments-in-exiles." The LPR and DPR however, are separatists groups that control territory in Ukraine, but they are separatists groups (Proto-states), not fully independent. This would be like adding something like ISIL to the list. Chxeese (talk) 01:24, 29 September 2021 (UTC)
I agree with Chxeese's comment above. CentreLeftRight ✉ 06:49, 29 September 2021 (UTC)
Ambazonia does in fact control some of the territory it claims however sourcing is quite poor as to rebel control of any particular area other than Lebialem district which is the only district government officials have acknowledged the rebels control. Lebialem district itself is under control of the Red Dragon militia which while acknowledging the legitimacy of the Ambazonian government, operates completely independent from it. As for West Papua, the rebels control over areas is general transitory in nature.XavierGreen (talk) 21:57, 4 October 2021 (UTC)
These militias have not yet established government institutions and nor do they represent any. Even if this militia control territory their is no administration of the district by Ambazonia, rather by a militia itself. Chxeese (talk) 01:32, 14 November 2021 (UTC)
Comment I support the inclusion of Donetsk and Lugansk, but not Ambazonia and West Papua. I see no difference between Donetsk, Lugansk, Artsakh, Transnistria, and Somaliland. Seven years after their self-declared independence from Ukraine, both political entities look like genuine de facto states now. On the other hand, I see no difference between Ambazonia, West Papua, Wa State, Khalistan, and East Turkestan. They are more like rebel groups fighting their administering states instead of proper de facto states.
P.S. For Wikipedia in other languages, some of them have already listed Donetsk and Lugansk as de facto states. 2001:8003:9008:1301:5999:DEA8:BEA3:7A47 (talk) 07:38, 15 December 2021 (UTC)

They have no recognition by or diplomatic relations with recognized states, including the Russian Federation; see International recognition of Donetsk and Luhansk. There is evidence that their leadership is installed by the RF. They lack the capacity to exist without the direct intervention of the RF, specifically when it semi-openly invaded Ukraine with mechanized formations between July 2014 and February 2015, forcing Ukraine to sign the Minsk agreements with the RF and the OSCE, under which DNR and LNR are to be returned to Ukrainian constitutional status and government control. These entities are not party to the Minsk agreements. There remains a Russian military presence in Ukraine, and their United Armed Forces of New Russia are considered to be subordinated to the RF’s 8th Combined Arms Army.

The DNR and LNR are not states, and they don’t have limited recognition. —Michael Z. 19:09, 15 December 2021 (UTC)

Donetsk and Luhansk are oblasts of Ukraine (named after their respective main cities). The self-declared Donetsk People’s Republic (DNR) and Luhansk People’s Republic (LNR) are the entities in question, and they occupy about one third of the Ukrainian subdivisions’ territory. User:NaniEmperor, user:Beshogur, please let’s change the heading for accuracy and precision. Be aware of WP:SECTIONHEADINGOWN. —Michael Z. 19:28, 15 December 2021 (UTC)

This is a six month old thread. If this is going to be rediscussed, then it should go in a new thread.
My views on the matter at hand have not changed since the last time this was discussed. Kahastok talk 20:08, 15 December 2021 (UTC)

On recognition of the DPR & LPR wikipedia page, it states that they are recognized by South Ossetia, doesn’t that mean that they should be put as recognized by non-Un members. — Preceding unsigned comment added by NaniEmperor (talk • contribs) 04:37, 25 December 2021 (UTC)

We do not add entries based on recognition by entities that are not UN member states. Kahastok talk 11:24, 26 December 2021 (UTC)
Then how come Artsakh & Transnistria are on there? — Preceding unsigned comment added by NaniEmperor (talk • contribs) 17:32, 27 December 2021 (UTC)
NaniEmperor, please see the RfC I opened in February: Talk:List_of_states_with_limited_recognition/Archive_13#RfC_on_the_inclusion_of_DNR_and_LNR_in_the_list_of_states_with_limited_recognition. If there are new sources which describe them as states we should raise it again. Alaexis¿question? 17:58, 27 December 2021 (UTC)
This is all detailed in the article and in probably a dozen separate talk page discussions. I suggest you read them. Kahastok talk 17:59, 27 December 2021 (UTC)
@Kahastok: I added the "Round in circles" template to the top of the page, hopefully this helps a bit. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 18:20, 27 December 2021 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Armenia not recognised by Pakistan, etc.

What's the criteria being not recognised? Like Pakistan saying "We don't recognise Armenia" or having no formal recognition, like embassies etc. Than the list could be expanden. For example Buthan doesn't have relationship with half of the world, does this mean that they're not recognised as well? Or similarly Armenia has no mutual recognition with Turkey, thus this means Turkey doesn't recognise Armenia or vice versa. Same with Turkey-Cyprus relations, and Azerbaijan not having a mutual relation with ROC. I think the list here is problematic. Not sure what on it's based on. I think non-UN states should only remain here. Beshogur (talk) 12:59, 9 January 2022 (UTC)

From the sources given:
  • Page 10 of citation 38: "... Pakistan does not recognize Armenia because it was an aggressor and Pakistan supports Azerbaijan on the Nagorno Karabakh issue."
    • Page 25: "Pakistan does not recognize Armenia and will never do so."
  • Citation 39: "'The Islamic Republic of Pakistan does not recognize Armenia even as a country for the sake of Azerbaijan,' Pakistani Tourism Minister Nilufer Bakhtiyar told a press conference."
CentreLeftRight ✉ 09:53, 10 January 2022 (UTC)
@CentreLeftRight: I know, but this doesn't change anything. No diplomatic relation means no recognition as well. That's my point. Beshogur (talk) 13:46, 10 January 2022 (UTC)
Your assertion that "No diplomatic relation means no recognition as well" is wrong. Diplomatic relations and recognition are not the same thing. Countries can have formal or informal diplomatic relations with each other while at the same time choosing to recognise each other or not choosing to. Using your examples, Turkey recognises Armenia but does not maintain diplomatic relations with them. North and South Korea obviously have diplomatic relations with each other, but both claim to be the only legitimate representative of all of Korea and does not recognise the other. CentreLeftRight ✉ 19:15, 10 January 2022 (UTC)

Pakistan not recognised by Armenia

If Armenia is not recognized by Pakistan, then Pakistan also shall be listed as being not recognized by Armenia, UN member nation.

From the sources given above: — Preceding unsigned comment added by 195.250.71.198 (talk) 13:18, 14 January 2022 (UTC)
Is there any source stating that Armenia does recognize Pakistan as a sovereign state? I would expect that mutual recognition to be the foundation of international politics (i.e. if Country A is not recognizing Country B, then Country B must not recognizing Country A, similar like a husband-and-wife relationship in the human society). 2001:8003:9008:1301:ED19:6230:5ABD:EB21 (talk) 04:23, 2 February 2022 (UTC)

Mongolia?

The Republic of China (Taiwan) still hasn’t recognized Mongolian independence as it claims the pre-1945 borders. Though they have de facto relations, they still haven’t officially relinquished claims. Given that the PRC is on here, should Mongolia too? — Preceding unsigned comment added by NaniEmperor (talk • contribs) 13:49, 31 December 2021 (UTC)

Mongolia is recognized by Taiwan as a sovereign state. Source: https://www.mofa.gov.tw/CountryInfo.aspx?CASN=3&n=162&sms=33&s=102 2001:8003:9008:1301:ED19:6230:5ABD:EB21 (talk) 04:32, 2 February 2022 (UTC)

Other Limited Recognition states.

Can someone add the states of Luhansk People's Republic and Donetsk People's Republic? They are states with limited recognition, afterall.

--Cakepops4everr (talk) 21:16, 16 February 2022 (UTC)cakepops4everr

Still being discussed above. CentreLeftRight ✉ 00:44, 17 February 2022 (UTC)

Internationally recognized vs claims

User:Mzajac has changed "Other claimants" info on DPR and LPR from "Ukraine claims..." to "Internationally recognized...", citing WP:CLAIM. It seems rather arbitrary to do it only for DPR and LPR and not for, say, Kosovo or Somaliland entries, i.e. it would make more sense to change either all of them or none of them instead of just for some of them. 176.62.33.75 (talk) 21:00, 21 February 2022 (UTC)

Change as many as you reliably can: that’s what I did. See #"Claims" below. —Michael Z. 00:58, 22 February 2022 (UTC)

Lugansk and Donetsk

This unrecognised states aren't added in article. Seymur06 (talk) 14:28, 23 January 2022 (UTC)

Seymur06, there was an RfC about adding them one year ago: Talk:List_of_states_with_limited_recognition/Archive_13#RfC_on_the_inclusion_of_DNR_and_LNR_in_the_list_of_states_with_limited_recognition. You can review the arguments and sources there and if you think that now the case is stronger, we can discuss it again. Alaexis¿question? 22:23, 23 January 2022 (UTC)
In particular, they were not added to the list because of a lack of reliable sources stating they met the declarative theory of statehood and or the Montevideo convention criteria, ect. If Russia ends up recognizing them, as some russian legislators are proposing, than they would get added to the list regardless as is practice for other polities on this page.XavierGreen (talk) 13:34, 24 January 2022 (UTC)
But why is Russia's recognition more important than the recognitions made by some partially-recognized states? In Wikipedia, partially-recognized states are also considered sovereign states. Honestly, I struggle to see any difference between the Donetsk People's Republic or the Luhansk People's Republic and the Republic of Artsakh or Transnistria. All four political entities are recognized by some partially-recognized states and the Republic of Artsakh also doesn't exercise control over a portion of its claimed territory (after losing the 2020 Nagorno-Karabakh war). Furthermore, there is strong evidence that Somaliland is now recognized by the Republic of China (Taiwan), why aren't we listing these five countries under the "States recognized only by other non-UN member states" section? 2001:8003:9008:1301:ED19:6230:5ABD:EB21 (talk) 04:18, 2 February 2022 (UTC)
Wikipedia attempts neutrality. That does not mean either accepting or rejecting the notion that partially-recognised states are sovereign states.
Per WP:WEIGHT, if a viewpoint is held by an extremely small minority, it does not belong on Wikipedia, regardless of whether it is true, or you can prove it, except perhaps in some ancillary article. The case you are advocating is one where we can source no independent lawyer, diplomat or academic on the entire planet who accepts without reservation that a state exists, except for the government of an entity that is itself actively rejected as a state by the vast majority of states in the world. If that does not count as the view of an extremely small minority, I'm not sure what would. Kahastok talk 08:14, 2 February 2022 (UTC)
Kahastok, I agree with you about WP:WEIGHT. My problem with this list is that opinion is divided on both Donetsk-Luhansk and Nagorno-Karabakh whether they having met the Montevideo criteria. But we include one and not include others. --Heanor (talk) 08:28, 2 February 2022 (UTC)
Nagorno-Karabakh has a much longer history at the point, along with the sources that has brought. If opinion has shifted post the 2020 war, we could reassess, but those sources haven't been brought up here. CMD (talk) 08:40, 2 February 2022 (UTC)
CMD, now the main source used in the article who claims that Nagorno-Karabakh has met the Montevideo criteria is James Ker-Lindsay. But he himselfs says now that opinion is divided. --Heanor (talk) 08:59, 2 February 2022 (UTC)
I'm sure academic discussions on Nagorno-Karabakh are being had, and the situation there remains unstable. That said, two separate cases both having divided opinion does not mean both cases are the same. (To some extent opinion will be divided on all of these entities, it's in their very nature.) Fairly or unfairly, even if all else was equal, the longer history of Nagorno-Karabakh will have allowed more reliable sources on the matter to be generated, and reliable sources are what we need to assess. CMD (talk) 09:16, 2 February 2022 (UTC)
Agree with you. There are rumors that Russia will recognize Donetsk-Luhansk soon and then we would include them anyway regardless whether they would met the Montevideo criteria or not. --Heanor (talk) 09:21, 2 February 2022 (UTC)
It looks like Russia has recognized DPR and LPR, see info at International recognition of the Donetsk People's Republic and the Luhansk People's Republic. 176.62.33.75 (talk) 19:44, 21 February 2022 (UTC)
Yeah, someone EP needs to add them. ~Skylar (talk) 19:57, 21 February 2022 (UTC)

Strictly speaking, the recognition isn’t official until it’s approved by the Federation Council tomorrow. In reality, likely just a formality. —Michael Z. 01:02, 22 February 2022 (UTC)

Afghanistan

Shouldnt it be included too (Recognition of the Islamic Emirate of Afghanistan) Braganza (talk) 15:02, 22 February 2022 (UTC)

Syria

Syria just recognized Donetsk and Luhansk — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2604:3D09:1F80:CA00:20F2:43CC:E41E:1739 (talk) 00:31, 24 February 2022 (UTC)

Source? CentreLeftRight ✉ 02:51, 24 February 2022 (UTC)

Luhansk and Dontesk

Syria has now recognized the DPR and LPR, see Portal:Current Events, please add it.


--Cakepops4everr (talk) 14:31, 25 February 2022 (UTC) Cakepops4everrr

"Claims"

This edit raises a valid point, that the word "claim" potentially casts doubt over the validity of the claim. But unfortunately that edit only applies it to two of the several entities that it could be applied to. In doing this it is not neutral.

Of the 11 entities listed as States that are neither UN members nor UN observers, only three have more than 10 recognitions from UN member states (Taiwan, SADR and Kosovo). Three entities are recognised by exactly one UN member state and three are not recognised by any.

Is there consensus that we should change our standard formulation X claims Y as part of its sovereign territory? If so, which entities should this apply to? Note that the alternatively-proposed formulation Internationally recognized as sovereign territory of X is not obviously accurate in the case of e.g. Kosovo. Kahastok talk 21:09, 21 February 2022 (UTC)

See also this edit making the same point. Kahastok talk 21:10, 21 February 2022 (UTC)
I made the edit regarding the two I am familiar with, to remove the WP:POV wording of WP:CLAIM. I don’t know if the same language is neutral for others or not, so I am not prepared to immediately edit the other rows. However, the change is an improvement to the article, if only incremental, and it shouldn't be reverted for “uniformity” of the format. I believe the goal of a reliable, neutral encyclopedia trumps consistent wording when the two clash, and I’d urge other editors to improve the wording in as many rows of the table as they can. —Michael Z. 00:57, 22 February 2022 (UTC)
Yes, I think it makes sense to make the blurb in the "Other claimants" column to be more neutrally worded than it currently is. How about "X considers Y as part of its sovereign territory"? - Wiz9999 (talk) 12:39, 22 February 2022 (UTC)
Thing is, in most of these cases something rather stronger is probably actually appropriate. It's not just Moldova that considers Transnistria part of its territory. Every other government in the world does as well. For Donetsk and Luhansk, it is only the Russians that differ from an otherwise-universal view that they are part of Ukraine. For Abkhazia and South Ossetia the tally is 190-odd to five or six. No, not all recognitions are created equal, and recognition by Russia is more significant than recognition by San Marino. But more significant is the fact that everyone else disagrees.
Taiwan adds a whole extra level of complication. The United States, for example, acknowledges the One China policy but does not recognise Chinese sovereignty over Taiwan. There are not many countries at all that recognise Morocco's claim to Western Sahara,
There are currently 193 member states of the UN. I suggest:
  • For states recognised by more than half of UN member states (87+), and for Taiwan (because the US might not be the only ones): Y considers X to be part of its sovereign territory
  • For states recognised by between a tenth and half of UN member states (20-86): X is widely recognized as part of the sovereign territory of Y
  • For states recognised by fewer than a tenth of UN member states (currently 19): X is generally recognized as part of the sovereign territory of Y
Any thoughts? We've normally not used arbitrary limits before because of OR issues, but I'm not sure they really apply in this case. Kahastok talk 18:47, 23 February 2022 (UTC)
"Claim" is commonly used in this context. The verb does not always mean an assertion likely without evidence or justification; in this context, "claims" means to state that one owns something. For example, "John Doe claimed the luggage as theirs" is different from "John Doe claimed the luggage is theirs". CentreLeftRight ✉ 19:38, 23 February 2022 (UTC)
Well we can pepper the article with explanatory caveats that we mean “claim” claim and not claim claim, or we can write it clearly so that no one will be misled or find the language questionable. —Michael Z. 15:16, 25 February 2022 (UTC)

I have implemented my suggestion as above, additionally leaving SADR as is, because it is not generally recognised as part of Morocco. Kahastok talk 17:53, 25 February 2022 (UTC)

The change makes no sense. What is the point of giving a detailed summary in the column next to it (e.g. "Abkhazia declared its independence in 1999. It is currently recognised by 5 UN member states ...") and having a sentence that expresses the exact same thing but less clearly (e.g. "Both Abkhazia and South Ossetia are generally recognised as part of the sovereign territory of Georgia")? Instead of saying "generally", why not just state by who, i.e. "Nearly all UN members recognise Abkhazia and South Ossetia as the sovereign territory of Georgia."? CentreLeftRight ✉ 06:11, 26 February 2022 (UTC)
I too dislike expressions that are made up by WP editors. This will get archived and then the arguments will start, who invented "generally recognized", what does it mean, etcetera. This expression, "generally recognized", has already been subject of dispute on other list pages. Selfstudier (talk) 11:30, 26 February 2022 (UTC)
I have no objection to other formulations, including User:CentreLeftRight's one here, if they will resolve problems in the future. Kahastok talk 11:37, 26 February 2022 (UTC)
I think that would be better, sourced expressions would be ideal.Selfstudier (talk) 11:41, 26 February 2022 (UTC)

False information on DPRK

I'd try and edit it myself, but I can't. Contrary to what the page states, only 3 countries don't recognise the DPRK, Japan, South Korea and France, not 15.

