Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 12:27, 10 November 2006

• Archive 1, May 2004-April 2006 - Discussions of criteria for inclusion, paticularly in relation to Abkhazia, Sealand, Northern Cyprus and Kosovo; please read before suggesting any changes in relation to these places.

Puntland

What about Puntland? It's de facto independent, although it does not lay claim to independence from Somalia.  OZLAWYER  talk  18:27, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

Puntland hasnt declared independance. They want to remain apart of Somalia. See Puntland for details. -- RND  09:47, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

What about the other breakaway Somali states (Somaliland, Southwestern Somalia)?

3RR

I notice a couple of disputes on this page have both come very close to breaking the Three revert rule within the last few hours; please use the talk page constructively to discuss changes. --Robdurbar 09:27, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

TRNC/Northern Cyprus

Can we have a discussion of this dispute here please? At least give a full explanation for the reverts being made, rather than using talk boxes? Even if you feel the proposed changes are pov or deliberatly in bad faith - note I'm not saying that they are or not, its not an area I know about - at least give a rationale here; it makes a mockery of the talk page if you do not --Robdurbar 15:27, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

The dispute is whether we should mention:

• Nakhichevan which is an exclave (ie. non-bordering province, NOT a country) of Azarbaijan (which has not recognised TRNC as a federal government), and is bordering Turkey (possibly threatened for its continuous sovereignity)! If we start including exclaves, provinces, oblasts, perfectures and municipalities to the list, then it's ok by me.
• Organization of the Islamic Conference which recognises only the Muslim Community of TRNC (as if anybody wouldn't); NOT the pseudo-state of TRNC. The source is within the official site, to which Erdogan (sorry) User:Erdogan Cevher was kind enough to provide us (OIC), but it is not linkable. Evidently in every conference, there's a list of members (that excludes TRNC) and a separete heading (titled Muslim Communities), that includes Muslim Community of Kibris (Cyprus). Also, please check the members-list in the WP article.
• Turkish Peace Action in the wording to replace Turkish invasion. Had it been a "peace action", Turkey would have taken the Nobel Peace prize, instead of international non-recognition.

That's about it. Any comments?  NikoSilver  17:05, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

• The Above is wrong: Reference: "Alithia" Newspaper of Greek Cypriots, 16/17 May 2006 (Author: Andreas Fantis, Title of the article: "Is there any hope about the solution of Cyprius Issue"). Andreas Wrote:

Turkish Cypriot State was honorized by the decision of the last meeting of OIC and will participate the meetings of OIC not with the title "Muslim Community of Cyprus" but with the title "Turkish Cypriot State" from now on.

NikoSilver, please read newspapers of your own country. Also, use your real name and surname. Don't hesitate doing this. Stay behind your ideas (even if yours are false). — Preceding unsigned comment added by Erdogan Cevher (talk • contribs)

The fact that people were being killed by Greeks does not stop it being an invasion; as noted before, D-Day was an invasion; the US/Brits invaded Iraq, rightly or wrongly, even if it was to stop Saddam's killing, even if it was for oil, or revenge, or whatever; its still an invasion. Robdurbar 15:36, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

Peace action does seem a very odd word for an invasion... even if you're looking from a Turkish pov. OIC seems a civil society body (though your WP:BEANS link confuses me somewhat). And as for exclaves - well we've not included them up to now so unless it makes claims to countryhood, again, I'd be inclined to agree (though this is all without knowing or going into the situation in detail, so don't take my view as too comprehensive). --Robdurbar 19:39, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

Ha ha! The WP:BEANS has to do with someone inserting some kind of information is some article... Sorry for thinking that the above was self-explanatory and not getting in the trouble to discuss...  NikoSilver  20:16, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

Yeah...what he said. ;) Khoikhoi 20:30, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

• The Turkish Republic of Northern Cyprus was set up in northern Cyprus after the Turkish Peace Action on Cyprus in 1974 due to a local Greek Cypriot coup d'etat to overthrow the government and to unify the island with Greece. It was proclaimed the Turkish Federated State of Cyprus in 1975. This state later declared independence under the current name in 1983. It is recognized by Turkey, and the Nakhichevan Autonomous Republic. TRNC was accepted as "Turkish Cypriot State" by the Organization of Islamic Conference. TRNC and Republic of Cyprus are on the threshold of being separated like Checkoslovakia = Check Rep + Slovak Rep after the rejection of United nation's Annan Plan by Greek Cypriots. Note: Annan plan aimed at reunification of island.

