Talk:List of states with limited recognition/Archive 1

message: Nagarno-Karabakh is not officially recognised by the Republic of Armenia. Bilateral political relationship is practiced on a de facto basis. So I've changed the status of Nagarno-Karabakh from "Partially recognized state with de facto control over their territory" to "Unrecognized state with de facto control over their territory".
Shouldn't Somaliland be included in the list?
:It is. Ambi 15:57, 27 August 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I'll try and rewrite it when I get home. I don't think an area needs to be a secessionist region to be listed here - Taiwan still counts as an unrecognized country in my book. Ambivalenthysteria 04:12, 17 May 2004 (UTC)

text: No, because it's not de facto independent. Ambivalenthysteria 11:08, 25 Jul 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  Missing entries 

message: Even if this poll fails to be in my favour, it is clear that the Sealand and Seborga are more than the defintion of microntations. So if it is decided that they don't belong here, they should be listed separately from micronation and linked to separately.
:Please add a suggestion how to do that. Gangulf 14:24, 8 Jan 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I will let Ambi and Gangulf add their own comments
# I am against. I think no serious encyclopedia would include these states as unrecognized sovereign states. These countries are justly included in Micronations. -- Gangulf 21:12, 2 Oct 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  Poll on [[Sealand]] and [[Seborga]] (5/13) 

message: # All qualifications for listing are met. The only reason for not listing would be size. Maybe we should have a list of minute unrecognized countries :p --</b>metta,  The Sunborn ☸ 19:35, 2 Oct 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: For listing

message: :I will let Ambi and Gangulf add their own comments
# I am against. I think no serious encyclopedia would include these states as unrecognized sovereign states. These countries are justly included in Micronations. -- Gangulf 21:12, 2 Oct 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: Against listing

message: I do not see any reason to include Hutt Province, taking into account the vote on Sealand and Seborga. I will delete it from the list. Gangulf 21:28, 7 Jan 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Hutt Province

message: It's somewhat in dispute whether the government in northern Cyprus is a "functioning state" in its own right, as opposed to an occupied territory under the control of the government of Turkey, so I don't think we should state it as fact. --Delirium 03:44, Nov 1, 2004 (UTC)
:According to Georgia, Abkhazia and South Ossetia are occupied territories under the control of Russia (well, it's more complicated than that, but that's fairly close to it). The same thing could be argued with Russia in regard to Transdniestria. It could apply to most of these, really. Ambi 05:50, 1 Nov 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: I've vhanged the word "intervention" with the word "invasion". This is the word used in both the Cyprus dispute article and the Turkish invasion of Cyprus article and there has been a lot of discussion there about this issue. --Avg 02:18, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Northern Cyprus 

message: Does anybody know anything about the Wa state? Should it be added to this list?  — Instantnood 09:30, Mar 21, 2005 (UTC)
:They don't seem to have any functioning independence at present, although they may have had some in the past. Ambi 11:40, 21 Mar 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Please present more info on the Wa state, I don't have a clue. Gangulf 10:51, 22 Mar 2005 (UTC)

text: I really doubt that Wa is a de facto state Gangulf 21:21, 22 Mar 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: There are dozens of ethnic groups seeking varying degrees of autonomy and/or independence in various parts of the world. I would class the Wa (along with the Mon, Hmong, Shan and other Burmese minorities) amongst them. They really belong in an article dealing specifically with the issues of autonomy/secessionist struggles, not here. This article is about functioning but unrecognised nation-states as these are traditionally understood.--Gene_poole 22:14, 22 Mar 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm pretty sure we have a list of those somewhere, but I can't remember where off the top of my head - it's been a while. Ambi 05:33, 23 Mar 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Wa state in Burma

message: Does Tamil Eelam count as unrecognized countries?
:I personally would guess not, but I don't know enough to make an argument otherwise. Ambi 11:08, 19 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: According to the Annex to the list of countries, "Places under the control of secessionist or guerrilla movements (e.g. Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam)" do not count as de facto independent. 200.124.35.174 18:43, 19 September 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Tamil Eelam 