Gnerkistanislaviyort (talk) 09:58, 19 February 2022 (UTC)

Oppose North Korea doesn't been recognized also by United States, Botswana, Estonia, Israel and the State of Vatican, and no longer recognized by Canada, Costa Rica and Argentina. Liuxinyu970226 (talk) 04:13, 22 February 2022 (UTC)
Are there any sources to support this? I asked when this change was made and I could never find anything within the cited ones/anywhere else (and if they are indeed 15, it'd be good to provide a list of those in some way like for the other states with limited recognition) Ryota Mitarai (talk) 15:50, 3 March 2022 (UTC)
Then, did the US government recognized North Korea? Israel's MFA website even doesn't provide any informations on North Korea, and calls South Korea just as "Korea". Liuxinyu970226 (talk) 10:37, 8 March 2022 (UTC)
I've boldly re-added those countries that their MFA states no recognizations, so that 7+3 UN members (7 never recognized and 3 cancelled)+1 UN observer+Taiwan, still not 15 yes, but 12. Liuxinyu970226 (talk) 03:27, 11 March 2022 (UTC)
According to the US Department of State, North Korea is an independent state: [1]. Aotearoa (talk) 11:00, 11 March 2022 (UTC)
French Govt. website also has [2], but then what changed? North Korea–United States relations is likely also been affected by this section, at least "Despite no formal recognition..." and "The U.S. did not extend, and has never extended formal diplomatic recognition to the DPRK." Liuxinyu970226 (talk) 11:49, 11 March 2022 (UTC)

Somaliland and Taiwan

On Template talk:States with limited recognition, it has been pointed out that the Taiwanese MOFA website treats Somaliland as an independent country (English, Chinese, English Africa page). This is a better indication on the topic of recognition than other sources I've seen so far. Has anyone here seen other good sources on the matter? CMD (talk) 12:28, 7 March 2021 (UTC)

@Chipmunkdavis: it doesn't. Turkey has also a representative in Somaliland, but doesn't recognise. Beshogur (talk) 12:37, 7 March 2021 (UTC)
Does Turkey also present it as independent on its MOFA website? CMD (talk) 12:44, 7 March 2021 (UTC)
I haven't seen any other reputable sources go as far as this MoFA website does. This does seem to be the outlier, but due to the sly wording of the Somaliland-Taiwan agreement it may be the Taiwanese's subtle way of starting the ball rolling for actual recognition. Just don't expect an official announcement to happen in any great hurry. - Wiz9999 (talk) 01:49, 8 March 2021 (UTC)

中華民國的確有承認索馬利蘭共和國，見 www.mofa.gov.tw/CountryInfo.aspx?CASN=2&n=163&sms=33&s=200 還有樓上的Wiz9999開口閉口台灣是在鑽牛角尖，請勿情緒化問題謝謝 鬼臉錢 (talk) 19:22, 21 May 2021 (UTC)

Not quite sure what you are getting at by reposting the same link repeatedly. Is there any new information that has come up since? Also, please use English here on en.wikipedia, or provide a translation otherwise if you are not a native English speaker. - Wiz9999 (talk) 22:28, 21 May 2021 (UTC)
@Wiz9999 A zhwiki friend provide 3 brief links for evidences that Taiwan is really recognised Somaliland as a country: [3], [4] and [5]. Liuxinyu970226 (talk) 08:38, 12 March 2022 (UTC)
Also, the claim from you that both Taiwan and Somaliland have used very careful language to specifically avoid de jure recognition of each other in these new agreements with one another, ... etc are from your 2012 citation book, compare with more 2020~2021 news, they are outdated, and can't be useful to reflect the de facto status. Although there's still unclear whether Taiwanese government published their official Joint Communique with Somaliland government, it's also a reason that you shouldn't have reason to claim so. There are more local links to let you reverse your claim, e.g. Bilateral Protocol between Republic of China (Taiwan) government and the Republic of Somaliland government, Medical Cooperation Agreement between Republic of China (Taiwan) government and the Republic of Somaliland government, Technical Cooperation Agreement between Republic of China (Taiwan) government and the Republic of Somaliland government, all these 3 aggrements/protocals are showing signatures from Republic of China (Taiwan) government and the Republic of Somaliland government, that's just clearly-than-god that they are co-recognized. PS: this isn't the first time Taiwan has recognized, but didn't established diplomatic relations with another country, there was another 1970s example about Republic of Khmer, where their government is also kept contacting hotlines with Taiwan government, and signed several agreements like Intergovernmental Trade Agreement, Agreement on technical cooperation in livestock and feed production, Exchange of letters on interim air transport agreements, Cultural Agreement, etc. But they didn't ever established diplomatic relations each other. Liuxinyu970226 (talk) 04:31, 13 March 2022 (UTC)

Taiwan Somaliland?

I think that since Taiwan recognizes Somaliland as an independent nation, it is no longer a part of the "Not recognized by any state" category anymore, it is a non-un member state recognized only by other non-un member states — Preceding unsigned comment added by Benjamindimin000 (talk • contribs)

As stated in the similar section just above this, the evidence does not seem to support the supposed recognition, bar the one outlier case of the MoFA website. - Wiz9999 (talk) 00:10, 22 April 2021 (UTC)

那是中華民國外交部的網站，故而台灣實際上承認索馬利蘭為一獨立國家 www.mofa.gov.tw/CountryInfo.aspx?CASN=2&n=163&sms=33&s=200 鬼臉錢 (talk) 19:23, 21 May 2021 (UTC)

In very nearly 100 percent of cases, establishment of diplomatic relations signifies mutual recognition of two entities as sovereign states. This seems to be a rather particular case in which two states enter into relations while stopping just short of stating recognition. Ladril (talk) 13:26, 17 June 2021 (UTC)

Does the establishment of a Taiwan representative office in the Republic of Somaliland count as evidence of diplomatic recognition? See [6] Ladril (talk) 02:45, 13 July 2021 (UTC)

I also recommend this article: [7] Ladril (talk) 02:49, 13 July 2021 (UTC)

Bloomberg likens the Somaliland office with the newly announced Lithuania office [8]. Perhaps we should think about conveying the grey area of recognition this Somaliland situation has caused, rather than calling it one way or the other. CMD (talk) 05:44, 20 July 2021 (UTC)
Can't read the Bloomberg article, but what I infer from reading other pieces is that the PRC takes issue with the use of 'Taiwan' instead of 'Taipei', since the former implies an intention on the part of the Taiwanese leadership to be acknowledged as an entity separate from China. What changes to the article do you believe are needed? Ladril (talk) 01:58, 21 July 2021 (UTC)
I am unsure about the recent change of Somaliland to being recognised by Taiwan, absent stronger sources. The Taipei Times source even highlights how Taiwan avoided the specific question of recognition. However, I can see the argument that could be made, and that tension reflects the real world grey area Taiwan is creating. I suppose my preferred change would be moving Somaliland back into its own category, but expanding the status information to clarify the Taiwan situation. CMD (talk) 02:28, 21 July 2021 (UTC)
I agree that the ROC minister of foreign affairs sidestepped around the question (at least at first). Nonetheless, their following statements seem to me to imply at least de facto recognition of Somaliland's statehood. Note that the ROC recognises many states that do not recognise it in return, so this would not be too off-the-mark for them to recognise Somaliland without it officially recognising the ROC back. Despite this, I can see why you would think the evidence is not strong enough. Ladril (talk) 03:11, 21 July 2021 (UTC)
Yes, you are right. It is a one-way recognition. The Republic of China (Taiwan) has recognised Somaliland as a sovereign state, but Somaliland does not recognise Taiwan as a sovereign state. The reason is simple. Unlike Taiwan, Somaliland has a genuine chance to be accepted by the international community as a sovereign state in the future. They need China's support if they want to join the UN, so Somaliland cannot recognise Taiwan, at least not officially. This is exactly what happened in the Kosovo-Taiwan relations too, Kosovo cannot recognise Taiwan even though Taiwan was one of the first countries to recognise Kosovo as a sovereign state.
Evidence:

I'll self-revert until the evidence becomes stronger. Ladril (talk) 02:59, 26 August 2021 (UTC)

@Ladril:, @Chipmunkdavis:, @Wiz9999: I am coming in late to the game, but I don't understand why the reference to Taiwan recognizing Somaliland's sovereignty was removed from the article *after* Taiwan's MOFA website not only listed Somaliland as a sovereign state but included a Somaliland-less Somalia as a sovereign state. And it's not like there aren't other reliable sources that report that the government of Taiwan has recognized Somaliland's sovereignty; see, e.g., [9] and [10] ("For the time being, Taiwan is the only state that recognizes Somaliland; Somaliland is one of only two states that recognize “Taiwan” but not the “Republic of China”."). I think that there's enough evidence that Taiwan recognizes Somaliland so as to list Somaliland in the article as a country that has been recognized only by a non-UN-member state. AuH2ORepublican (talk) 15:50, 26 August 2021 (UTC)

The BBC source is inaccurate (relations between Taiwan and Somaliland are not diplomatic, but rather similar to those Taiwan maintains with states that do not recognise it as the Republic of China). The Taipei Times source is an opinion piece and those should not be afforded as much weight as official statements by governments. Ladril (talk) 16:28, 26 August 2021 (UTC)
Those are informal political opinions. You can't technically recognise Taiwan as a sovereign state when the Constitution of the Republic of China is still in force. Taiwan needs to achieve independence first before it would be recognised as a sovereign state by other countries. 144.130.162.86 (talk) 04:59, 30 September 2021 (UTC)
  • Somaliland is now formally recognized by Taiwan as a sovereign state. The Chinese version of this article has already listed Somaliland under "States recognised only by other non-UN member states". I reckon we should do the same.
Source: https://www.rfa.org/mandarin/yataibaodao/gangtai/hx-07012020120349.html (news report by Radio Free Asia)
Statement by Joseph Wu, the Minister of Foreign Affairs of the Republic of China (Taiwan):
吴钊燮还说：“索马里兰在1991年就已经独立了，也经过了三次总统大选。它被很多的国家承认是非洲一个非常自由、非常民主，也是非常清廉的国家，所以如果说看实质的话，索马里兰是一个独立的国家。”
Google Translate:
Wu Zhaoxie (Joseph Wu) also said: "Somaliland has been independent in 1991 and has gone through three presidential elections. It is recognized by many countries as a very free, very democratic, and very clean country in Africa. So if you look at the essence, Somaliland is an independent country." 2001:8003:9008:1301:5999:DEA8:BEA3:7A47 (talk) 08:40, 15 December 2021 (UTC)
@Wiz9999 So if this IPv6 user said correct, Somaliland is now not only recognized by Taiwan, but also some sort of African countries, and we really should move Somaliland to under "States recognised by at least one UN member state" umbrella, right? Liuxinyu970226 (talk) 08:54, 10 January 2022 (UTC)
Joseph Wu cannot make statements on behalf of other countries, he can only represent Taiwan, but I agree with you, Somaliland has been formally recognized by Taiwan, so we should move Somaliland to the "States recognized only by other non-UN member states" section. We should also include the Donetsk People's Republic and the Luhansk People's Republic in this section since both countries have been recognized by South Ossetia, a de facto state, as well as recognizing each other among themselves. 2001:8003:9008:1301:ED19:6230:5ABD:EB21 (talk) 04:53, 2 February 2022 (UTC)
Thus I Support such moving (and probably, frozen of "States not recognised by any other state"), DNR and LNR are now under States recognised by at least one UN member state due to Putin's recognization approval. Liuxinyu970226 (talk) 10:21, 8 March 2022 (UTC)

North Korea

They really need to start requiring sources before people spout nonsense. There is a difference between having no diplomatic relations and not recognising. To my knowledge, only France, Japan and South Korea officially do not recognise the DPRK. Not having relations is not the same as not recognising. Someone with editing power should either remove unsourced claims, or source said claims, but not spout nonsense without evidence.

Gnerkistanislaviyort (talk) 10:42, 15 March 2022 (UTC)

A section discussing this matter is already available above. Anyway, US is also not yet recognised N.Korea, listing it on their DOS website doesn't lead this fact changed. Liuxinyu970226 (talk) 03:19, 19 March 2022 (UTC)

Did SADR really recognised South Ossetia?