"Turkish Cypriot State" by the OIC.(Ref:Web of OIC: http://www.oic-oci.org/), click “About OIC”, then click “Observers” to see that TRNC is under the “States” heading with name “T. Cypriot State" 2. Nakhichevan recognizes TRNC. Ref: http://en.wikipedia.org/Nakhichevan under the “Disputes” heading.

The issue of Peace Action / Invasion? How many Turkish Cypriots killed by Greeks and Greek Cypriots killed by Turks before 1974? Answer: Thousands of Turkish Cypriots (more than 100000) and hundreds of Greek Cypriots before 1974. (That is why the population of Greeks in the island well exceeds that of Turks in the island)

How many Turkish Cypriots killed by Greeks and Greek Cypriots killed by Turks after 1974? Answer: Total number does not exceed 5 from both sides.

Then, How a man having brain can claim that Turkish action is an invasion? That action is certainly a peace action and stopped deaths from both sides.

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Erdogan Cevher (talk • contribs)

Thank you for your input. Your complains can be addressed to Kofi Annan.  NikoSilver  13:57, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

Interstingly Nachkivan did reciognise North Cypriot sovereignty ; now whether it has the right to do so or not is highly debatable under international law as only other sovereigns are allowed to recgonise sovereignty; but these rules are not set in stone of course. I feel that this might be worth a mention. The OIC is a civil society actor with even less right to recognise sovereignty; this one is more disputable I think, especially as some appear to claim that it is the people who are represented here, not really a state.

• An invasion is an invasion whatever its purpose. Peace action is a modern euphamisim – we didn’t have a Peace action did we?

• I think talk about coup d’etats etc. is a bit over the top and uncalled for here; let the TRNC page deal with that itself.

• Not quite sure about the Czech Republic analogy… this is opinion this bit.

So how about:

The Turkish Republic of Northern Cyprus was set up in northern Cyprus after the Turkish invasion on Cyprus in 1974. It was proclaimed the Turkish Federated State of Cyprus in 1975 and declared independence in 1983. It is recognised only by Turkey, though the non-sovereign Nakhichevan Autonomous Republic has also recognised it. UN proposals to unify the two Cypriot states have since been unsuccessful.ط

Robdurbar 14:38, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

Thanks Rob for your kind attempt for a compromise in this. Though not necessarily disagreeable, I think that:

• Nakhichevan is legally a province or something analogous.
• OIC we agree (thanks)
• UN mentioning is ok by me, --added.

I strongly believe that extensive analyses are not applicable in this "List of..." and strongly suggest that further details are covered in the respective articles (which is already true).

Fmore, keep in mind that there is only one user doing these reverts lately, who turns out to be a revert addict.  NikoSilver  14:50, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

Agreed entirely; the TRNC entry was preivously much shorter than the others anyway and I don't see a need to add more than we have now; it can be tempting sometimes to ignore the contributions of those who refuse to play ball with the wikipedia process but a couple of interesting points were raised, even if it was from a pov manner. --Robdurbar 23:33, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

Thank you. To add to your point, if we start elaborating the Turkish POV (on exclaves, civil society orgs, Turkish Peace action etc etc), then under WP:NPOV#Undue weight, imagine what the emphasis/size of the Greek POV and the International POV should be. After that, we'll need to rename the article to ]...  NikoSilver  23:58, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

And btw, I agree to this change of yours too.  NikoSilver  16:37, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

I just saw that there were three more attempted reverts by User:Erdogan Cevher, despite the talk, despite the sources, despite the agreement of the other editors and after 3 or 4 blocks for WP:3RR. I don't know if the rest of the editors agree, but I think that this behaviour has crossed the border of WP:POINT. Waiting for your comments and possible action.  NikoSilver  15:48, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

I seriously considered obtaining a Misplaced Pages:RfC on his behaviour; I thought I'd let him get himself banned for antoher 3rr first, however, in the hope that an extended ban might show him how to edit / put him off the topic. In the event of an extended period of 2 reverts a day, then I think we could go further with this. --Robdurbar 21:40, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

Ok. Just check also this in the intro par of Cyprus...  NikoSilver  22:24, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

FYI, I've reported Erdogan for 3RR again - that'll be the fourth 3RR block for him within 5 days. Guess they'll make it a longer one this time. Fut.Perf. ☼ 06:53, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

Wanna bet a beer he's gonna do it again?  NikoSilver  09:50, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

Hey, weren't you the guy who recently complained you didn't get to perform enough justified reverts? ;-) Fut.Perf. ☼ 09:58, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

Ha ha! Everybody needs his dose here I guess! Oh, and we have a second attempt in Cyprus in case someone is collecting evidence for that WP:POINT vio. And how about that name Erdogan?  Karamanlis! 09:50, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

Eh, let's be fair to the guy - "Erdoğan" is just very common in Turkish, both as a first and a family name. Let's not make fun of that, it may very well be his real name. And I'm not quite getting what you mean by WP:POINT? He's just edit-warring, that's a different kind of thing, isn't it? Fut.Perf. ☼ 19:26, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

Sorry, I don't know that many Turks to have encountered the name before. I always thought it was a surname and it seemed to me like it wanted to sound more like the PM of Turkey. Point stricken.