message: There might be one more historical de facto independent state in the territory of Somalia named "Hiranland". However, I did not manage to find more information about this state on Internet. User:PANONIAN
:Where did you hear of this place? Ambi 11:08, 19 September 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Hiranland 

message: To the best of my knowledge, and according to the History of the Comoros page, they three islands constituting the country are now in a confederation, and therefore, neither of the three is independent currently. Consider also the World Factbook entry, which states: Unstable Comoros has endured 19 coups or attempted coups since gaining independence from France in 1975. In 1997, the islands of Anjouan and Moheli declared their independence from Comoros. In 1999, military chief Col. AZALI seized power. He pledged to resolve the secessionist crisis through a confederal arrangement named the 2000 Fomboni Accord. In December 2001, voters approved a new constitution and presidential elections took place in the spring of 2002. Each island in the archipelago elected its own president and a new union president took office in May of 2002. While the CIA WFB is of course not independent or neutral, I think we can trust them on this... Can we consent to move Anjouan to the historical section? —  ナイトスタリオン ㇳ–ㇰ — 09:11, 22 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Feel free - I knew the current situation with Anjouan, but hadn't realised that it was still listed there. Ambi 09:30, 22 September 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Anjouan 

message: Reasons for deletion in the section "Historic unrecognized states with de facto control over their territory":
1.  The regions are not historic.  Other than short lived or recently founded they have no historical grounds for suggesting independence.
2. They are not countries, states and some are not even regions. Republika Srpska is a political entity whose territory is stipulated by a peace agreement and still disputed.
3. They were largely founded by thugs and war criminals all of whom are either in jail, on trial or at large with an indictment hanging over their head.
4. 3 of those (Republika Srpska, Western Bosnia and Herceg-Bosna are unconstitutional per constitution of Republic of Bosnia and Herzegovina which was in force at the time of their creation)
5. Stating these entities is wishful thinking of nationalist fringe who want to instigate their own people and make them fight for a lost cause.
6. If the category here is as broad then you would need to expand a list to well over 1000 regions, countries and entities in Europe who probably have more historical grounds for suggesting independence.  To my opinion the whole category is a joke. --Dado 18:15, 26 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: The entities you've deleted are all "historic" (ie they have a documented existence preceding the present day, and are no longer extant) and maintained de-facto control of their territory by force of arms. Who they were founded by, what their constitutional status was, and whether they were promoted by any "fringe" groups or not is irrelevant - they actually existed, and the therefore should properly be documented within this article. If we removed every "unrecognised country" from this article based on your criteria the article would contain no content at all.--Gene_poole 23:49, 26 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I also see no reason not to list them. —  ナイトスタリオン ㇳ–ㇰ — 09:09, 27 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I also see no reason not to list them. I understand you have ideological objections to these entities, Dado, (frankly, so do I), but they nevertheless were de facto independent for a period, and thus belong on this list. Ambi 14:32, 27 September 2005 (UTC)

text: Historic in this context simply means that the entities no longer exist in any de facto independent manner - we're not making any judgement as to their significance, which would be a POV violation. All three of those areas are now territories within the states of Bosnia and Herzegovina and Croatia. We're not arguing otherwise, nor are we arguing that these entities should have existed. What we're arguing is that they did exist - whether you or we like it or not - and thus that they belong on this list. I'm removing the POV warning - this seems to be more a question of your dislike for the three entities having existed than any question of whether they were de facto independent. Ambi 01:36, 29 September 2005 (UTC)

text: All three of those entities were de facto independent from the nations that their land was internationally recognised as being part of. All three of those entities, at least for some period, had a functioning government independent of that in Sarajevo or Zagreb respectively. And none of those three entities were internationally recognised as being independent states. This is why they are on this page. We already do add the governments you describe to this page. Is there any we've missed? Finally, please stop throwing around accusations. I personally agree with you that many of their leaders were war criminals and that they should not have been states of their own, but that does not change the fact that for a few years in the 1990s, they were indeed de facto independent. Ambi 06:15, 29 September 2005 (UTC)

text: Dado, that is the entire point of this list. None of these nations on this list were internationally recognised (except for a couple which had a small number of states recognise them). They were, however, functioning as seperate, unrecognised entities for a while - which is why they are on this list. Ambi 00:00, 30 September 2005 (UTC)