Someone from ruwiki told me by e-mail that South Ossetian recognisation of SADR seems like a one-way action, there's still lack of informations on the opposite. Liuxinyu970226 (talk) 03:37, 19 March 2022 (UTC)

I think you could be right about that one. Thanks for pointing that out. I never really looked into it. All info available basically goes back to an event on 25-26 september 2010 in Algeria where the advisor to the South Ossetian president was interviewed by journalists, where he speaks of a de facto recognition, while "formal documents still have to be completed". osinform I haven't found any Polisario statements yet. At the SO ministry of foreign affairs, there is no sign of completing formal recognition, the last and only time the western Sahara is mentioned is in 2011, when SO congratulated the SADR on their independence anniversary. MFA After that anything dries up, which is not typical as SO leadership congratulates all their friends every year. So my bet is that there is no formal recognition, really. Labrang (talk) 09:06, 19 March 2022 (UTC)

RFC

The following discussion is an archived record of a request for comment. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.
Clear consensus to not include Cook Islands and Niue in the List Selfstudier (talk) 09:06, 9 April 2022 (UTC)

Should Cook Islands and Niue be included in this list? Selfstudier (talk) 11:22, 30 March 2022 (UTC)

Discussion

  • Comment It seems anomalous that these two are not included in this list but are included as "Other states" at List of sovereign states. If they are sovereign states and their recognition is limited according to their entries there then it seems they should also be included here. If they are sui generis on some theory, then an alternative might be to exclude them from both lists. This situation appears to contribute to confusion in categorization as well although that does not seem crucial and would presumably be resolved in either case.Selfstudier (talk) 12:10, 30 March 2022 (UTC)
  • No, as per the discussion above. We don't have any sources treating them as states with limited recognition, let alone a reasonable body. The other page is not set up to be divided into "recognised" and "limited recognition", it is set up into UN/non-UN, so their entries there do not assign them "limited recognition". (As much as I once agreed that they could be excluded from the other list, the consensus there is very stable and long-lasting, and that consensus is for their inclusion.) CMD (talk) 12:33, 30 March 2022 (UTC)
    This page appears to be set up as UN/non-UN as well? Selfstudier (talk) 12:39, 30 March 2022 (UTC)
    On both pages that is the sorting criteria, not the inclusion criteria. The criteria here requires an entity to claim sovereignty, and while usually that's a simple yes/no these entities deliberately obscure that very question. CMD (talk) 12:59, 30 March 2022 (UTC)
    OK, I understand your point, tho I still don't really see how a state can be "sovereign" without having claimed it, tbh. Selfstudier (talk) 13:05, 30 March 2022 (UTC)
  • Yes, I have already provided a source above which clearly states that the United States specifically does not recognize them as sovereign states.XavierGreen (talk) 13:10, 30 March 2022 (UTC)
  • Comment This shows the problems with an article based on synthesis, where Wikipedia editors determine what states meet their criteria for inclusion in lists. New Zealand has told the UN that Cook Islands and Niue are associated states, that is, sovereign states whose foreign affairs are handled by New Zealand. However, under NZ domestic law, they are treated as non-self-governing territories, i.e., not independent. So one could say that every country in the UN except NZ recognizes them as independent. OTOH, these countries do not treat them as independent, but that is the case for any associated state. So it all depends on how one defines sovereign or limited recognition. TFD (talk) 13:20, 30 March 2022 (UTC)
  • No, as Cook Islands and Niue do not consider themselves as independent states. The status of both territories is unique, they meet almost all the criteria of an independent state except that they do not want to be independent states (for economic reasons). Aotearoa (talk) 13:45, 30 March 2022 (UTC)
  • No, they're not seeking international recognition as sovereign states. Perhaps they should be added to the "excluded entities" list to clarify their status for readers. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 20:08, 30 March 2022 (UTC)
  • Oppose with the current criteria and information we have. The criteria state that states must be seeking sovereignity to be included and that does not seem to be the case for the Cook Islands and Niue, unless there are reliable sources that claim otherwise. I think it would be good to mention them in some way in the Exclusions part, though. Ryota Mitarai (talk) 20:15, 30 March 2022 (UTC)
    That is the part I do not get, how can they be sovereign states in one list when we say in this list they are not seeking sovereignty. Perhaps we need to ask the same question in the other list? Selfstudier (talk) 21:23, 30 March 2022 (UTC)
  • Oppose — The arguments for their inclusion seem to be based on technicalities that do not hold up. It seems a lot of editors are forgetting the purpose of this list article: to list entities that can reasonably call themselves sovereign states and which seek the recognition of other sovereign states. The Cook Islands and Niue do not seek international recognition. Seeking sovereign rule over a polity does not equal seeking recognition or a making a claim to independence. CentreLeftRight ✉ 21:43, 30 March 2022 (UTC)
    https://www.rnz.co.nz/international/programmes/datelinepacific/audio/201838424/niue-and-cook-islands-still-have-eye-on-seat-at-un
    "The Cook Islands has not given up on getting an independent seat at the United Nations but says it is not a priority at the moment.
    Niue is also not giving up on the quest with premier Sir Toke Talagi saying it remained unfinished business." suggests the contrary. Selfstudier (talk) 22:06, 30 March 2022 (UTC)
    Again, this is, in my opinion, another appeal to technicalities without understanding international politics. Read this excerpt from the article and tell me what you think the governments of the Cook Islands and Niue are seeking.
    "Away from the ceremonies, the countries' leaders while stressing the links did not back away from their quest for more independence from New Zealand. Both governments want a separate seat at the UN which would likely bring them more political leverage internationally and more foreign aid for their vulnerable economies. New Zealand is against this saying they can't have both New Zealand passports and independence at the lead international body."
    Both governments have attempted to gain a seat at the UN to have a foreign policy more independent from New Zealand, but neither have 1. Declared independence from New Zealand as a sovereign state nor 2. Sought recognition as a sovereign state independent from New Zealand.
    The most important factor to me that distinguishes the Cook Islands and Niue from the entities already on this list is that they do not claim to be independent from New Zealand. Their political decisions and arrangements with New Zealand and other sovereign states may be unique, but they are not unrecognised states because of those decisions and arrangements. For that reason, there are no reliable sources that explicitly say the Cook Islands and Niue are states with no or limited recognition (or unrecognised / partially recognised states), and that is why the argument for their inclusion on this list constantly refers back to technicalities (i.e. "Well technically if they do A or B, then they should be on this list"). CentreLeftRight ✉ 02:20, 31 March 2022 (UTC)
    As I said initially, my argument is not actually that they should be on this list, it is that it is anomalous for it to be not in this list at the same time as being in the other list, it would also make sense to me if they were in neither list. I haven't actually !voted here and I don't intend to, it was a request for comment, not an attempt to impose any particular POV. Selfstudier (talk) 10:01, 31 March 2022 (UTC)
  • Oppose at the moment, unless and until if my suggestions on deprecation of "States not recognised by any other state" section and move Somaliland to "States recognized only by other non-UN member states" above get consensus. --Liuxinyu970226 (talk) 08:14, 4 April 2022 (UTC)
  • No per the quality arguments above. SportingFlyer T·C 23:58, 8 April 2022 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Niue, Cook Islands

These two are in the "other states" part of the List of sovereign states but don't show up here, anyone know the reason for that? I looked in the archives and found some discussions but nothing conclusive. It seems to me they should be in? Selfstudier (talk) 11:27, 25 March 2022 (UTC)

They're there because there was consensus that sources presented at the showed they had been directly recognised as full states by some other states, and so met the recognition inclusion criteria. I think they're not here because it's very hard to determine what they are actually recognised as. I suppose you could argue that New Zealand doesn't recognise them as states, as it doesn't, but it's not like they have asked New Zealand to recognise them as states. CMD (talk) 13:25, 25 March 2022 (UTC)
If they are states and they are said to be states, then it seems they meet the criteria here for limited recognition. I was led to ask because of recent activity in the categories, please see here. In cat world, even though this article is being used as the relevant main article (as well extended to other cats), it seems that the UN member states are being excluded. There was a recent discussion here where that was mentioned but no consensus afaics. (Separately but related, you know that I have an interest in the Palestine situation, an observer state which at the sov states page is included "in the UN system" (along with the Vatican) whereas here it is in it's own little box of 1 :). It all seems a bit arbitrary to me, do you have any view about it? Selfstudier (talk) 13:47, 25 March 2022 (UTC)
They are very weird states. What is the criteria for limited recognition that they meet? Regarding this page vs the main page, this page tracks the main page to some extent (eg. entities should not appear here if they are not on that page), but there is better scope to discuss each unique situation here, given the list is much shorter. (If you're interested in the Palestine categorisation history, when the organisation system was created for the main page Palestine was not an observer, and was thus in the bottom list. When it became an observer state, it shifted per the existing consensus, which is the advantage of creating a system there that was not based on assessing any one particular situation.) CMD (talk) 14:44, 25 March 2022 (UTC)
According to the sov states page (ie they are states) they "lack recognition from at least one UN member state" if we take the level of diplomatic recognitions (52 and 20) as a guide. Is it that you think there must be specific refs stating that some UN state or other specifically does not recognize them? Selfstudier (talk) 14:59, 25 March 2022 (UTC)
The problem is that they occupy a quasi-space where it is difficult to tell what exactly they are recognised as. The numbers are not based on anything firm, I would consider them quite meaningless. Both participate in UN orgs, and no-one has objected to that. Any country would happily establish diplomatic relations with them, no problem. Debate over their sovereignty is in some ways internal, and in that manner they're not similar to anything else on either list. CMD (talk) 15:18, 25 March 2022 (UTC)
The UN orgs thing is about states parties, that's not quite the same thing as state recognition (let's say it is a limited form of recognition). There is still the problem that we are apparently identifying them as states in one place and not in another. Either they should not be in the other one or they should be in this one, no? Where does the "quasi space" come from? Is that in a ref somewhere? Selfstudier (talk) 15:37, 25 March 2022 (UTC)
Back in the day I collected a few here, perhaps another decade on more could be found. (Funnily enough regarding your wording, they're identified as states in some sources but not others!) The list compatibility argument is one I find usually persuasive, but I do try to make pains that this is a really unique situation. (Their status was one of the key causes of the huge debates that led to the eventual current List of sovereign states table structure. They have their own dedicated archive page there.) CMD (talk) 15:48, 25 March 2022 (UTC)
I think the sov states list structure (UN system + others) is the right one in general terms. I look at this list as a subset of that one so we need a very good reason not to include these two. As I pointed you earlier, I think the cats should also be based on the sov states structure rather than this one (excluding the UN states with limited recognition based on this list but including Palestine as "limited recognition" seems to me to be a misuse (at a minimum, a different use) of the expression "limited recognition" as used here so saying that this list is the main article for the cat is something of a misrepresentation. I will probably have to start a discussion in catworld (yuk). Meantime, let me look around, see if there is anything new on Cook/Niue.Selfstudier (talk) 16:04, 25 March 2022 (UTC)
They are excluded because they do not lack recognition from any UN member state. Do you have a relialbe source that Niue abd the Cook Islands lack recognition from New Zealand? And that they claim their sovereignty? The criteria for inclusion mean that a polity must claim sovereignty and lack recognition from at least one UN member state. Olchug (talk) 16:09, 25 March 2022 (UTC)
@Kahastok, @Wiz9999, @XavierGreen: what is your opinion? Olchug (talk) 16:11, 25 March 2022 (UTC)
By my understanding, this list is intended for entities where there is some actual dispute as to their status. There are a number of instances internationally where there is no recognition but the paperwork hasn't been done - we maintain a list of states that have recognised Montenegro, for example, that doesn't include every UN member state, and I think there are even some that haven't technically recognised Croatia. These are explicitly excluded from the list.
Everyone in the world - New Zealand included - accepts that the Cook Islands and Niue are whatever they say they are. But what is that? It's not clear. They are deliberately ambiguous as to whether they even consider themselves to be sovereign states or not. They are genuine edge cases that will always be difficult. But if this list is for considering cases of dispute per the Croatia and Montenegro cases, then they do not belong IMO. Kahastok talk 17:33, 25 March 2022 (UTC)
Both are in the list of sovereign states so they should come out from that list? Selfstudier (talk) 17:41, 25 March 2022 (UTC)
User:Kahastok, that is not exactly true. The official position of the United States government is that Niue and the Cook Islands are specifically not sovereign states but rather "self governing territories of New Zealand. See for example here [11]. This is quite different than the position taken by most states of simply not taking a position at all either way. As such, I think they should be added to this list in some capacity, since the United States affirmatively does not recognize them in a similar (but admittedly friendlier) manner to how Pakistan affirmatively does not recognize Armenia.XavierGreen (talk) 18:12, 25 March 2022 (UTC)
@XavierGreen, but does they claim sovereignty? The same as with Azad Kashmir. Olchug (talk) 18:19, 25 March 2022 (UTC)
Probably we need to update Political status of the Cook Islands and Niue if possible. Selfstudier (talk) 18:23, 25 March 2022 (UTC)
For purposes of this particular page, that doesn't matter. That they the Cook Islands and Niue are recognized by some states qualifies them for inclusion. The United States government specifically has stated that it does not recognize them as sovereign states. As for Azad Kashmir, while it technically asserts itself to be a "sovereign state", no sources have ever been provided stating definitively that the Pakistani government (or any other state) recognizes it as such nor have sources been shown that state that it meets the declarative theory of statehood. In practice Azad Kashmir and Gilgit Baltistan are treated by Pakistan in the same manner as dependent territories and are thus listed in the same manner as dependent territories on the main list of sovereign states Wikipedia page.XavierGreen (talk) 18:28, 25 March 2022 (UTC)
@XavierGreen, no that does matter. See List of states with limited recognition#Criteria for inclusion: The criteria for inclusion mean that a polity must claim sovereignty, lack recognition from at least one UN member state, and ... Olchug (talk) 18:40, 25 March 2022 (UTC)
Well then that's the question to be answered. If someone can show a source that says Niue or the Cook Islands asserts themselves to be sovereign, I would say they should be added. If not, then by a literal interpretation of the inclusion criteria they should not be included, unless the inclusion criteria are changed.XavierGreen (talk) 18:44, 25 March 2022 (UTC)
This 2010 discussion is informative I think that is the debate "back in the day" CMD was referring to above. Selfstudier (talk) 18:52, 25 March 2022 (UTC)
That debate resulted in them being considered sovereign and added so then they must go in here as well, right? Personally, I don't mind as long as its the same in both places. Tweaking the inclusion criteria in order to do that is also fine with me although I think it is difficult to assert that one is not claiming sovereignty at the same time as entering into diplomatic relations with multiple states. Are we in RFC territory here? Or is a consensus possible without? Selfstudier (talk) 14:19, 26 March 2022 (UTC)
Olchug is now blocked as a sock. Selfstudier (talk) 15:11, 26 March 2022 (UTC)
Comment They don't belong here. Both the Cook Islands and Niue are undisputed non-member sovereign states in the UN System. Both countries are members of several UN specialized agencies and both have established and maintained diplomatic relations with dozens of countries, including New Zealand, which is represented by the New Zealand High Commission (NZ embassy based in a Commonwealth country, such as Australia or the United Kingdom, is called "New Zealand High Commission").
I reckon the Cook Islands and Niue should be removed from the dependent territory list too. 2001:8003:9008:1301:6529:9ABE:CDA8:3410 (talk) 13:38, 23 April 2022 (UTC)
  • Comment Both countries are recognized by the UN and its member states (except NZ) as associated states, that is independent states whose foreign affairs are conducted on their behalf by NZ. NZ however does not accept that they are independent. So there is a conflict between how they are defined in NZ and international law. However, this is more an issue of terminology. TFD (talk) 15:18, 23 April 2022 (UTC)
    As far as I know, New Zealand can only carry out defence and foreign affairs on behalf of the Cook Islands and Niue when requested by their governments. NZ has recognized both entities as sovereign states, otherwise, it wouldn't establish High Commissions (NZ calls its embassies in Commonwealth countries "High Commissions") in both countries. However, NZ is opposing both countries to acquire formal UN memberships, stating that both countries need to give up their shared citizenship with New Zealand first. In other words, the Cook Islands and Niue can join the UN tomorrow if they abolish their shared citizenship with NZ today. 2001:8003:9008:1301:6529:9ABE:CDA8:3410 (talk) 07:25, 24 April 2022 (UTC)

Upgrading the information

DPR and LPR now are recognised by 2 UN members: Russia and Syria. I just can't edit this page. If there is a problem - here is the link: https://www.newsru.co.il/mideast/29jun2022/syria_ru_131.html Adir David (talk) 16:57, 29 June 2022 (UTC)

Criteria of inclusion

I have not seen any references on this section, where is this criteria come from? If this criteria to be designed as a state with limited recognition is correct why some countries that meet the criteria arent classified as limited recognised countries? DrYisus (talk) 00:09, 2 July 2022 (UTC)