Now for the other thing: He's not just edit warring. We have invited him repeatedly in the talk, but appart from the somewhat irrelevant comment above, we have received no further response to what 4 editors here (and a couple more outside the talk) seem to consider logical and obvious. We only communicate through edit-summaries, where we reply that OIC is a civil society org, and that Nakhicevan is a province, and that peace action (!!!) is peculiar wording for invasion, but he responds with the same irrelevant argumentation. He further expanded his POV to Cyprus. What can we do after 3-4 3rr blocks he's already had? I am sure there will be more, and that there won't be any comment whatsoever here, because the thing is so obvious (even for blind or uninformed) that at first I and the other counter-reverters didn't even want to discuss it formally. I don't know how you call this, but I definitely think it is disruption of WP.  NikoSilver  23:10, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

Ah, no doubt that the blind edit warring is disruptive, absolutely. After all, that's why we're getting him blocked all the time. But WP:POINT is really about something else in my understanding, it's about subtle ways of disrupting by doing something you don't really mean, like AfD'ing good articles in order to demonstrate how other people's AfD criteria are wrong, that kind of thing. Fut.Perf. ☼ 06:38, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

Ok Mr."Syntax Error", maybe you're right. Let's see where that goes... NikoSilver  11:23, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

Re-birth of the TRNC/Northern Cyprus debate

Wiki contributor Rebecca changed the text in the TRNC entry so I sent her this meesage, which I quote again below. If anyone wishes to change the text again, will he (or she) be kind enough, please, to first address the points I'm raising? Thanks in advance.

You removed almost everything from the entry for Turkish Republic of Northern Cyprus, with this comment : "Can we please just keep this simple? I'm sick of this page being used as yet another battleground for the Cyprus POV warriors".

Allow me to respond with some points:

(1) Contentious and controversial issues need not be keep "simple" in order to avoid conflicting points of view. If we were to do that, we'd have no more than a phrase under the entry for Palestine - or maybe we'd be disputing the use of the very word!

(2) The removal of text as irrelevant to the main entry is sometimes correct, sometimes not. In the case of the countries (or "countries"!) listed in the entry List of unrecognized countries, a small, concise description of their background seems to me to be essential. As a wiki user who's looking for information about the not widely or universally recognized countries, I'd be most certainly interested to trace common elements in their background (if any), the ethnic mix involved, the political/economic aspect, and so on. The full treatise is to be left, of course, for the entry of the specific country, of course, but general information must be provided in that article. So, IMO background is essential. Merely stating which countries recognize the TRNC, for instance, doesn't say much.

(3) The deleted portions of the text were as factual and as objective as possible. I'd challenge, in fact any Greek- or Turkish-Cypriot to dispute (with facts) anything in the text you removed. The Gnome 13:07, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

I think the problem here is that the previous problems with Edrogan Cevehr have resulted in an over-cautionousness from some people on this issue. Whilst I have no real problem with the current one sentence, if you compare the TRNC to the Abkahzia entry, for example, its much smaller and less informative. I agree that we shouldn't allow one POV pusher to let us label everyone who changes the entry as such, or make us scared to comment on the TRNC.

At the same time, truths or facts about this that seem obvious or givens to people who have experience with the situation - such as The Gnome - may not seem so obvious or unquestionable to people with less knolwedge of the TRNC.

Thus, I would suggest that if we want to expand the current TRNC entry to the lenght of, say the Republic of China, then we need to decide the issues that are vital to a brief knowledge of the situation.

From my current understanding, these would be:

• Turkish invasion in response to worry that Greece wanted to annex Cyprus
• Declared independence in 1983
• Recognised only by Turkey
• Reunification plans failed, most recently the Annan plan in a referrendum
• The whole island part of the EU, as the Republic of Cyprus (though TRNC is de facto outside of EU)

Robdurbar 19:25, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

The Gnome 10:15, 6 July 2006 (UTC)I agree with Robdurbar in most of the points made above. I find particularly important for Misplaced Pages the point that "we shouldn't allow one POV pusher to let us label everyone who changes the entry as such, or make us scared to comment on the TRNC". Misplaced Pages is open to everyone, so the potential for abuse and vandalism is virtually part of the project! But if we allow a small minority of vandals and miscreants to silence objective presentation of facts or stifle debate, then the whole Wiki project might as well fold - and become a restricted/subscription website.