text: This is the entire point. This is not list of countries. This is list of unrecognized countries. None of these nations are or were internationally recognised, and none were considered as states in the same way as, say, Bosnia or Croatia. That's why Bosnia and Croatia are on list of countries and not here. Occupied Paris during World War I was not a historic country. It was part of occupied France, which was. Whether right or wrong, these three entities made claims of being independent states. They laid claim to certain territory, and had somewhat functioning governments. These are characteristics shared by every entity on this list. We're not making any judgement of their legitimacy or whether they should have been internationally recognised, and I detested their existence just as much as you did. So I'm getting pretty frustrated that you keep confusing this list with list of countries. Ambi 04:51, 30 September 2005 (UTC)

text: I removed the Federation because it is an internationally recognised state, and thus belongs on list of countries, and Bosanska Krajina because I've seen no evidence to suggest that it was in any way ever de facto independent (though if you can show any evidence to the contrary, I'll be happy to change my mind). I'm getting really sick of being accused of supporting these entities because I recognise that, right or wrong, they were de facto independent for a period. Right or wrong, they made the claim to be independent states, and had a functioning government and claims to territory. For gods sake - I personally agree with you entirely that these three entities should not have been created, but this is not the place to take out your grievances. Ambi 15:32, 30 September 2005 (UTC)

text: If the Federation did claim to be independent of Bosnia itself, then I have no objection to including it here. The official status now of any of these, however, is irrelevant. As Panonian described below, they fulfilled many characteristics of states (government, armies, territory, etc, claiming to be seperate from Bosnia or Croatia). They were, in effect, countries - that they were de facto independent while not being internationally recognised, which is why they are on this list. Some of the currently existing ones are equally mad - such as Stalinist Transnistria, but that doesn't change their status as an unrecognised state. Oh, and as for your living room argument - if you did that, it would be a micronation, and you could go list it there. Ambi 02:06, 1 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Disputed 

message: I do not think that Abkhazia, Nagorno-Karabakh, South Ossetia and Northern Cyprus are geographically located in Europe. These regions have certain political ties with Europe, but geographically they are clearly located in Asia. Opinions about this? User:PANONIAN
:Since Cyprus is generally agreed to be in Europe, so's Northern Cyprus. I, personally, think that all three states in the Caucasus (and by extension the ones you mentioned) are geographically (according to some definitions) and culturally (most certainly) European. If there is a consensus to list them as Asian, however, I'll accept that.  ナイトスタリオン ✉ 08:58, 29 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: How about Europe-Asia as a compromise? It doesn't matter that much. freestylefrappe 00:40, 30 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text:  Okay.  ナイトスタリオン ✉ 10:04, 30 September 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Europe, Asia 

message: See this article:
* http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_extinct_states
There is list of the "Secessionist states" there and some of them should be included here too:
* Cartagena Canton - the haven city of Cartagena, Spain seceded from the First Spanish Republic in 1873.
* Cruzob, achieved independence from Mexico in 1856, but was reannexed in 1901.
* Ezo - declared independance from Japan in 1868 after the defeat of the forces of the Tokugawa shogunate during the Boshin War until it was reincorporated into Japan in 1869
* The Italian Social Republic (Repubblica Sociale Italiana in Italian), also known as the Republic of Salò, was a fascist puppet state in German- occupied northern Italy.
* Manitoba - short-lived republic led by Thomas Spence, declared after the Hudson's Bay Company gave up Rupert's Land and before the government of Canada took control (1867).
* Red River Rebellion - provisional government in Rupert's Land, led by Louis Riel in (1869–1870).
* Rio Grande declared independence in 1840, brought back into Mexico by force less than a year later, encompassed the land of the Mexican states of Tamaulipas, Nuevo Leon, and parts of the USA state of Texas.
* Rose Island - A tiny island seceded from Italy.
* Tacna and Arica - Disputed territories by the Pacific shore of South America.
* Ukrainian People's Republic - declared independence after the Russian Revolution of 1917, but fell to the Soviet Union in 1920.
Should we include some of those into article as a historical unrecognized states or not? Of course, there is question were these countries recognized or not, but the title "Secessionist states" might indicate that they were not. User:PANONIAN
:Yes. The Republic of Minerva should also be included. See Micronation and List of micronations. freestylefrappe 15:37, 12 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Not again... ::sighs:: There's a difference between actual secessionist states and micronations.  ナイトスタリオン ✉ 18:20, 12 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: What is your point...? Either way they are unrecognized countries. freestylefrappe 18:23, 12 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: No, they're not countries. Read the lengthy discussion about this above - and the overwhelming consensus to keep micronations in Micronation and related articles. Ambi 14:00, 13 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  More countries 