If you're talking about Wikipedia categories, that's likely because WP:CATDEF has a much higher bar then basic list or article coverage. CMD (talk) 01:25, 2 July 2022 (UTC)
Nationalists who believe that "my country is legit and not limited!" are the #1 issue, I have yet to see a policy or guideline based objection to using the cat but I've seen dozens of WP:IJUSTDONTLIKEIT. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 15:23, 2 July 2022 (UTC)
The main issue is that this article is titled "List of states with limited recognition", but it does not only list states with limited recognition. This article is really a list of all states which meet one of two widely used definitions for a sovereign state, and which are not recognised by at least one UN member. I have seen other editors reference WP:CATV, and obviously very few (if any) reliable sources would describe China or South Korea as states with limited recognition (in this context, "limited" meaning little or few, i.e. states with little recognition / few other countries recognising it). However, I do not think a claim to the contrary is being made by editors who add Category:States with limited recognition to articles, nor by editors of this article. The titles of this article and the relevant category are just not very accurate when considering their intended scopes. Yue🌙 20:48, 2 July 2022 (UTC)
+1. Selfstudier (talk) 21:47, 2 July 2022 (UTC)
"in this context, "limited" meaning little or few, i.e. states with little recognition / few other countries recognising it" it does? Horse Eye's Back (talk) 04:54, 3 July 2022 (UTC)
What name do you propose to cover the current scope of the list? Kahastok talk 08:20, 3 July 2022 (UTC)
I guess article can be renamed to List of states with limited recognition and no recognition, or article can be split into two: 1.List of states with limited recognition 2. List of states with no recognition Abrvagl (talk) 09:10, 3 July 2022 (UTC)
This doesn't resolve the issue that was raised, nor is it necessary since no recognition is a special case of limited recognition. Kahastok talk 09:33, 3 July 2022 (UTC)
In my view limited recognition implies that there is some recognition, where no recognition implies that there is no recognition at all and does not meet criteria's of inclusion. One can not be special case of another. Abrvagl (talk) 10:49, 3 July 2022 (UTC)
That would be an unhelpful split, based on tenuous semantics rather than actual article topic differences. This article covers states which for some reason or other lack recognition from other states. The current title doesn't have any particularly special attachment, but it does describe the article topic well enough. CMD (talk) 12:03, 3 July 2022 (UTC)
List of states with limited recognition#Criteria for inclusion and Sovereign state#Recognition clearly defines what are the criteria's. You also can refer to this Principles of Non-recognition, basically if state is not recognized by any UN member and obtained its territorial arrangements through force of arms, then this state does not meet criteria of inclusion.
If we talking about self-declared breakaway states, then we should not consider the recognition of them by other non-UN self-declared breakaway states. Those states should not be considered as limitedly recognized until they are recognized at least by 1 UN member country. Abrvagl (talk) 09:08, 3 July 2022 (UTC)

According to the criteria of this article Donetsk and Lugansk peoples republic are partialy recognised states (imho they also are breakaway and puppet) but in tjey respective talk pages I am having problems with other editors saying that they are not partialy recignised. I only want establish a consensus in this topic, so we have to options here, the inclusion criteria is wrong or the DPR and LPR (and maybe other pages) are wrong. DrYisus (talk) 12:07, 3 July 2022 (UTC)

Donetsk and Lugansk are recognized by Russia, which technically makes them partially recognized. On the other hand, we all know that those states are fake-states. They are just imitations of states that have been used as a tool by occupying countries to legalize occupation in some form. There are a number of such states, but the tactics are the same - ethnic hatred propaganda to set the ground, then supply of weaponry and saboteurs, then military coup, then fake referendum for independence, and finally another fake referendum for reunification with occupant country. But are there credible sources that back up what I wrote? If you find them, you can claim that DNR and LNR are not states at all. Abrvagl (talk) 13:14, 3 July 2022 (UTC)
Recognized by Syria as well now, just waiting for a state to recognize IEoA and we can include that as well :) Selfstudier (talk) 13:23, 3 July 2022 (UTC)
I think it's important, wherever possible, to introduce all the relevant nuance and due weight when discussing cases like Donetsk and Luhansk. This is one of the problems with a list like this - they are either in or they are out. They cannot be both in and out at the same time.
When you are writing an article, you don't have to do that. Insofar as is possible, you shouldn't say, in Wikipedia's voice, that these are states, nor that they are not states. If you say they are states, then you risk implying that the Russians and Syrians are right and that the rest of the world is wrong. Instead, you must describe what they are in detail based on RS. Which probably means a form of words like, they are recognised as states by Russia and Syria, but considered by the rest of the world to be part of Ukraine.
Now, this is hard to do on a list like this, and I'm not entirely convinced we get the balance precisely right. While it may be a stretch to leave them out according to our inclusion criteria (although I think there is a case with our exceptions), there is a huge risk that by listing without sufficient caveats, we imply more legitimacy than actually exists in the real world. More than almost any of the other cases we list here, these are genuine puppet states, with no real world ability to do anything on their own. Kahastok talk 13:43, 3 July 2022 (UTC)
I have zero interest in call some states as partialy or full recognised, I only want consistency. Ok, DPR and LPR are puppet or fake-states, ok for me, but if are recognised by one, two or 97 (like kosovo) they are partially recognised (according to the criteria of this page) so, lets make a consensus there, change the criteria or change the status i dont care, but is nonsense that the same criteria of inclusion apply in some cases but not in other. In the other hand I have no idea where the inclusion criteria of this article came from, but is not being applied in some cases like DPR, turkish cyprus, sourh ossetia... But is being applied in other countries like kosovo or taiwan. DrYisus (talk) 14:45, 3 July 2022 (UTC)
Suggest some other criteria. Selfstudier (talk) 14:52, 3 July 2022 (UTC)
I am fine with the actual criteria, but if there is a consensus with this criteria, has to be applied to every state, not valid for some and invalid for others. I am new in WP and dont know which are the channels to call for a consensus on this issue. DrYisus (talk) 15:14, 3 July 2022 (UTC)
The inclusion criteria for this list is specifically for this list. As Kahastok noted, lists must by definition use some sort of binary criteria that articles are not restricted to. Every country could be described with hundreds of adjectives, but that does not mean that they all must be used. CMD (talk) 15:37, 3 July 2022 (UTC)
Ok, so where is the place to resolve this issue and stablish a consensus to be designed as limited or not limited? I open this talk cause is the only page on WP that make reference to partial recognition. As I said before I am new on wikipedia and would like to learn where is the place to solve this kind of issues. Thanks in advance for your help. DrYisus (talk) 15:56, 3 July 2022 (UTC)
You're in the right place, need a specific proposal though. Selfstudier (talk) 16:00, 3 July 2022 (UTC)
I think that lists ought to be useful and that they are fine as long they do not create any contradiction. After some thought, I think that states in the UN system ought not to be included in this list (even if that means I have to do an RFC for the exclusion of Palestine:). This has the added advantage of aligning with the way the category folk have approached the matter. Selfstudier (talk) 15:59, 3 July 2022 (UTC)
If we follow the criteria, then self-proclaimed Pridnestrovian Moldavian Republic, Republic of Artsakh and Republic of Somaliland should be removed from the article, because they have no recognition by the UN states, neither they satisfy the declarative theory of statehood. Abrvagl (talk) 16:01, 3 July 2022 (UTC)
We have evidence from the literature that experts disagree with you on your opinion that they do not satisfy the declarative theory of statehood. And we go with what the reliable sources say, not what random Wikipedians might have interpreted. Kahastok talk 16:05, 3 July 2022 (UTC)
This is an important point, as tempting as it is analysis and original research (such as determining whether or not a state satisfied the declarative theory of statehood) are not within our remit as editors. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 16:12, 3 July 2022 (UTC)
Keep this in mind: According to declarative theory, an entity's statehood is independent of its recognition by other states, as long as the sovereignty was not gained by military force.
I can see that all 3 of them referenced to the Ker-Lindsay, James (2012). The Foreign Policy of Counter Secession: Preventing the Recognition of Contested States. Lets take for example Artsakh. It is undeniable that Artsakh gained its sovereignty by the military force(most of which were from Armenia). Reading her book, where she states nonsense like While the expectation was that Nagorno Karabakh would be awarded to Armenia, it was instead awarded to Azerbaijan, I having some suspicions about her expertise, because there was nothing about "awarding", it was voting. Now, why should we build article purely on what Ker-Lindsay wrote? Especially when there other sources which contradicts her. Especially when what she wrote is contradicts declarative theory of statehood, and one should not be an expert to see that.
For example, The Nagorno-Karabakh Conflict: A Legal Analysis (page 88-90):

In this case the unilateral declaration of independence of an illegal minority regime was not accepted even as it was founded. The applicable rule appears yet clearer in the treatment of the cases of Abkhazia, South Ossetia, Transnistria and also Nagorno-Karabakh. All territories were refused recognition by the community of states until today, despite the fact that stable structures similar to those of states had been established in each case. Only Russia and Nicaragua recognized Abkhazia and South Ossetia in 2008. Even though recognition does not constitute a necessary requirement of statehood, the widespread refusal of recognition makes clear that the community of states also on a fairly long-term basis does not accept the statehood of de facto regimes, which have come into being illegally and through non peaceful and military means.....The case for Nagorno-Karabakh(Artsakh) is clear against this background. The secession of this region was legitimated neither under Soviet law nor international law. The factual separation was rather an outcome of an armed conflict that was essentially promoted and carried out by another state, namely Armenia.

Abrvagl (talk) 17:37, 3 July 2022 (UTC)
I have been active on this article, for, what, 14 years? How many different, mutually contradictory, amateur interpretations of the declarative theory do you think have I seen? I have no idea, probably dozens. Yours is just another one.
If your theory were true, that a state does not exist if its sovereignty was gained by military force, then there are lots of countries out there - including some quite major ones like the United States - that do not legally exist according to the declarative theory. That seems unlikely.
Your source, insofar as it is meaningful, is essentially arguing against the central tenet of the declarative theory, that statehood is independent of recognition. It demonstrates that Nagorno-Karabakh is disputed. Well, yes, it's disputed. Of course it's disputed. Literally the whole point of having this list is to document these kinds of disputes. If it wasn't disputed it wouldn't be here. Kahastok talk 18:43, 3 July 2022 (UTC)
I agree that the territory is disputed, and there is special list for that: List of territorial disputes - Wikipedia, but term disputed is not applicable when we talking about state. State can not be disputed (region can). Applicable terms are Self-proclaimed, recognized and partially recognized. The source which I quoted says that Nakorno-Karabakh is not recognized and provides legal explanation of why it is not recognized and explains why Nagorno-Karabakh does not meet criteria of declarative theory of statehood.
I think article clearly states criteria of inclusion. As far I am concerned, there are states that should be included into article, but not included, and there are states that do not meet criteria of inclusion, but included into the article. To fix that we should follow the inclusion criteria to the word, or rename article into "List of states with limited recognition and no recognition". Abrvagl (talk) 18:59, 3 July 2022 (UTC)
I agree with you about disputed, usually that terminology is used only when there are doubts over sovereignty, if not then the territory is occupied (/illegally annexed) and not disputed. Selfstudier (talk) 19:04, 3 July 2022 (UTC)
Except that the fact that an area is "occupied" or "illegally annexed" is very rarely universally agreed. Very often, the country doing the annexing or the occupying, for example, will consider their action legal. The government in Stepanakert believes itself to be legitimate, and it seems to be at least a widely-held (if not universal) opinion in academic RS that it meets the standard of the declarative theory. And when somebody provides a source on this topic, and I google it, and the first words I see are "Azeri propaganda", this does somewhat lead me to wonder about whether it is appropriate for our purposes. Kahastok talk 19:34, 3 July 2022 (UTC)
Well in Stepanakert they can believe to whatever they want, this does not change neither UN recognition nor the fact that they do not meet declarative theory of statehood. Not sure what believes supported by what widely-held (if not universal) opinion in academic RS you are talking about. So far I can see only 1 book and 1 article referenced. You really should backup your words by references.
You did not provide link to your google search, so I googled it. Apparently you talking 1 star review from unknow user on the amazon page...are we seriously bringing amazon page review to this discussion as an argument? Lets stop here, looks like we both shared our views and there is nothing else to add:) Abrvagl (talk) 19:57, 3 July 2022 (UTC)
It really doesn't matter whether you think they meet the standard. We have a source that says, in so many words, that Nagorno-Karabakh is "generally regarded as having met the Montevideo criteria for statehood". You haven't provided any evidence at all that contradicts that statement. Kahastok talk 21:36, 3 July 2022 (UTC)
Btw the above cited “Nagorno-Karabakh Legal Analysis” book is extremely Azeri partisan and cites a lot of anti-Armenian sources promoting historical negationism that all Armenians were settled in Karabakh in the 19th century. ZaniGiovanni (talk) 23:06, 3 July 2022 (UTC)
Perhaps so, but even the cited passage refers to it as a de facto state with effective state structures. I don't really understand how it has been used in this discussion. CMD (talk) 01:16, 4 July 2022 (UTC)
I never argued that source describes it as a De facto state, however being de-facto state does not mean that it meet criteria for recognition. According to declarative theory, an entity's statehood is independent of its recognition by other states, as long as the sovereignty was not gained by military force. It is just two distinct things, which explained in details in the source. Abrvagl (talk) 03:34, 4 July 2022 (UTC)
I do not know what the criteria for recognition you mention are. As for the assertion regarding military force, Kahastok has already covered that above. CMD (talk) 03:42, 4 July 2022 (UTC)
Military force is not assertion, it is a fact that Nagorno-Karabakh used it. International law also quite clear about that. I'm not clear what or where Kahastok covered you were referring to because you didn't offer any references, but nevermind, I retracting from this discussion because I shared my view and has nothing else to say. Have a nice day! Abrvagl (talk) 04:11, 4 July 2022 (UTC)
I dont understand then why the states that User:Abrvagl have mentioned are included if not are recognised by at least one UN member nor satisfy the declarative theoey of statehood. — Preceding unsigned comment added by DrYisus (talk • contribs) 16:10, 3 July 2022 (UTC)

Ok, thanks for your answers I have understand that this criteria is only for that page and is not a general criteria for wikipedia aricles. DrYisus (talk) 16:18, 3 July 2022 (UTC)

Let's not include states with close to universal recognition as having "limited recognition"

When I see the phrase "limited recognition", I think of, say, Somaliland or Taiwan, with recognition from only a handful of the world's countries. Not countries like Cyprus, just because one country on earth is withholding recognition from it. In my opinion, the inclusion on this list of Armenia, China, Cyprus, and South Korea, at the least, is overblown. For what it's worth, the Google search cyprus "limited recognition" turns up mostly junk and references to or copies of this article. Largoplazo (talk) 19:15, 9 May 2022 (UTC)