I disagree with Rebecca's broad dismissal of my arguments, which I tried to present as clearly and sombrely as possible above, and her deletion of the text, once again. Rebecca only posted this aside: "While some context may be necessary, a very long paragraph which keeps being the subject of innumerable edit wars is simply unnecessary". Again, I beg to differ, for the reasons already presented. Rebecca does not suggest that the text was erroneous but she deletes it because it causes edit wars. I'm sorry but if I start maliciously editing Wiki entry XYZ for weeks on end, on account of some agenda of mine, should that mean that the text of entry XYZ must be amended or shortened because of my "edit wars"?

I expect a response in depth and not just casual comments, which moreover I find counter-productive. In the meantime, let's try and work towards the lines suggested by Robdurbar.

I've got no objections to Robdurbar's suggestions per se, but I'd be wary about making it much longer if for no other reason than this is meant to be a list. Every other entity on this list (with the exception of the probably-too-long ROC and Abkhazia) limits a description to about three lines, and I see no reason why we need to go into special detail for Cyprus. Rebecca 10:37, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

The thing too, is that a short un-descriptive entry only inivtes trolls/pov pushers to add their own view and claim 'well its too short, you're hiding the facts'. An agreed upon, fuller version can be defended as a consensus description of events. I agree that don't want to add too much - about 1/2 more lines max.

With that in mind, I would propose (approximately) the following as the full entry:

• The Turkish Republic of Northern Cyprus was set up in northern Cyprus in 1975 after an invadinson by Turkish forces in 1974, who believed that Greece was attempting to annex the island. It declared independence in 1983 and, although a fully fuctioning state, it has only been recognized by Turkey. Plans for reunification have failed, most recently the Annan Plan.

--Robdurbar 18:01, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

Fine by me. Rebecca 23:55, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

I think that there should also be a notice that the whole island is an EU member (under the name Cyprus, although the north is de facto out of it. in addition, the sentence although a fully fuctioning state, it has only been recognized by Turkey, seems a bit obscure: as if blaming the others who do not recognise a functioning state as Turkey did. talking about this, it is not a "fully" functioning state, since it depends on Turkey almost on everything!: monetary matters, economy, trade, diplomatique affairs, not to mention the turkish troops that form the 1/4 of the population... I am not asking to accept the greek POV and list it as occupied territory, but i would not agree in a version that pictures it as Taiwan... --Hectorian 02:15, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

OK; though bare in mind a number of states rely on others for certain matters such as defence and trade e.g. Andorra, though they would still be considered 'fully functioning'. Also, as for the EU, I noticed that when I went through customs at Luton Airport it said that 'all people from areas of Cyprus not in de facto control by the government of the Republic of Cyprus should enter as non-EU citizens' (or something to that affect). I think you make some good points, so:

• The Turkish Republic of Northern Cyprus was set up in northern Cyprus in 1975 after an invadinson by Turkish forces in 1974, who believed that Greece was attempting to annex the island. It declared independence in 1983 and has only been recognized by Turkey. Plans for reunification with the Republic of Cyprus have failed (see Annan Plan). In 2004, its territorty was accpeted de jureinto the EU as part of the Republic of Cyprus; it remains de facto outside of the EU, though.

--Robdurbar 09:16, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

Good job. I agree on that. About the Luton Airport thing u noticed, it's true, of course... de jure it has all EU privilleges, but de facto none! (e.g. the percentange of the EU budget that would be spend for TRNC, is not used by Cyprus. it is not spend till the dispute is solved...) --Hectorian 00:32, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

In order to be consistent with the mode of brevity and impartiality that has been adopted for these entries, I suggest that the bolded portion in the following phrase be removed : "...was set up in northern Cyprus in 1975 after an invasion by Turkish forces in 1974, who believed that Greece was attempting to annex the island". Anything that invites retort should be eliminated, if we are to stay firmly on the impartiality path.The Gnome 05:01, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

Hmm, I'm not sure. If I were to approach this from a Turkish viewpoint, I would feel that this is a rather important point. --Robdurbar 17:45, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

"From the Turkish viewpoint" ?! This is not how wikipedia entries are supposed to be judged by. I still find offering only one side's reasons/pretexts to be wrong. If we allow "...who believed that Greece was attempting to annex the island", then we must also provide the Greeks' and the Greek-Cypriots' POV. (Actually, having a balanced POV should be considered a given fact oof wiki!) The Gnome 08:39, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

It does not have to be removed. we have to mention the turkish invasion, since this was the beginning of the TRNC. but since we mention this, we also have to say why Tyrkey invaded. so, in order to be NPOV and accurate, we have to say the reason (pretext, from the greek viewpoint) about it, id est who believed that Greece was attempting to annex the island: maybe Greece had such intentions, but never actively tried. so, we just state the fact. --Hectorian 18:01, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

State of Palestine

What is the official status of Gaza strip after the withdrawal of Israel in 2005?