I think coming up with consistent criteria and a befitting name for the list article is difficult in general. I guess the first question for your proposal is what are the parameters? For example: A majority of UN countries recognising the country = not on the list? CentreLeftRight ✉ 21:18, 9 May 2022 (UTC)
If one looks at the categories, catland has rather arbitrarily decided to exclude UN member states from the associated category(ies), using the arguments a) That this list is really 3 lists (organized by "level of recognition") and b) that cats reflect "real life", a result of catlanders not having to provide citations for their opinions. My proposed renaming of cat main as "Non-UN states" Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2022 March_27#Category:States with limited recognition to reflect their position went nowhere. The irony. Selfstudier (talk) 21:41, 9 May 2022 (UTC)
It's the kind of categorization where any hard line would be arbitrary, but we can readily tell the difference between the extremes. For example, if someone with a mild astigmatism in one eye or who experiences an occasional twinge in one knee while mountain climbing were to apply for the sort of accommodation that's accorded to people with limited vision or limited mobility, I'd expect their request to be rejected. Largoplazo (talk) 22:57, 9 May 2022 (UTC)
Its not really up to us to come up with a criteria, that would be WP:OR. We don't really have an option for a "List of states with limited recognition" other than to list countries which are referred to as such by WP:RS. Perhaps the solution is to have neither the list or the cat? Horse Eye's Back (talk) 00:19, 10 May 2022 (UTC)
Did you see my note above about my attempt to find any reliable sources that have both "Cyprus" and "limited recognition" in them, let alone using the latter to refer to the former? Can you identify any? Largoplazo (talk) 01:45, 10 May 2022 (UTC)
The article title is not a commonname as such, the title is descriptive and membership of the article is determined by the inclusion criteria (the history of how this list and those criteria were arrived at is long, @Kahastok: knows it best, probably). The latter are what needs to change if one seeks to exclude members in the list. This is the question asked by CentreLeftRight. What exactly is proposed by way of a change? Selfstudier (talk) 10:51, 10 May 2022 (UTC)
The part of the inclusion criteria in question here I think is the rule that we only include cases where there is no recognition from at least one UN member state.
How and why it was decided that it would be at least one, I don't know - that was before my time. But as it appears that China and Israel were the first to be added, I strongly suspect the list came first - probably gradually - and the rule came afterward. If it was discussed, it was probably a question of how to define the status quo, rather than going back to first principles and asking what level of recognition should be required.
The name of the article I remember a bit better. The previous name was "List of unrecognized states" and it was felt that that implied that none of the states were recognised at all. "States with limited recognition" is a description, clearly inspired by "unrecognized states". It was almost certainly coined by Wikipedians rather than any external sources. I see no reason not to change it if a better title is available.
On the point at hand, if we're limiting it, we probably then need to ask how and on what basis we're limiting it. The most obvious limiting point is at UN member states or UN observers (the difference being Palestine), but in many ways the positions of China and Israel are as interesting and relevant as the positions of Kosovo and the SADR. Kahastok talk 18:17, 10 May 2022 (UTC)
I find the North Korea-South Korea example especially fascinating *because* both are UN members. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 18:33, 10 May 2022 (UTC)
Focus on the concept and not one arrangement of words. We have several reliable sources cited on the limits of the recognition of Cyprus. The descriptive article title covers it satisfactorily. —Michael Z. 17:55, 10 May 2022 (UTC)
We have reliable sources saying what I said: one country doesn't recognize Cyprus. We have zero such sources referring to this as "limited recognition". Largoplazo (talk) 02:33, 11 May 2022 (UTC)
"Limited recognition" is a descriptive phrase rather like your "nearly universal recognition", it only means what it is defined to mean, that is the inclusion criteria. Selfstudier (talk) 10:45, 11 May 2022 (UTC)
That's comparable to '"Blind people" is a descriptive phrase, it only means what it is defined to mean, that is the inclusion criteria', and then writing the inclusion criteria for List of blind people as "This is a list of people who can't see or wear glasses or can't tell navy blue from black". The expectations raised by ordinary interpretation of our page titles matter. Inclusion criteria should nail down details, not override the ordinary meaning of the title as understood by speakers of English. If people want this to include all countries that aren't universally recognized, then change the title to something that expresses that.
You are free to suggest an alternative title if you wish. Or to propose an amendment to the inclusion criteria. Selfstudier (talk) 13:08, 11 May 2022 (UTC)


Inviting User:Horse Eye's Back‎ to this discussion in connection with their re-addition of these countries to the associated category, which is what led me here. Largoplazo (talk) 23:02, 9 May 2022 (UTC)
@Largoplazo: you are aware that Somaliland is not recognized by a handful of the world's countries? Just want to clear up that error in case if effects your argument. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 18:11, 10 May 2022 (UTC)
@Horse Eye's Back: Somaliland is not recognized by a handful of countries? It isn't formally recognized by any country, and its government has contacts with very few. How does that affect my argument about the applicability of the phrase "limited recognition" to countries like Cyprus, Armenia, China, and South Korea with nearly universal recognition? It's like saying (with reference to my earlier remarks, above) that the inability of some people to get around without a wheelchair—people who have what everyone would agree is "limited mobility"—affects an argument that somebody who gets occasional twinges in his knee while mountain climbing is not entitled on those grounds to accommodations provided to those with limited mobility. Largoplazo (talk) 18:26, 10 May 2022 (UTC)
Sticking to the knitting rather than similes, the expression "nearly universal recognition", please define what it means, how many recognitions (and from who) must one have in order to be in that group? Selfstudier (talk) 18:30, 10 May 2022 (UTC)
Yes, its recognized by no countries at all. You said it was recognized by a handful. No need to get all defensive, just accept that you were wrong and move on. BTW I don't think the analogies are helping you, lets stick to whats actually going on here. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 18:33, 10 May 2022 (UTC)
I mentioned Somaliland and Taiwan together, with Taiwan actually formally recognized by some, and Somaliland having some form of relations with others. I fail to see how your nitpicking over the exact wording I used for a case of a country that is by and large not recognized helps your case concerning countries that are almost universally recognized. Or maybe you're no ttrying to help your case in regard to countries like Armenia and China, you're just finding reasons to find fault wherever you can. Largoplazo (talk) 02:27, 11 May 2022 (UTC)
I don't understand, you're nitpicking but don't want others to do the same? What do you mean by almost universally recognized? China does not seem to meet that standard, although countries which only lack the recognition of one or two other states would. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 14:55, 11 May 2022 (UTC)
Well, gee, let's also nitpick about whether Pluto should still be considered a planet. I meant your nitpicking about something that has no bearing on the outcome of the issue that I've raised here. Largoplazo (talk) 15:03, 11 May 2022 (UTC)
The issue you've raised is vague and contradictory hence the question, for example you say that almost universally recognized countries shouldn't be on the list but then you list China as a country with almost universal recognition which just isn't true and thus highly confusing. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 15:07, 11 May 2022 (UTC)
China is obviously an "almost universally recognized" country. All countries within the UN System can be classified as almost universally recognized countries, including Palestine. What we need here is a list of de facto states, that's what most people trying to find when they access this article. UN countries without universal recognition can be included in a sidenote though. 2001:8003:9008:1301:1DEC:6878:4502:E89B (talk) 03:14, 20 June 2022 (UTC)
I see your point and I agree that currently the article contains countries which are rarely described as having limited recognition by RS. However any other inclusion rule would be also arbitrary and would cause lots of arguments depending on where countries like China, Israel and Kosovo end up. Alaexis¿question? 15:09, 11 May 2022 (UTC)
Much of the argument above seems to be that we should change the content, since it doesn't fall within the perceived scope of the title. However, the content should dictate the article title, and not the other way around.
While there is obviously varying degrees to the limitations of the international recognition of the listed states (from universal non-recognition to nearly universal recognition), I don't see a good reason why we should arbitrarily limit the scope of the article.
Personally I think that the "limited" in the title is sufficient to capture both the extremely limited recognition cases as well as the minimally limited recognition cases, however I'm open to considering alternative proposed titles if there are suggestions. TDL (talk) 15:43, 15 May 2022 (UTC)
"List of states without universal recognition" would be one, but I like the "limited" title better. Ladril (talk) 12:14, 28 May 2022 (UTC)
  • Comment Just delete those states with close to universal recognition (i.e. UN member states and Palestine which is a UN observer state) and move the article to List of de facto states.
By the way, if my proposal is not accepted by the community, please remove Somaliland from the list. Unless Taiwan's recognition of Somaliland is acknowledged, Somaliland is still a country recognized by no one (i.e. an unrecognized de facto state), thus it does not belong here. 2001:8003:9008:1301:1DEC:6878:4502:E89B (talk) 01:42, 20 June 2022 (UTC)
Speaking for myself, the primary distinction is UN/nonUN (Palestine is recognized as a UN observer state so I say it is in the UN following the prescription at List of Sovereign states). The category people are in fact making this distinction (but excluding Palestine) because they exclude UN states from all their limited recognition cats. Either we should be following them or they should be following us as a logical matter. Selfstudier (talk) 09:20, 20 June 2022 (UTC)
In my opinion, the main article in its current state is perfectly sound. For a long time, the most controversial topic was whether to include Donetsk and Luhansk. This matter has since become clearer after Russia recognised the sovereignty of these two territories (note: I personally don't recognise them), and after Syria has done so as well. I believe that it is actually more arbitrary to exclude countries with "near-universal recognition" than it is to include these countries since it is difficult to define what exactly that means. Clearly, the level of recognition of countries is not clear-cut; it's a spectrum. Cutting off the top end of the spectrum doesn't make sense, because they indeed fit the criteria of the article, and they also provide a sense of the fact that this is a spectrum. China is indeed not recognised by all countries; there is very clear evidence of a handful of countries not recognising that country (at least, not officially; unofficially, it is a different story). I would also point out that Palestine is almost certainly not a clear-cut case. I don't understand why Palestine would be cited as not fitting the criteria simply due to its UN observer status; the recognition of Palestine is definitely not universal in the slightest if we go on a country-by-country basis. Cyprus and Armenia are indeed only not recognised by one country each, and South Korea probably is as well, but these cases are still valid, and I think it is important to know that they don't actually have 100% recognition, but rather only 99% or something. I think we certainly do need more reliable sources indicating exactly which countries are unrecognised by which. The cases for North Korea are a bit unclear; at times, Japan and France have been cited as not recognising North Korea, and at other times, these two cases have been removed for some reason. There are indeed a lot of cases of countries not having direct relations simply due to laziness. The cases that are more meaningful to us are the ones where countries lack direct relations due to hostilities. Jargo Nautilus (talk) 08:03, 1 July 2022 (UTC)

I agree with 2001:8003:9008:1301:1DEC:6878:4502:E89B's comments.

Remove Somaliland (sole recognition from Taiwan is negligible) and the borderline ones, then move the page to List of de facto states.

Furthermore, Bhutan's opinion of China gives them WP:Undue influence on the map, giving the average reader a misleading representation of the overall concept of limited recognition; Bhutan is a tiny country with less than a million people, and they're plastering the map with their WP:Fringe theory, permitted by the WP:Advocacy-based inclusiveness that the page title wording implies. 45.19.219.153 (talk) 21:05, 3 July 2022 (UTC)

In my opinion, Somaliland should stay on the list. Even though it lacks international recognition of its sovereignty, it meets all of the other criteria for statehood (apart from recognition). Somaliland also has a historical legal precedent for sovereignty, having been a sovereign country separate from Somalia for five days after declaring independence, plus it was formerly a distinctive British colony in Africa. Somaliland has a similar right to independence as what Western Sahara (SADR) has. Jargo Nautilus (talk) 07:59, 6 July 2022 (UTC)

Limited vs. partial recognition

I propose a change to the title of this article and similarly named categories, such as Category:States with limited recognition. I have not started a move proposal because I do not wish to act hastily without knowing whether or not there is support from other editors for such an idea. I explained what I believed to be the main problem discussed between editors in an earlier thread:

The main issue is that this article is titled "List of states with limited recognition", but it does not only list states with limited recognition. This article is really a list of all states which meet one of two widely used definitions for a sovereign state, and which are not recognised by at least one UN member. I have seen other editors reference WP:CATV, and obviously very few (if any) reliable sources would describe China or South Korea as states with limited recognition (in this context, "limited" meaning little or few, i.e. states with little recognition / few other countries recognising it). However, I do not think a claim to the contrary is being made by editors who add Category:States with limited recognition to articles, nor by editors of this article. The titles of this article and the relevant category are just not very accurate when considering their intended scopes.

The adjective "limited" has connotations of restriction and/or little quantity. However, the criteria given for this list article is not restrictive; it sets parameters for what is included, not what is excluded, and is quite widely encompassing in my opinion. Further to this point, I challenge anyone who argues to the contrary to find contemporary reliable sources which describe the People's Republic of China (China) or the Republic of Korea (South Korea) as states with limited recognition.

I think "partial" is a good replacement for "limited" because it merely implies incompleteness and makes no suggestion as to how complete the described noun is. It is similar to the distinction between "generally" and "universally"; the former implies it is mostly the case while the latter implies it is always the case. For example, China is generally, but not universally, recognised by the international community (i.e. sovereign states). If one tests out this wording with examples from this list article, I am confident they would find no issue:

  • The People's Republic of China is a [UN] state with partial recognition; 13 UN states do not recognise its sovereignty.
  • The Pridnestrovian Moldavian Republic is a state with partial recognition; it is recognised only by non-UN member states.

These are my thoughts, all the best. Yue🌙 03:42, 5 July 2022 (UTC)

Where is the cut off for "partial"? Selfstudier (talk) 09:09, 5 July 2022 (UTC)
Limited and partial mean the exact same thing in this scenario, at least they seem to be used interchangeably in the literature. This is where you need to show your source. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 14:46, 5 July 2022 (UTC)
I see, then the idea is to do away with the three divisions under the heading Present geopolitical entities by level of recognition? All the entries become "partial"? Selfstudier (talk) 15:01, 5 July 2022 (UTC)
As I said on Talk:Republic of Artsakh earlier, "partial recognition" has a specific meaning, reserved only for entities that are a) involuntary (i.e. vetoed, states voluntarily abstaining from UN membership ranks, such as Vatican City and pre-2002 Switzerland don't count) non-UN member states, which are b) recognized by the UN member states. So, Transnistria is not a "partially recognized state" (but unrecognized one) and PRC is not a "partially recognized state", but, still, a generally recognized state (as Ker-Lindsay put in, "Indeed, even when there is general acceptance of a state, some countries may choose not to recognize it. For example, there are members of the United Nations, such as Israel, that have not been recognized by all the other members". Emphasis is mine). Examples of partially recognized polities (in descending order, from more recognized to less recognized) are the State of Palestine (138 UNMS recognitions), Republic of Kosovo (97 UNMS recognitions), SADR (40 UNMS recognitions), Republic of China /Taiwan/ (13 UNMS recognitions), Abkhazia & SO (5 UNMS recognitions of both), DPR & LPR (2 UNMS recognitions of both, of which one is a patron recognition), Turkish Republic of Northern Cyprus (only one UNMS recognition, from a patron). Bests, Seryo93 (talk) 13:30, 7 July 2022 (UTC)
Right, so the expression "partial" is defined by the reference you gave there (I will copy it below).
Emerson: Partial recognition can come in different degrees through official recognition by any number of UN member states, with or without the agreement of all the UNSC permanent members, and the number is maybe some guide to the strength of the case (emphasis mine) or Ker-Lindsay, James (2022-01-28). "De Facto States in the 21st Century". Oxford Research Encyclopedia of International Studies. doi:10.1093/acrefore/9780190846626.013.635. ISBN 978-0-19-084662-6. Retrieved 2022-06-13. Beyond this, there are a number of other terms that have been used. For example, the terms partially and unrecognized states have found a place in the literature, but these are also unsatisfactory for immediately apparent reasons. For a start, not all de facto states are wholly unrecognized. Many enjoy partial recognition to a great or lesser extent. Northern Cyprus is recognized by Turkey. Abkhazia and South Ossetia are recognized by Russia and a handful of other countries. Likewise, calling them partially recognized states is equally wrong as a substantial number have yet to be recognized by a single UN member state. (emphasis again mine).
So if we were to take that as criteria only UN recognition of some sort counts, right? Selfstudier (talk) 13:41, 7 July 2022 (UTC)
Right. Renaming this page to a list of partially recognized states would thus narrow down its scope to polities I listed above. Which I don't think of as a desirable solution. Bests, Seryo93 (talk) 19:55, 7 July 2022 (UTC)
But we could alter the aforementioned three divisions? Selfstudier (talk) 21:48, 7 July 2022 (UTC)

Somaliland

The color on the map od Somaliland should be changed from red to orange because Taiwan is recognising it as the independent state. 83.4.52.96 (talk) 20:08, 3 July 2022 (UTC)

 Fixed Yue🌙 02:30, 5 July 2022 (UTC)
Reverted, due to lack of consensus at Talk:List of states with limited recognition/Archive 14#Somaliland and Taiwan. If there are new sources on the matter, they would be appreciated. CMD (talk) 03:14, 5 July 2022 (UTC)
This ABC article from 6 June suggests the relationship remains deliberately ambiguous. CMD (talk) 03:18, 5 July 2022 (UTC)
Then the list should not have been updated either. As of the time of this reply, there are only three subcategories as "Non-UN member states not recognised by any other state" was removed and Somaliland is grouped together with "Non-UN member states recognised only by other non-UN member states". Yue🌙 03:48, 5 July 2022 (UTC)
I have reverted. CMD (talk) 03:59, 5 July 2022 (UTC)
@Chipmunkdavis: I'm not sure if you got my ping successfully on zhwiki or not, as there's no contributions from you at zhwiki till now, on their talk page of the list, your reverts here are suddenly a part of major topic, many zhwiki contributors just wondered (and some even asked me, sic) that, what's the thing you read from that Australian ABC newspage that lead your the relationship remains deliberately ambiguous? The political standing of (the Republic of) Somaliland? Or the diplomatic relationships between Somaliland and Taiwan? Or else things? --Liuxinyu970226 (talk) 11:09, 7 July 2022 (UTC)
PS: a zhwiki user said that they sent an inquiry e-mail to the Taiwanese Ministry of Foreign Affairs, to get the official clarification on diplomatic relationships between both directions. Liuxinyu970226 (talk) 13:16, 7 July 2022 (UTC)
I am afraid I not a contributor to zh.wiki. There are many things in that ABC newspage that indicate the situation, but perhaps the most clearly obvious point is the discussion of the term "ambassador" being "casually embrace[d]", along with the sign saying "Taiwan Representative Office" (contrast with File:ROC Holy See Embassy.jpg). The zh.wiki user who sent that inquiry said the offical reply was unclear/隱晦, which seems to further support the idea of deliberate ambiguity. CMD (talk) 13:32, 7 July 2022 (UTC)
Here's the newest response from their wiki: If we have to keep the "States not recognised by any other state" categorisation for Somaliland, then my edit (that you reverted) is still fair, but just need two more words: de facto, anyway zhwiki has to, based on your revert, consider whether they should still trust Australian ABC as reliable source or not, the discussion would in theory be happened on their WP:RSN. Liuxinyu970226 (talk) 23:42, 8 July 2022 (UTC)
The zhwiki RSN discussion regarding Australian ABC is started by me here.Liuxinyu970226 (talk) 00:14, 9 July 2022 (UTC)
That would require assessing "de facto" recognition for all these states. We do not do that for very good reason, that being that de facto recognition is a massive grey area unsuited to simple lists. RSN is a weird choice, unless you feel ABC News is either falsely editing the words of Taiwan's representative, or doctoring its image of the Representative Office. CMD (talk) 03:52, 9 July 2022 (UTC)

Proposal about map styling

In response to the undue/fringe-based thesis[12] presented on this page, it is proposed that the "UN members not recognised by 1+ UN members" (China, Israel, South Korea, North Korea, Cyprus, Armenia) change from the current solid olive green to an alternate striping of the current olive green + uncolored base grey.

Support? Or oppose? CraigP459 (talk) 21:07, 12 July 2022 (UTC)

Slow down a bit, what WP:UNDUE and WP:FRINGE issues are you talking about? Horse Eye's Back (talk) 21:14, 12 July 2022 (UTC)
The issue that Bhutan is singlehandedly putting China on the map. CraigP459 (talk) 21:25, 12 July 2022 (UTC)
How is that a WP:UNDUE and WP:FRINGE issue? Also just FYI that isn't true, both you and the IP appear to be mistaken. You wouldn't happen to be the IP now would you? Horse Eye's Back (talk) 21:32, 12 July 2022 (UTC)
Certainly not, it just seems like a logical argument to me. You are free to oppose the proposal if you disagree. CraigP459 (talk) 11:42, 14 July 2022 (UTC)
I'm not sure why changing the map to be less accessible is helpful, and am unsure what Bhutan has to do with anything. CMD (talk) 12:06, 14 July 2022 (UTC)
What part seems logical? China is unrecognized by Belize, Eswatini, Guatemala, Haiti, Honduras, etc. Its more than a dozen countries not just Bhutan. Your entire proposal seems to rest on the mistaken assumption that the only country which doesn't recognize China is Bhutan. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 14:23, 14 July 2022 (UTC)
Agreed. Thank you for explaining the dozen-plus countries and correcting my mistaken assumption. CraigP459 (talk) 21:29, 16 July 2022 (UTC)
Bhutan is not "single-handedly putting China on the map". Bhutan is the only United Nations member state that recognises neither China (the PRC) nor Taiwan (the ROC). However, there are also 13 UN member states (and one UN observer, the Vatican) that don't recognise the PRC, instead recognising the ROC. In fact, out of all of the countries that you've listed CraigP459, China is indeed the one of the most deserving countries to be placed on this list, significantly more so than South Korea, Armenia or Cyprus (albeit perhaps equally as much as Israel and North Korea). Jargo Nautilus (talk) 10:34, 16 July 2022 (UTC)
Agreed. Thank you for explaining the 13 UN member states. CraigP459 (talk) 21:29, 16 July 2022 (UTC)

Proposal of new criteria for inclusion

The criteria for inclusion mean that a polity must claim sovereignty, lack recognition from at least one UN member state, and either:

See discussion in section above. I think that 10 UN member states is already a sufficient threshold for weeding out puppet states. What are your opinions? BlackBony (talk) 20:24, 16 July 2022 (UTC)

That is an effective threshold, although it is certainly somewhat arbitrary. I believe that it doesn't address the root of the problem. My main issue with the status quo of the article is that it presumes that the "constitutive theory" implies that a state exists once it has been recognised by at least one other state within the existing international community... The issue that I have with this reading of the theory is that it presumes that it isn't necessary to first determine whether the state in question is indeed a state and not something else entirely.
I think it has been agreed upon throughout Wikipedia that a dependent territory, or a "quasi-dependent" territory, is not a state, by definition of being beholden to another state in terms of its sovereign governance. So, that theoretically means that one of the most important factors for determining statehood is identifying the supreme political authority for the governance of that particular territory. Regarding Donetsk and Luhansk in particular, which I have been discussing extensively in the section above, I am challenging the notion that these two regimes/governments actually possess the "supreme" authority within their respective territories, or if they are simply beholden to an ultimate sovereign, that being Russia. Jargo Nautilus (talk) 20:44, 16 July 2022 (UTC)
Without a WP:RS which uses that criteria its a non-starter. We couldn't even if we wanted to. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 20:46, 16 July 2022 (UTC)
Are there any WP:RS that describe Donetsk and Luhansk as "de facto states", without also mentioning that they are puppets of Russia? Because, as far as I can tell, even though there are various sources that describe these two entities as "breakaway republics", this is almost always accompanied by the addendum "but they are puppets of Russia". Just how many reputable sources actually describe Donetsk and Luhansk as independent states from Russia? I don't think the diplomatic recognition from Russia is enough to give these two entities a free pass into this article.
I will also note that it is not just important whether a state is independent from its "parent" state, i.e. the state that it broke away from, but also from its "patron" state, i.e. the state that is potentially propping up its independence. There's no question that Donetsk and Luhansk are independent from Ukraine, which they were formerly a part of. I'm just disputing whether they are independent from Russia, the state that has largely been responsible for helping them to break away from Ukraine. Jargo Nautilus (talk) 20:54, 16 July 2022 (UTC)
That was a response to BlackBony not you, check the indenting. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 20:56, 16 July 2022 (UTC)
I know that, I was just adding my two (a thousand) cents. Jargo Nautilus (talk) 21:00, 16 July 2022 (UTC)
@Horse Eye's Back current criteria for inclusion is also without any WP:RS. Criteria for inclusion can be chosen arbitrary. Why 1 UN member state? Why 10 UN member state? WP:RS is required to show that a polity claims sovereignty, lacks recognition, is recognised or satisfy the declarative theory. BlackBony (talk) 21:08, 16 July 2022 (UTC)
The current criteria for inclusion is that a WP:RS refers to a nation as a state with limited recognition. I think you're confusing what the criteria is with unsourced content on the page which does not meet that criteria (and can be removed at will). Horse Eye's Back (talk) 21:10, 16 July 2022 (UTC)
Why 1 UN member state? Because 1 is where you suddenly have some recognition. That is not arbitrary, it's a very bright line that is not easy to cross. CMD (talk) 05:52, 17 July 2022 (UTC)
The problem with relying solely on recognition is that this provides an easy loophole for "imaginary" states to gain a place on this list without much effort. My initial tirade in the section above with regard to Donetsk and Luhansk was that I believed that these states were being illegally recognised by Russia, having no basis in reality. Obviously, it was Russia's prerogative to recognise these two entities as being states, but most evidence points towards the very act of recognition being illegal. Personally, I see Donetsk and Luhansk as being akin to Manchukuo, which was infamously a puppet state that Japan carved out of China during WWII (in a completely different context from Taiwan, mind you). Indeed, despite some superficial similarities between Donetsk/ Luhansk and South Ossetia/ Transnistria/ Abkhazia/ Artsakh, I personally view the other four territories as being significantly more legitimate than Donetsk and Luhansk. This isn't because I necessarily recognise any of them as being sovereign, but rather because I recognise that all four of these territories possess a genuine desire (not a right, but a want) for self-determination as distinctive entities. Meanwhile, I view Donetsk and Luhansk as being completely under Russian influence, with no genuine desire for independence outside of a Russian context. Jargo Nautilus (talk) 01:18, 19 July 2022 (UTC)
^I suppose what this means is that I believe that it is mandatory that a self-declared state possess a genuine desire for independence in order for it to be included in this list. I define self-determination as being specifically NOT linked to becoming a constituent part of another state as soon as possible. (Note: Artsakh, South Ossetia, Abkhazia and Transnistria do indeed lean towards this position, but they aren't definitively within it just yet.) Jargo Nautilus (talk) 01:21, 19 July 2022 (UTC)
The criteria in this article should not be based on what you, or I, or some other editor, thinks is legal or moral or right, or legitimate. What you define as imaginary may not be what someone else defines as imaginary. That is why we have very clear criteria that means the list isn't subject to particular whims about which particular state carved out of a country by a foreign power is legitimate and which isn't. CMD (talk) 07:52, 19 July 2022 (UTC)
We need to fix how we define the term "state". This article is supposed to be a list of "states" that have limited recognition. If something isn't even a state, then it can't be included in this list, no matter how much recognition it might have. Jargo Nautilus (talk) 20:05, 19 July 2022 (UTC)

Oppose. 10 is an arbitrary number. Why not 8 or 12? Or... etc. As I have said previously, other folk (cats) regard the UN states as not being limited at all, any of them, no matter how many recognitions they are missing. I am not saying that I necessarily approve of the current set up, just that it is quite awkward to find a satisfactory alternative, in fact I think it isn't possible without splitting the page and that would in turn create its own set of problems.Selfstudier (talk) 21:38, 16 July 2022 (UTC)

@Jargo Nautilus, Selfstudier, Chipmunkdavis, and Horse Eye's Back: I see now that I forgot to write a rationale for my proposal :) In an ideal world, the criteria for inclusion in this list would simply be: a polity must claim sovereignty, lack recognition from at least one UN member state, and satisfy the declarative theory of statehood. However, this criterion has a problem, which User:Kahastok wrote about above. We simply do not have reliable sources about each polity that would assess its conformity to the declarative theory. Therefore, to avoid WP:OR a second criterion is added. Actually the second criterion is just a condition, which is easier to check than the conformity to the declarative theory. We assume that if a polity is recognised by N member states of the UN, then it satisfies the declarative theory. I chose N=10 because I am personally sure that the polities recognised by 10 or more member states of the UN satisfy the declarative theory and for them the source for the fact that they satisfy is not necessary (such an analysis simply may not exist in the literature). BlackBony (talk) 16:54, 18 July 2022 (UTC)