I believe that the both the PNA and the UN take the official position that Gaza is still under Israeli occupation. (Israel controlls the water supply, airspace, and territorial waters, for instance). The West Bank and Gaza aren't universally recognized as being under anybody's legal sovereignty. I'm pretty sure that Egypt never officially annexed Gaza, and nobody but Britain recognized Jordan's claims to the West Bank (which Jordan has now renounced anyway).

As somone said above, lists aren't places of in-depth analyses, but I do think the Palestinian issue needs a bit more of an in-depth treatment here. The "State of Palestine" declared in 1988 was in essence a "government in exile", as all of the territory it claimed was under Israeli control (and much of it under UN-recongized Israeli sovereignty) at the time. My understanding was the that PLO assumed the role of this government in exile at this point. The Palestinian National Authority was set up in 1994 to administer areas that have varied in scope after the Oslo Accords. The PNA was clearly intended to be an embryonic Palestinian state, but as we all know the agreements that would have been necessary to bring that state to term never happened. Instead, the PNA started acting more and more like a state (it has elections, government ministries, issues passports, accredits ambassadors) but never declared itself to be such. I think that there is a distinction between the Palestinian National Authority on the one hand and the PLO and the notional "State of Palestine" on the other. Up until this year, this distinction was largely theoretical, as the same people were running both entities, but it became less so when Hamas, which I believe is not part of the PLO, won the legislative elections there.

Anyway, the whole thing's a mess, and I'm not sure of all the details. Still, the current blurb doesn't even explain the situation on the grown in Gaza or the WB, which I know is a contentious subject, but still. How about the following?

• The State of Palestine was declared in 1988 and recognized by a series of Arab and Muslim countries. Since 1994, the Palestinian National Authority has provided government some services to and exercized military control of parts of the West Bank and Gaza Strip, though it has not declared itself to be the government of an independent state. (See also proposals for a Palestinian state, Palestinian territories, Gaza Strip, West Bank, and Israel all of which include articles about areas in the Palestine region.)

--Jfruh (talk) 14:47, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

Sounds about right. --Robdurbar 23:30, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

Messing with the system

This talk-page has been vandalised in order to justify an allegged consented version of the article! A relevant note has been posted at WP:ANI#List of unrecognised countries for further investigation.  NikoSilver  10:43, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

39 Nations That Do Not Recognize Israel

Where it says that 39 Nations Do Not Recognize Israel, there is a link to Israel's foreign policy page. There should be a list of those nations either under the Israeli foreign policy page, the unrecognized nations page, or a seperate page altogether. The statement should also be referenced.

Edits by Nixer of July 28th

The above user made the following two important changes on July 28th. I have a few qeustions for her/him or any others who can clarify:

Palestine

• Moved Palestine to the section of partially recgonised states with de facto control over their territory. Do they have control or not? Most results from a google search claim that Israel still enjoys de facto control over Palestine. --Robdurbar 18:14, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

  In fact most claimed territory of this entity is not occupied.--Nixer 17:00, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

  • I don't think we should consider Palestine as a partially recognised state with de facto control over its territory. In fact, Palestine has no effective control over its territory. Most of West Bank and Gaza are under Israeli occupation and the external borders of Palestine are heavily guarded by the Israili army. Am I wrong? --Wikiturk 17:48, 30 July 2006 (UTC)
  • I believe, also, that the Palestinian state and the Palastinian Authority, the latter of which control the 'Palestinian lands', are seperate entities? --Robdurbar 09:18, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

Georgia

• Put a neutrality tag in the 'Unrecognized states with de facto control over their territory' section. Why?--Robdurbar 14:52, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

  It seems that some portions in this section reflect views of Georgian nationalists, which cannot be called NPOV.--Nixer 17:00, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

Please, could you be more clear? Most of the editors here are not familiar with each paticular case. Which parts do you think reflect a Georgian POV? What do you think the reality or alternative points of view are? --Robdurbar 18:14, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

Palestinian Authority and State of Palestine

The State of Palestine is grouped under the section for states of de facto and at least partial control over their territories. Should the State of Palestine be seen as the same vehicle as the Palestinian Authority? If not, in what way is the State of Palestine having de facto control over any part of its claimed territory? — Instantnood 04:32, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

See the above talk which is trying to establish why this change occured! --Robdurbar 19:52, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

Democratic Republic of Bakassi

This seperatist "nation" was mentioned here: . Might be worth considering.

"The people have declared their own republic, known as the Democratic Republic of Bakassi. We will no longer have anything to do with Nigeria, since Nigeria does not want anything to do with us," said Tony Ene, the interim head of the movement. -- RND  T  C  09:26, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

Another article here about it, looks a bit amateurish imo. -- RND  T  C  19:03, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

Yeah; the bodies on this page appear to be far more established than this lot. --Robdurbar 21:53, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

Azad Kashmir

I'm pretty sure the adminstration of Azad Kashmir is loyal to Pakistan. Some Kashmiris want to be part of India, some part of Pakistan and some to be independent. However to my knowledge those wanting to be independent do not control any territory. Azad Kashmir is under the firm control of Pakistan. Therefore can I remove this entry? AndrewRT 21:55, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

Not only they do not control any territory, but also they have not declared independence in the international or regional fora. i think it should be removed. --Hectorian 22:05, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

Shan?

I don't think Shan should be listed on this website. I went to the Shan entry in wikipedia and the site says nothing about the state breaking away from the Myanmar central government. A previous version of the website mentions a government in exile, but there was no indication that this exile government held any territory. I would doubt that a breakaway state could exist in Myanmar considering how strict the military government is. I say Shan should be deleted.Inkan1969 19:50, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

I agree there appears to be little evidence for it. Suggest that people are given 48 hours to defend its inclusion... --Robdurbar 22:01, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

The Shan State is a well-known legitimate, violent secessionist attempt that has been ongoing for at least half a century in Burma. They are a member of the Unrecognised Nations and People's Organisation (see this entry). They should certainly not be deleted. --Gene_poole 08:15, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

Wrong list. They don't appear to have any sort of functioning separate state, so they need to be on the list of secessionist groups, not here. Rebecca 10:19, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

I agree with Rebecca. The link provided by Gene does not mention any territory that Shan resistance groups could be holding, unlike the case with the Tamil Tigers. The situation to me resembles that of Tibet. There's a very active secessionist movement but it holds no territory. Inkan1969 13:39, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

Israel

It appears that Malaysia and Indonesia do not recognise Israel's right to exist, however Israel is not listed here. Should there be unrecognised countries that are exempted from this article like Israel, and are there more exempt nations? —Tokek 14:22, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

That is an interesting point. However, I think this page is just for those countries not recognized by the majority of nations. However, we could open up another section...? --Robdurbar 15:46, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

Agree interesting point. I think a new section would be good - Countries not universally recognised? I wouldn't want to expand to countries which are only not recognised by, say, one or two other countries. AndrewRT - Talk 20:39, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

I really don't think countries that are members of the UN fit on this list. Rebecca 02:46, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

Doing a quick and dirty research, it seems like it is more than just Indonesia and Malaysia. While Jordan and Egypt recognises Israel, it seems like other Arab League nations, plus Iran, Afghanistan, and Pakistan do not, which turns out to be about 2.5 times the population of the United States. But lets say that some partially recognised nations should be exempt from this article, because they are a member of the UN, or for any other such reasons. Are there other partially recognised nations besides Israel that are currently exempt from the article? Where can I find a list of such nations? —Tokek 03:54, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

The Peoples Republic of China springs to mind with 24 countries that don't recognise it (they recognise the Republic of China instead). Apartheid-era South Africa also springs to mind. The Holy See only has diplomatic relations with 174 nations. The more I think about it the more I'm coming round to the view that only countries where most of the world doesn't recognise it should be included here, or else we are gettign away from the point of the article. AndrewRT - Talk 14:21, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

I don't know, it could make an intersting addition to the page. Alternatively, we could farm out some of the entries to List of partially recognized countries and add them onto there? At the moment it would be controversial - to say the least - to have Israel on a page called 'list of unrecognized countries'. --Robdurbar 19:53, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

Ah, I forgot about PRC, the Vatican, & apartheid South Africa. There are several former apartheid homelands listed in the article, btw. I don't know, but it sounds somewhat counterintuitive for a country to be not listed because it's not insignificant enough. —Tokek 12:34, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

Tamil Eelam Restored

I restored Tamil Eelam after an anonymous editor deleted it. The editor sounded like he/she did this motivated by personal dislike of the Tamil Tigers, which is not a valid reason to delete the entry.