If we need a second criteria because "We simply do not have reliable sources" then the article shouldn't exist, see WP:NOTABILITY. Thats WP:OR at that point and while it sounds like a fun project wikipedia isn't the place for personal projects like that... This is an encyclopedia. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 17:02, 18 July 2022 (UTC)
That's OK, provided we don't try to create a list of states that meet the standard of the declarative theory as has been proposed. The current criteria don't require that we do anything that can't be easily verified by reliable sources. Kahastok talk 18:02, 18 July 2022 (UTC)
This article is often redirected from various similar but distinctive concepts. These include: "De facto state", "Self-declared state", "Breakaway state". A de facto state is an entity that behaves as a state but isn't widely recognised as one, i.e. this mostly fits with the declarative theory. A self-declared state is a state-like entity that has declared itself to exist, again mostly fitting with the declarative theory. A breakaway state is noticeably distinct from the other two because it implies that a new state has seceded from another older state, i.e. the "parent state".
If we were to create a list of breakaway states, it would technically be very long because a lot of UN member states qualify as breakaway states historically, even though they have firmly established themselves in the present day (e.g. the United States is a breakaway state). With that being said, a list of non-UN breakaway states would be relatively short and straightforward, with the main catch being that we would perhaps need to distinguish between proto-states and the like. The non-UN entities in this article that do not qualify as breakaway states include Taiwan, Palestine, and Western Sahara/SADR. The others are all breakaway states to differing degrees; the most controversial would be Somaliland since it claims succession from the colony of British Somaliland. Kosovo qualifies as a breakaway state.
A list of self-declared states is fairly self-explanatory. Any state that declares itself to exist is a self-declared state. With that being said, there are a lot of microstates micronations that technically fit within this category, such as Sealand, but most people would agree that this entity doesn't really qualify as a state and is more of a parody than anything, so it shouldn't be included on the list. Hence, the declarative theory of statehood is relevant in assessing whether a self-declared state is really a state or is instead something else in reality.
The concept of a de facto state is the most controversial and difficult one because it implies that we need to research each and every non-UN state-like entity in order to figure out whether it functions as a state. A list of "de facto states" would be very short, i.e. roughly the same length as the list within this article, because only a few non-UN states are widely recognised as being genuinely state-like. Jargo Nautilus (talk) 00:53, 19 July 2022 (UTC)
We should not assume a state meets the declarative theory just because it is recognised by N other states. Recognition is no guarantee of de facto statehood, even with over a hundred recognitions, hence the concept of failed states. We currently already have recognition as a second condition, but without pulling some arbitrary number out of thin air. CMD (talk) 00:56, 19 July 2022 (UTC)
The recognition element goes both ways. The presumption is that a state truly exists if it is recognised by other states that also truly exist, i.e. it has joined the club. Having a lot of recognitions doesn't prove that a state exists, but having a few recognitions doesn't prove that a state exists either. So, really, objectively, being recognised is not a proof of a state existing, but rather just increases the likelihood that a state truly exists. Jargo Nautilus (talk) 01:03, 19 July 2022 (UTC)
We don't use recognition to prove a state exists de facto. It is a separate criteria, and entities must only meet one of the two to be on this list. CMD (talk) 01:07, 19 July 2022 (UTC)
That was a point that I made in a comment in the section above... I proposed a few days ago that we split the existing list into two parts, one that is reliant on the declarative theory only, and another that is reliant on the constitutive theory only. As it stands, the list seems to be conflating two entirely distinctive theories. Indeed, it doesn't even seem to be doing this; it is doing this, objectively. Jargo Nautilus (talk) 01:11, 19 July 2022 (UTC)
This list doesn't conflate theories, as it isn't about the theories. This whole discussion has emerged simply because some editors do not like a particular international situation, and feel this view should be reflected in the article. The criteria here is useful in part because it was not designed with any particular entities in mind, and so we can avoid pointless OR about whether state X or Y is legitimate or realised or puppeted. CMD (talk) 07:52, 19 July 2022 (UTC)
The issue that I'm constesting is that I believe that Donetsk and Luhansk don't properly qualify as "states" according to the definition of that term. Despite being "recognised" as states, they are not indeed states. This is different from, say, Kosovo, which by all accounts is a state. Jargo Nautilus (talk) 20:02, 19 July 2022 (UTC)
...except for the accounts of the 96 UN member states that consider Kosovo not to be a state, a POV that we are not allowed to ignore.
Ultimately, the fact that you don't believe that Donetsk and Luhansk meet the definition of a state is not relevant. You will find people who will make that case for literally every single entry on this list. After all, that is the whole point of the list. Kahastok talk 20:26, 19 July 2022 (UTC)
This is where the idea of a "de facto state" comes in. Again, this is a point that you've seemingly overlooked, but there is indeed a difference between recognising something as a "de jure sovereign state" and recognising something as a "de facto sovereign state". 96 UN member states do not recognise Kosovo as a de jure sovereign state, but this does not necessarily have a bearing on whether they recognise the existence of Kosovo in its present form as a being a de facto sovereign state (which they presumably believe needs to be re-integrated into Serbia). I'm not fully versed on the situation with Kosovo, but if we instead look at Taiwan, we can see that this state in particular is not recognised as de jure sovereign by most countries in the West, and yet most countries in the West recognise Taiwan on a de facto level. Indeed, even most non-Western countries have some kind of recognition towards Taiwan in terms of recognising passports. The reason for this is that Taiwan is too big too simply ignore outright, so most countries choose to classify Taiwan within an "grey area" status. Jargo Nautilus (talk) 20:51, 19 July 2022 (UTC)
This is particularly why I think we need to be more concerned with whether a state exists in the de facto form, as opposed to whether it is recognised in the de jure sense. These are two separate issues that have been horribly conflated within this entire article.
Another important point is that the lack of recognition of a de facto state does not imply that it is considered to be a constituent part of the parent state. For example, again when looking at Taiwan, even though a lot of countries don't recognise Taiwan as de jure independent, a lot of these same countries also don't recognise Taiwan as being a constituent part of the (competing) sovereign state that claims it, namely China. Basically, there's a large category of countries that simultaneously don't recognise Taiwan's sovereigny nor China's claim to the island, so they effectively consider the matter to be "unsettled". This means they've essentially taken no strong stance on the matter of who owns the island. Jargo Nautilus (talk) 20:57, 19 July 2022 (UTC)
Here's a quite frankly awesome paragraph from the Wikipedia article "International recognition of Kosovo".
--- "Diplomatic recognition is an explicit, official, unilateral act in the foreign policy of states in regards to another party. Not having issued such a statement does not necessarily mean the state has objections to the existence, independence, sovereignty or government of the other party. Some states, by custom or policy, do not extend formal recognitions, on the grounds that a vote for membership in the UN or another organisation whose membership is limited to states is itself an act of recognition." --- Jargo Nautilus (talk) 21:09, 19 July 2022 (UTC)
We do not need to concern ourselves with our opinions of what is or isn't a de facto state. As Kahastok says, you could make such a case for any entity on this list, and you could if you wanted make such a case for many entities not on this list. Do it properly and you could get multiple theses out of it, but happily this article is not the place for that, and this talkpage isn't really either. CMD (talk) 22:17, 19 July 2022 (UTC)
Don't worry, I am already helping to re-evaluate all of the articles relating specifically to Donetsk PR and Luhansk PR (not vandalising, mind you; I am engaging in legitimate discussions there). Over the coming days, weeks, and months, we will see what the status of Donetsk PR and Luhansk PR on Wikipedia will become. My prediction is that they will both be eventually removed from this article, although the process for doing so will be quite lengthy indeed. Jargo Nautilus (talk) 12:13, 28 July 2022 (UTC)
Do note that the process for adding both Donetsk PR and Luhansk PR to this article was extremely hasty and not well argued out. Due to the flimsy reasoning used to add Donetsk PR and Luhansk PR to the article in the first place, it should not be too difficult to remove them. Well, it will still be time-consuming, but it won't be outright impossible. Jargo Nautilus (talk) 12:16, 28 July 2022 (UTC)
Tricky without altering the criteria. Just so we're clear, I am not a big fan of Montevideo, I prefer the recognition/UN route way of doing things in general although I think it is also true that what is actually happening in practice is that politicos/tribunals/courts and so on blur the issues and operate with some combo of the two theories (Bosnia Herzegovina is a good example). Selfstudier (talk) 12:46, 28 July 2022 (UTC)
Developing the process for adding states took over a year, and there are multiple archive pages dedicated specifically to the question. Describing it as "extremely hasty" is not a good start to a re-evaluation, and I've not seen here any issue which would merit a re-evaluation. A reminder perhaps that this page does not 'relate specifically' to the DPR and LPR, it is part of a small ecosystem of state lists. CMD (talk) 12:55, 28 July 2022 (UTC)
I agree. I would add that if the proposed re-evaluation is primarily aimed at making the article better reflect a single editor's POV of particular entities on this page - and, let's be clear, nobody has provided any other reason why it should happen - then it is something we definitely should not be doing. Wikipedia is not anyone's personal soapbox, no matter how strongly they feel about a subject. Kahastok talk 21:41, 28 July 2022 (UTC)
The article "International representation of the DPR and LPR" was originally linked to the DPR and LPR entries of this list, under the title of "Diplomatic missions of the DPR/LPR". A few days ago, that list was *deleted* and became a redirect to "International *recognition* of the DPR/LPR". These two topics are closely related, but they are not precisely the same, and this list article does not regard them as such. In any case, I think I've identified a problem here. Many discussions about the DPR and LPR have occurred at this talk page in the past (which I'm fully aware of), but it seems that nobody within these discussions has actually bothered to quality-check the relevant Wikipedia articles about the DPR and LPR. A lot of the Wikipedia articles about the DPR and LPR are improper, either serving no real purpose or containing fringe/hoax information. The existence of fringe/hoax or POV-fork articles about the DPR and LPR on Wikipedia, none of which has properly been vetted prior to discussions about the DPR and LPR at this list, has most likely influenced the decision of editors to regard the two entities as more legitimate than they really are. The descriptor "hasty" is accurate here considering that editors of this article wasted no time linking an article about the DPR and LPR to this article (twice no less!) that has since been deleted to a near-permanent degree. Jargo Nautilus (talk) 04:16, 30 July 2022 (UTC)
The decision to list or not list on this page has absolutely nothing to do with the content of any other Wikipedia pages (outside of the main state list of course). CMD (talk) 09:53, 30 July 2022 (UTC)
You should not add (hyper-link) external articles to this list until they are properly vetted. This is NOT with regards to the main country articles, i.e. "DPR" and "LPR". The articles that are problematic are "International recognition of the DPR and LPR", "List of diplomatic missions of the DPR", and "List of diplomatic missions of the LPR". All three of these articles were prematurely added (hyper-linked) to this list under the entries for the DPR and the LPR without properly being vetted. Indeed, I think the diplomatic missions articles might have been created directly as a consequence of the accession of the DPR and the LPR to the unrecognised states list. Jargo Nautilus (talk) 11:08, 30 July 2022 (UTC)
Wikilinks are not reliable sources themselves, they are just a means of seeking further info, a means to grow and integrate the encyclopedia. It's not up to editors to verify the material at every page they wikilink, if I did that I would be doing nothing else on WP except that, lol. Selfstudier (talk) 11:17, 30 July 2022 (UTC)
The problem with the main list of this article is that it has a "standardised" set of links that it provides for every entry, i.e. "Foreign relations", "Political status", "International recognition", "List of diplomatic missions of", and "List of diplomatic missions to". This set-up is certainly a good starting point, but it's not the best set-up in certain cases, especially for those states or quasi-states that have almost zero legitimacy or recognition. For the Donetsk PR and the Luhansk PR in particular, we could easily compile all five of these topics into a single article (with both the DPR and LPR combined), or we could even just discuss all five of these topics in a single subsection of the main articles of the DPR and the LPR respectively. Jargo Nautilus (talk) 15:02, 30 July 2022 (UTC)
When you split all five of these topics up purely for the sake of "building an encyclopaedia" (as @Kahastok has mentioned below), you are encouraging the act of POV-forking, i.e. placing an UNDUE WEIGHT on a controversial topic, in an effort to legitimize a FRINGE POV or FRINGE information in general. All of the smaller articles surrounding the DPR and the LPR, i.e. aside from the main articles "DPR" and "LPR" themselves, have been hotbeds of FRINGE and promotional editing. Indeed, I've even seen on an older article about the DPR and LPR that a member of the DPR or LPR (can't remember which) government had been openly writing an article based on his first-hand knowledge of a certain situation, and he openly admitted to being a government official from either the DPR or the LPR. The information isn't necessarily inaccurate, but when it is being written directly by the original provider of the source material, then the issue of NPOV comes into play. Jargo Nautilus (talk) 15:08, 30 July 2022 (UTC)
Yeah, that's not what the policies and guidelines say. On the contrary - even we should even be creating redlinks where doing so is useful in building the encyclopedia. After all, Wikipedia is a work in progress. Kahastok talk 11:31, 30 July 2022 (UTC)
I think you misunderstand what I'm saying. What I'm saying is that the articles that are ALREADY in existence are already flawed from the get go, and editors are currently discussing how to better arrange those articles. These articles were not even properly constructed at the point that they were hyper-linked into this article. They are essentially in quarantine at the moment, because editors cannot agree on how to arrange them, and there are only something like 10 editors or less who are looking at these articles at the maximum (usually, it's just 1-3 at any one time). Jargo Nautilus (talk) 14:58, 30 July 2022 (UTC)
For what it's worth, I've deleted the red-links at the present time in order to discourage users from creating new articles that have absolutely nothing to go off of. At the present time, the aim of the game is to create a single article to discuss the political statuses of both the DPR and LPR together. So, essentially, what would otherwise be regarded as ten different articles (according to the main list of this article) is now going to just be one article. Because that's how little source material we have to work off at the moment, and that's also how little source material actually exists. We can't just invent source material for the purpose of coming up with something to write about. The source material either exists or it doesn't, because the topic is either notable or it isn't. And in this case, the politics of the DPR and LPR are not really notable at all, especially not after the 2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine has subsumed all discourse about these now-insignificant breakaway quasi-states. They were significant for, what, three days? And then they suddenly weren't anymore. February 21, 2022, to February 24, 2022. You had a good run, fellas. Jargo Nautilus (talk) 15:19, 30 July 2022 (UTC)
This talkpage is not a good forum either for the content of other articles, or for personal opinions on various entries in this list. At any rate, a very quick search finds years of sources covering the politics of the DPR and LPR, so if you're interested in improving various articles there is quite a bit of material to use. CMD (talk) 15:40, 30 July 2022 (UTC)
There's not even an article on Wikipedia yet about the "politics" of the DPR and LPR specifically, but I would point out that I think the internal and external politics of a country or quasi-state are two separate albeit related topics. I'm not so much interested in the internal politics of the DPR and LPR as I am in the external politics, which would include foreign relations, political status, and international recognition. Jargo Nautilus (talk) 16:07, 30 July 2022 (UTC)

Where does the number 10 come from? I don't think the problems with the current criteria are so grave as to require dramatic changes. Alaexis¿question? 13:42, 19 July 2022 (UTC)

Catalonia?

Catalonia needs to be added to the list. It is an unrecognised state too. 103.244.230.34 (talk) 10:29, 27 August 2022 (UTC)

Please provide evidence that it meets the criteria for inclusion for this list. Kahastok talk 11:16, 27 August 2022 (UTC)

Ukraine cut relations with North korea

Title Marko8726 (talk) 06:55, 18 September 2022 (UTC)

Relations != recognition. CMD (talk) 17:01, 18 September 2022 (UTC)

not recognize the DPRK

Where did 7 countries come from that do not recognize the DPRK as an independent state? OK, France [13] [14] [15] some sources talking about this position Ok, South Korea and Japan have a source in article

For the remaining 4 countries, are there such sources that speak of the position of not recognizing the DPRK?

USA -? What about this Three days later, on November 20, US Secretary of State Colin Powell presented another carrot to Pyongyang when he expressed the United States' recognition of North Korea as a sovereign state.

Israel -?

Estonia - ?

Botswana - ? Czecho89 (talk) 04:56, 28 August 2022 (UTC)

Have you read North_Korea–United_States_relations#Pre–Korean War (1948–1950)? The U.S. did not extend, and has never extended formal diplomatic recognition to the DPRK. Liuxinyu970226 (talk) 10:58, 20 September 2022 (UTC)

Donetsk and Luhansk (again)

I don't have any material/sources about this, just my thoughts. But I am curious as to why Donetsk and Luhansk have been so readily accepted as "legitimate" entries into this article? Barring the fact that they are indeed both seemingly recognised by (the same) three UN member states, they don't otherwise seem to fit the criteria of independent states. Indeed, I believe that Donetsk and Luhansk are two of the few states on this list that seem to qualify explicitly as "puppet states" of another much larger state, that being Russia. I believe that the entire premise of "UN recognition" surrounding this entire list is heavily misleading. That is because certain "UN recognition" is effectively meaningless in determining whether an entity actually qualifies as an independent state (territory) or not. What is more meaningful is whether a state fits the relevant criteria of actually functioning as an independent state. For example, Somaliland isn't recognised by any UN member states or even explicitly by any non-UN member states (except for unofficial recognition by Taiwan). However, there are numerous sources, as far as I'm aware, that paint Somaliland as a self-ruling territory in reality. I will also point out that the fact that I have to say "Donetsk and Luhansk" rather than "Donetsk" and "Luhansk" separately from one another implies that these two states may very well not even be entirely independent of one another, let alone of Russia. These two states are nominally independent, but in reality, it would seem that they function vaguely as a single unit. They are indeed located directly adjacent to one another, and I can't for the life of me figure out why these two territories would be separate in the first place except for symbolic reasons. There are no significant ethnic or political differences between these two entities that justify them being separate from one another, so in my view, this means that both of their "independences" are not legitimate in a nation-building sense. Jargo Nautilus (talk) 10:57, 16 July 2022 (UTC)

More thoughts: Apart from the obvious "countries" in this list, I believe that most of the others, including the other post-Soviet breakaway states, do indeed meet the criteria of this list to varying degrees. So, it is really only Donetsk and Luhansk that are up for debate, in my view.

  • Armenia, China, Cyprus, Israel, North Korea, and South Korea are UN member states, and they are generally recognised as countries internationally.
  • Palestine, Taiwan, Kosovo, SADR, and Somaliland all generally fit the criteria of de facto states, with varying degrees of international recognition as well as unique political statuses.
  • Northern Cyprus functions largely as a client state of Turkey, but it does have the distinction of being closely linked to the genuine self-determination movement of the Turkish Cypriot ethnic group. It should be noted that one of the potential solutions to the conflict with Cyprus is a unified Greek-Turkish Cypriot state, so it is not really clear whether the Turkish Cypriots actually want to be independent from the Greek Cypriots or not. The "Turkish Republic of Northern Cyprus" seems to function as a bargaining chip of the Turkish Cypriots (and as a chess piece of Turkey) within the greater political situation of Cyprus more than anything, rather than being a legitimate separatist movement.
  • Artsakh is nominally independent, although there are two major factors affecting exactly how independent it is. Firstly, it is closely linked to Armenia (which might make it a client state of that country). Secondly, it has lost a great deal of its independence after the 2020 Nagorno-Karabakh War, losing much of its territory to Azerbaijan, to the point that it might not really have any meaningful independence from Azerbaijan anymore.
  • Transnistria, South Ossetia and Abkhazia are all Russian-backed separatist regions. Both South Ossetia and Abkhazia have native ethnic groups that seek some form of self-determination, those being the Ossetians and the Abkhazians; the Ossetians seemingly want to unify with North Ossetia within the Russian Federation. Transnistria doesn't really have a distinctive ethnic group, but it does hold a different ethnic makeup to the rest of Moldova, with significant Ukrainian and Russian populations, and it does seem to be politically distinct from both Moldova and Russia to varying degrees.