Also, a bot deleted the image of the Flag_of_Tamil_Eelam over at its Wiki entry. Could someon please restore that flag image, so that we could use it for this entry as well? Inkan1969 21:02, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

Osgoodelawyer posted a new T.E. flag. Thanks. Inkan1969 22:07, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

Islamic Emirate of Waziristan

I changed the Wziristan link to connect with the new Islamic Emirate of Wziristan entry. Inkan1969 22:39, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

Greenland

Should Greenland be mentioned on this page? I think the fact that Denmark is part of the EU, but Greenland is not, and that Greenland conducts its own international relations, indicates that it is moving ever closer to independent statehood. Is there some criterion that Greenland does not fulfill to be on this page?

No declaration of independence. If they don't recognize themselves that they are a separate country, neither can we. - Mauco 22:24, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

Asia - Tibet

I removed the contents about the Nepalese Mission in Tibet and the alleged Tibeto-Mongolian Treaty of 1915:

• The Nepalese representatives, namely Vakil, stayed in Tibet even after the region formally became part of Communist China and, therefore, has nothing to do with recognizing Tibet's independence.
• Tibet and Mongolia are said to have sign a treaty in 1915 recognizing each other's independence; however, according to his British advisor named Charles Bell, the 13th Dalai Lama denied that he has signed or ratified any treaty with Mongolia and, most importantly, no official publications regarding the said treaty has ever been released. - 219.73.9.169 14:22, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

Asia / Europe

Last time I checked, the Caucasus region was included in Europe, not Asia. That would mean the references to Ajaria, Nakhichevan, the Talysh-Mughan Autonomous Republic and the Transcaucasian Democratic Federative Republic should all be placed in the Europe section of the Historic unrecognized or partially recognized states with de facto control over their territory list, rather than the Asia section. Pedrocelli 00:28, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

That region is included in both the Europe and Asia entries. Some people do consider Georgia/Armenia/Azerbaijan part of Asia. Inkan1969 05:51, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

Recognized States not really existing

This is a very good and very interesting page, but I suggest a little changement to list the countries which are (fully or partially) recognized, but which have no control of their territory. I'd list: 1) Palestine, recognized by many States (also by UNO?), but whose territory is under Israel's military occupation; 2) Western Sahara, recognized by many States and by African Union Organization (also by UNO?), but whose territory is under Morocco's military occupation; 3) Afghanistan, recognized by UNO and all States, but whose territory is under USA's military occupation; 4) Iraq, recognized by UNO and all States, but whose territory is under USA's military occupation; 5) Somalia, recognized by UNO and all States, but whose legitimate government lives in exile (in Kenya), while the country is de facto divided into different States (Somaliland, Puntland, Jubaland etc). Val

Hawaii

Why is the Kingdom of Hawaii on this list? It was as widely recognized as Siam. Septentrionalis 13:53, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

Manchukuo

Recognized by 23 states? List and source please; 3 is attested by contemporary sources. Septentrionalis 14:13, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

Unrecognized countries or secessionist teritories?

In my opinion, calling those entities as "unrecognized countries" is POV, this is why I believe that correct title should be "List of secessionist territories". They are not recognized as "countries", other enciclopedias don't list them as countries, if Misplaced Pages call them countries is like considering legitimate their demands, which contradicts WP:NPOV. "Secessionist territory" is a more accurate description (not for all cases, as Republic of China, for example, didn't officially ask for secession from China) and does not mean rejecting the legitimacy of their secessionism, is just a fact.

I believe that those who want to call those entities as "countries" instead of "territories" are pushing POV. Same person removed the correct clasification of Abkhazia, South Ossetia and Transnistria, which are controlling only a part of their claimed teritories (info which can be founded in corresponding articles in Misplaced Pages). I wait for explanation from the other side, to defend their edits.--MariusM 21:46, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

Calling them "territories" is just as POV, since it rejects the fact that they are de facto independent (and therefore countries). They are also not "secessionist" (at least the first group of them), since they have already seceded. Finally, minor territorial disputes are not enough to move entities from "control" to "partial control" since this means practically no entity which is unrecognized is going to be considered to have full control. As long as the vast majority of the territory is controlled, it should be considered controlled. _└  / _talk  23:57, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

I did not want to be the first to comment on MariusM's proposal, because I don't want him to feel that I am singling him out for abuse. But the proposal IS of course POV, despite the fact that MariusM will never admit it. This editor (MariusM) is involved in some very nasty content disputes with me on a large number of Transnistria related articles. I accuse him of pushing his POV and he accuses me of the same. His position is that Transnistria is best described as a rebel region which is almost not even secessionist since, in his eyes, the founding fathers behind the declaration of independence were not the people of the region but outside forces. He has been taken to task over this by a number of editors, including one who is a U.S. based specialist on the history of Transnistria, and his proposal to change the title of this list must be seen in light of his own personal POV. I am not saying that he is right or wrong, I am merely pointing out what he has not done: That he has a POV and a vested interest which he has not disclosed here. Finally, may I suggest a Google check: The phrases "unrecognized states" and "unrecognized countries" rank higher than other alternatives, and seems to be the commonly accepted denomination. On this basis alone, I would not change the current title of this list. - Mauco 00:13, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

De facto independence of those teritories is debatable. Transnistria, Abkhazia and South Ossetia may be independent from Moldova or Georgia, but not from Russia. All of them want to join Russian Federation, their secesionism is in fact an expression of Russian expansionism, and was created with the help of Russian Army. Big number of people leaved those regions as result of separatist regimes (they "voted with their feets") - is about 50% of pre-war Abkhazian population and 20% of pre-war Transnistrian population. In other territories situation can be different, however calling them "countries" is not accurate, as they are not recognized as countries by the vast majority of nations. Mauco, your POV was rejected not only by me, but by the majority of people involved in the article Transnistria. I am suspecting pro-Russian expansionism POV here, as I see the same persons who want to list Abkhazia, S Osetia and Transnistria as countries are refusing the same thing for Chechenia.--MariusM 00:32, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

Well, independence from the host country and being someone else's puppet regime are too different things. There are plenty of recognized states which are still foreign puppet regimes. As such, the heavy dependence of these territories from the Russian support does not affect their eligibility to be listed here. They de-facto evicted the gov within whose internationally recognized borders they belong. --Irpen 03:01, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

In my opnion it should be called List of seseccionist territories, as the wording like “unrecognized country” opens a discussion about the definition of the word country. What is a country and can an unrecognized self-proclaimed entity be called a country in a legal sense of this term, if there’s a legal definition of it at all? “Seseccionist territory” allows to avoid such controversial terminology. Grandmaster 07:16, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

Well without bandying about accusations of bias straight away, I'm sceptical about the move. Although I'd appreciate Grandmaster's comment about the word country - it is a vague term which though origianlly meaning sovereign state has been used in a number of other ways (Scotland) and often as a synonym for nation.

However, if we look at this rationally, I would actually propose a new move to List of unrecognised states. This is because:

• Country is used in a number of ways (as mentioned above). What's to stop me adding Wales or Waloonia or the Basque Country to this list, under the wording of its title? Nothing. The list is actually of breakway-states or entities which operate as states
• Sececcionist territories doesn't really cover all the entrys of the list e.g. Western Sahara or Holy See.

Obviously, state has its issues too - it will be just as unpalatable to those who don't want to see the word country in the title - but it does reflect what these entities are, or at least trying to be more. More importantly, it reflects the criteria that we are using to decide what should be on the page and indeed the article's first line which reads: 'Several geo-political entities in the world have no general international recognition, but are de facto sovereign states.' --Robdurbar 09:19, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

Maybe the article should be separated. It's biased (this is a fact) to refer to Transnistria etc as "countries" as it implies legitimacy. Even the BBC refers to Trnasnistria, Northern Cyprus etc as "teritories". Franky, I wouldn't mind "separatist regimes" as a title for the split article.--Tekleni 10:34, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

Then again, is it correct to call an entity that does not exist de-jure a state? That’s why I think the word “territory” is more preferable, it is more neutral. Grandmaster 10:36, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

This move made in a bad faith attempt to force the POV without consensus reahced at talk needs revertred as per an ArbCom ruling about such dirty tricks move with addition of artificial history. ArbCom ruled on that in AndriyK case. Tekleni (talk • contribs • page moves • block user • block log) should be warned in strongest possible terms for bad faith multiple times moving of the articles. Just today, he moved this one twice! --Irpen 10:41, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

Sorry, I was not aware of that. I was just doing what Ghirlandajo did here.--Tekleni 10:45, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

You did not know what? Ghirlandajo returned the article to its stable name which, if you want changed, you need to propose the change and wait for consensus. As yours and MariusM's moves were made in defiance of consensus he wars right to revert it. Yours and user:MariusM's moves are unacceptable. Such practices are likely to add entries to the user's block log. --Irpen 11:00, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

He did the same thing as me, only it has now been deleted . Also, threats aren't allowed.--Tekleni 12:04, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

As far as I'm aware, arbcom cases are generally specific and do not provide guideline rulings. As far as I'm concerned, re WP:BOLD, Tekleni had the right to move the page; but equally, other users should retain the right to move it back. Per WP:MOVE, WP:3RR and WP:TALK, the page should then have been left as it is and the discussion on the matter moved to here, as has happened. --Robdurbar 12:27, 10 November 2006 (UTC)