Again, it is really only Donetsk and Luhansk that do not possess a legitimate sense of self-determination, which would be a prerequisite for qualifying as a de facto state aside from merely "springing into existence" out of nowhere. There is no distinctive Donetskian or Luhanskian ethnic group. Neither territory is significantly ethnically distinct from the two UN states surrounding them, i.e. Ukraine and Russia, nor from each other; there is no real ethnic distinction between Luhansk and Donetsk. Furthermore, there is no political distinction between these two territories. They were both established at roughly the same time, in roughly the same context, and have operated politically practically in unison (e.g. in terms of international recognition and foreign relations). Donetsk and Luhansk also don't really have any notable geographic distinctions. Obviously, they are two distinctive territories, but they are adjacent to one another, with no notable geographic boundaries, such as a mountain range or a river (or another body of water). As for whether Donetsk and Luhansk are independent from the parent state Russia, well, I think it is pretty apparent that they have no real agency in terms of their political agendas. They are firmly within the grip of Russia, far more so than any other breakaway territories on this list. They are effectively in an unofficial union with Russia, although Russia has not explicitly annexed them just yet, as they did with Crimea (which had previously also declared itself to be an "independent state"). Jargo Nautilus (talk) 11:27, 16 July 2022 (UTC)

Comment: I have been combing through the archives of this talk page. It seems that, overwhelmingly, the majority of arguments in favour of including Donetsk and Luhansk within this article have been "whether they are recognised as independent by a UN member state". Additionally, it has been noted that recognition would be enough to include them, "regardless of whether they fulfil the Montevideo criteria". In my opinion, everyone who holds this viewpoint is utterly mistaken. As I said, the entire premise of "UN recognition" has been flawed from the outset. The idea that we can just include an entity in this list on the basis of being recognised, even when all other evidence suggests that it isn't really independent, is absurd. It is a shame that I was not active on this talk page a few months ago, because I would have strongly opposed the inclusion of Donetsk and Luhansk back then. I've also seen in some of the discussions above that some people have been trying to exclude Somaliland from the list on the basis of having zero recognition... Again, this logic is deeply flawed. There is sufficient evidence that Somaliland functions as an independent state, despite its complete lack of recognition. As such, we can conclude that recognition of a state's independence, while somewhat relevant, is definitely not the most important factor, nor is it the be all and end all. If Russia recognised the Moon as an independent country, would we then be obliged to add it to this list? Jargo Nautilus (talk) 12:11, 16 July 2022 (UTC)

I've only skimmed this, I'm afraid. Could you provide a shorter version for those likely to be daunted by a 1200-word behemoth?
I gather that you disagree with the current inclusion criteria. Could you perhaps propose other inclusion criteria that you feel would be more appropriate?
In particular, if you wish to remove the criterion based on recognition by UN members, we need to confirm:
  1. That this is a valid thing to do theoretically, that we do not bias the article in favour of the declarative theory over the constitutive theory, and
  2. That as a practical matter, we can provide sources demonstrating that the likes of Kosovo, China, the Koreas, Armenia and Israel meet the declarative theory. That's surprisingly difficult because academics generally don't get research money for demonstrating that the Pope is Catholic.
I have sympathy with the argument that Donetsk and Luhansk are not states in the normal sense, but what is most important is that we rigorously and impartially apply clear and neutral inclusion criteria. Whether we like it or not, Donetsk and Luhansk clearly and unambiguously meet our current criteria Kahastok talk 14:24, 16 July 2022 (UTC)
I believe that most of the entries to the article are valid, to varying degrees. The only two entries that I disagree about are Donetsk and Luhansk. Essentially, I consider Donetsk and Luhansk to not technically qualify as "de facto states", but instead as something else entirely (specifically, I think they are puppet states of Russia). The reason that Donetsk and Luhansk have initially been accepted into the article is that they've been recognised by Russia (and subsequently by Syria and North Korea). However, in my opinion, this logic is flawed. Because, aside from being recognised by three UN member states, there is very little evidence that Donetsk and Luhansk are actually independent sovereign states. We need to remember that this article is supposed to be about states that seek recognition but aren't recognised. I would argue that Donetsk and Luhansk don't really seek recognition, but rather expect to be unified with Russia. Technically, they do seek recognition, on paper. But in reality, this is not the case. That's why they shouldn't be included in this article. Overall, in my opinion, it is wrong to include states in this article purely on the basis of recognition. We need to analyse the de facto situations on the ground to determine whether they indeed are de facto states. If Donetsk and Luhansk are separate from Russia, then, by all means, they should be included in this article. However, I'm personally very skeptical about this. Jargo Nautilus (talk) 15:59, 16 July 2022 (UTC)
Note: Certain other territories in this article are also somewhat ambiguous, including Northern Cyprus, Artsakh, South Ossetia, Abkhazia, and Transnistria. South Ossetia is especially an interesting case because it wants to unify with Russia. However, it seems that Russia does not reciprocate this wish at the present time (but presumably in the future, they might). South Ossetia has demonstrated to a certain degree that it is indeed somewhat autonomous from Russia (having broken away from Georgia), although it clearly desires to unify with Russia at some point. The other four examples that I listed in this comment have similar-ish situations, but again, all four of them, plus South Ossetia, are far more legitimate than Donetsk and Luhansk in the sense of being "independent entities". Again, the main thing I'm skeptical about is whether we can consider Donetsk and Luhansk as individual actors, or rather as mere puppets of the Russian government with no agency of their own. Jargo Nautilus (talk) 16:06, 16 July 2022 (UTC)
Please be aware that you are currently filibustering your own discussion.
In principle, we need to analyse nothing at all. Any analysis that we do is original research.
Donetsk and Luhansk meet the inclusion criteria, so they must be included. If we want to remove them, absent a change in the RW situation, we must change the inclusion criteria.
So I ask again, what other inclusion criteria do you propose to adopt? Kahastok talk 16:13, 16 July 2022 (UTC)
We have to change the criteria to differentiate between a de facto state and a puppet state. My proposal is that we should not be lumping all of these different types of entities into the same article. The article itself is poorly defined, since it simply outlines "states" with limited recognition. Theoretically, a puppet state is still a state. So, I think that needs to change. The article should be about "sovereign states" with limited recognition, which would include states that are sovereign in reality but not according to international recognition. This would mean that the main indicator of sovereignty would be de facto status, with political recognition being secondary. Because, in some cases, there are "states" that have political recognition despite lacking de facto independence. Jargo Nautilus (talk) 16:20, 16 July 2022 (UTC)
I have an idea... Instead of listing both the constitutive and declarative theories of sovereignty within the same article (or the same section), we should have two separate lists indicating the two systems independently of one another. Because, in the current system, applying the two theories simultaneously is creating an incoherent list. Jargo Nautilus (talk) 16:34, 16 July 2022 (UTC)
The central tenet of the declarative theory is that statehood is independent of recognition. Per your own argument the fact that the likes of Cyprus and Armenia are widely-recognised independent states is irrelevant.
Can you provide me with a reliable source written by an academic or lawyer, that analyses the specific positions of Cyprus and Armenia and concludes that the standard of the declarative theory is met?
If not, then per your proposal they belong in the same bucket as Donetsk and Luhansk. Kahastok talk 16:59, 16 July 2022 (UTC)
I think there's a misunderstanding. That's not what I am implying at all. According to the declarative theory, it would be automatically assumed that the 193 UN member states are countries, and we would only be assessing whether the other various statelets around the world qualify as countries, including Vatican City and Palestine, which are UN observers. This would potentially exclude Donetsk and Luhansk, with the possibility of excluding other statelets.
Meanwhile, according to the constitutive theory, it would be automatically assumed that the 187 UN member states with presumed universal recognition, as well as Vatican City (which is recognised by everyone presumably, although it's not a UN member state), are countries. At that point, we would assess all of the other countries around the world according to a tiered list. UN members with partial recognition; Israel is the most severe case, lacking recognition from 28 UN member states. Even the SMOM might technically fit within the criteria of the constitutive theory. After these states, we would list states that are recognised by UN member states. Potentially, we might be able to list states that are recognised only by non-UN member states. That would potentially only exclude Somaliland.
Overall, my proposal is simply to split the existing list into two separate parts. One of the lists relies ONLY on the declarative theory, whereas the other list relies ONLY on the constitutive theory. Jargo Nautilus (talk) 17:30, 16 July 2022 (UTC)
You say, According to the declarative theory, it would be automatically assumed that the 193 UN member states are countries. Based on what? The fact that it would make life easier? We can't run a list like this on that basis - it's just too controversial.
Given that the central tenet of the declarative theory is that statehood is independent of recognition, and UN membership depends on nothing but recognition, there is a glaring contradiction in your argument. And even if there wasn't, this is still pure OR. Kahastok talk 18:00, 16 July 2022 (UTC)
We would make that assumption on the basis of not wanting to bloat the article with 200+ entries, instead opting for just a couple. We could, however, put the effort in to provide independent cases for each and every single UN member state. I'm not sure that there is anyone willing to do this, though. By the way, I'm not sure that I agree that the declarative theory "only" relies on the de facto situation. Indeed, my understanding is that the declarative theory primarily relies on the de facto situation, whilst simultaneously taking account of the de jure situation (including recognition as one factor). For example, the declarative theory requires that a country "declare" independence... A country cannot simply declare independence outside of the realm of the law; this must fit into some sort of established legal system, presumably the internal legal system of the country that is declaring independence.
I also disagree with the notion that the constitutive theory can somehow instantly qualify something as a state. Of course, recognition of a state's independence is important... But we first need to establish whether the thing that is being recognised is indeed something resembling a state. I've given the example in my previous comments that Russia could recognise the Moon as a state, and we would have to include it in the article according to the constitutive theory. Indeed, Russia could recognise anything as a state, and it would seem to fit the criteria of that theory. Russia could recognise a person, an object, or even an abstract concept (e.g. "emotion") as a state, and it would satisfy the criteria of the constitutive theory. Jargo Nautilus (talk) 18:42, 16 July 2022 (UTC)
Have a look at Bosnia and Herzegovina, anything is possible :) Selfstudier (talk) 18:49, 16 July 2022 (UTC)
We would make that assumption on the basis of not wanting to bloat the article with 200+ entries. Not good enough. We need reliable sources before we can reach this kind of conclusion.
We could, however, put the effort in to provide independent cases for each and every single UN member state. I'm not sure that there is anyone willing to do this, though. In that case we can't make the assumption you want to make.
By the way, I'm not sure that I agree that the declarative theory "only" relies on the de facto situation. This whole section is not an argument that suggests that the declarative theory in some way relies on recognition by other states. And regardless, while you're entitled to your opinion on the declarative theory, but you are not entitled to have any weight given to that opinion on Wikipedia without backing from the literature.
I also disagree with the notion that the constitutive theory can somehow instantly qualify something as a state. Again you are entitled to disagree with the theory, but you are not entitled to have any weight given to that opinion on Wikipedia without backing from the literature. Kahastok talk 20:15, 16 July 2022 (UTC)
The entire point I was making wrt the declarative and constitutive theories of statehood is that I'm not even sure that the Wikipedia article itself (and the relevant other articles) actually has the two definitions accurately outlined. Is the summary provided by this article in the introduction actually the exact definition of the declarative and constitutive theories of statehood? I'm not disputing whether the theories are correct or not. I'm disputing the very definitions of the theories provided by this article, because I suspect that they are not entirely accurate. Jargo Nautilus (talk) 20:19, 16 July 2022 (UTC)
I've looked at the intro again... It seems that there is also a confusion within this very article about whether we are trying to define something as a "de jure state" or simply as a state, whatever that means. To me, the declarative (declaratory) theory is more straightforward, because it simply asks "is something a state?", without necessarily caring whether that state is apparently "de jure" or not. So, we can easily use the declarative theory to determine whether something indeed functions as a state, regardless of whether it is legally considered to be one. On the other hand, the constitutive theory is more concerned with determining whether something is a "de jure" state... Presumably, in order to figure out whether something is a de jure state, we first have to establish that it is, indeed, a state... which brings us back to the declarative theory. Jargo Nautilus (talk) 20:30, 16 July 2022 (UTC)
What Kahastok said, you (and me) can have all the opinions we want to but they don't count. If you wish to say (the above), you need a reliable source saying so. It's not very interesting for WP for an editor to say they are "not sure" or they "suspect" something, the need is to demonstrate that it is the case (or not) with reliable sources. Selfstudier (talk) 21:31, 16 July 2022 (UTC)
This is as good as any for a quick and dirty explanation of de facto/ de jure (the table in the middle), it's not RS tho. Selfstudier (talk) 21:44, 16 July 2022 (UTC)
The "de facto/ de jure" link that you provided is not super helpful in this case since we are more specifically talking about the "declarative vs constitutive" theories of statehood. See, I'm not even sure that this Wikipedia article has outlined these two theories entirely accurately... Much of what we are discussing above is dependent on the descriptions of these two theories within this Wikipedia article being true. (Note: I do believe that the descriptions are mostly true, but I am nitpicking at the details, which I think might be misinterpreted or worded strangely.) Jargo Nautilus (talk) 00:25, 17 July 2022 (UTC)

This paragraph within the introduction of this very Wikipedia article is very interesting indeed. - "In many situations, international non-recognition is influenced by the presence of a foreign military force in the territory of the contested entity, making the description of the country's de facto status problematic. The international community can judge this military presence too intrusive, reducing the entity to a puppet state where effective sovereignty is retained by the foreign power."

Does this Wikipedia article consider a "puppet state" to qualify as a state entity or as a non-state entity? The very term "puppet state" contains the word "state" within it, but does this imply something that is indeed a state, or rather something that is similar to a state but is not a true state? Because, if a puppet state is a state, then that makes Donetsk and Luhansk states automatically. However, if we are to distinguish between a puppet state and a sovereign state, then, well... Jargo Nautilus (talk) 00:20, 17 July 2022 (UTC)

This Wikipedia articles doesn't do any of that. It simply lists entities that meet the inclusion criteria. CMD (talk) 05:48, 17 July 2022 (UTC)
The paragraph that I linked above was literally from this Wikipedia article's introduction. The paragraph clearly discusses the concept of a "puppet state". My question is whether a "puppet state" is regarded as a state entity or as a non-state entity (akin to a dependency). Jargo Nautilus (talk) 06:05, 17 July 2022 (UTC)
The concept of a puppet state is raised as a contextual issue, that doesn't mean the list uses it as a criteria. And we shouldn't, because that introduces a great deal of subjectivity into the criteria. CMD (talk) 06:23, 17 July 2022 (UTC)

Now that Donetsk and Luhansk are planning to hold referendums to join the Russian Federation… they clearly do not intend to be sovereign states and should be removed from this list Pyruvate (talk) 16:20, 20 September 2022 (UTC)

WP:Crystal. Selfstudier (talk) 16:25, 20 September 2022 (UTC)
We have still seen no evidence that there is any substantial body of opinion that holds that they meet the standard of the declarative theory. The basis on which they are included is recognition from Russia, Syria and North Korea. If these states were to withdraw recognition, then they would no longer meet the inclusion criteria and would no doubt be removed. But, while they continue to meet the criteria, they have to remain in the article. Kahastok talk 16:31, 20 September 2022 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:List_of_states_with_limited_recognition/Archive_14&oldid=1128418284"