message: I removed an  entry from Europe, the "so called" Catalan Countries. The reasons are following:
* This is a list of "de facto" countries, and AFAIK, there isn't such an entity with control over an square inch of territory. So it ought to go to the List_of_active_autonomist_and_secessionist_movements.
* According to the dates entried (up to 1714), I suppose it refered to the entity that historians (and called themselves ) usually know as Crown of Aragon", which never has been coterminous with the "so called" Catalan Countries. The Crown of Aragon was clearly, in their times, an full international subject. In this case it belongs to a list of extinct states (How and when it was extinct is just another discussion ...)
--Wllacer 09:02, 19 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Removal. Explanation 

message: In the articles List of sovereign states, List of unrecognized countries and List of active autonomist and secessionist movements I think it would help the reader a great deal if a clearer distinction is made between these categories:
:* a recognized state controlling most or all of its territory
:* a de facto sovereign state that lacks general recognition, but still maintains most of the attributes of a functioning state
:* an aspirant state, i.e. a group of people concentrated in a singel territory that want either a sovereign state or an autonomous sub-state within another state
Otherwise, it will be difficult to reach a consensus about what to properly call all these entities that may variously either want or have actual control and/or partial recognition. Then there are all those territories that don't want either sovereign statehood nor political union with or incorporation into another state, as well as disputed territories that don't seek independence. --Big Adamsky 19:13, 28 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Criteria for inclusion in this list 

message: ROC-Taiwan is also "paritialy recognised" - so I separated it. N.Cyrpus and N.Karabakh are also "paritilay" recognised, but only by 1 state. I don't added them, because it seems that this 1-state-recognition is different than Taiwan/Palestine/W.Sahara - it is only of symbolical value for showing the full support of that 1-state.
Also the list seems controversial. Israel is not listed, even when it is only "paritialy" recognised (some states have intentionaly and loudly not-recognised it). It seems that this is because of Israel UN membership (the only difference between Israel and Taiwan in relation to recognition). So maybe we should add to the introduction paragraph a clarification about the applied "UN-filter"? Alinor 12:57, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  categories 

message: I was thinking that the last section Historic unrecognized or partially recognized governments with de facto control over their territory does not list two states whose soverignty was ever widely disputed, but rather it was the regimes that were in place there that the international community did not overwhelmingly acknowledge diplimatically. But their legitimacy as independent states per se was already solidly established. Right? //Big Adamsky 21:01, 6 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Do internationally unrecognized ''regimes'' in otherwise recognized ''states'' belong in this list?

message: I removed Nakhichevan's recognition of TRNC. It has no reason to be mentioned. the only reason would be in order to show a wider recognition, without such a recognition existing. As long as Azerbaijan has not recognised it, talking about Nakhichevan is ridiculous! just an example: we never say that Transnistria, for example, is not recognised neither by Russia nor by the Autonomous Oblast of Amur!--Hectorian 16:29, 27 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  TRNC 

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

text: Only Somaliland is seeking international recognition. They lodged a formal request with the African Union in 2004. - Mauco 00:57, 23 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Puntland 

message: The Assyrian independence should be placed under Unrecognized states with partial control over their territory which encompasses parts of Syria, Turkey, Iraq and Iran. ILLeSt 12:33, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Assyria

message: 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)
thread_title: 3RR

message: 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)
replies: text: Sounds about right. --Robdurbar 23:30, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  State of Palestine 

message: 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  (T) @ (C) 10:43, 15 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[WP:POINT|Messing with the system]] 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title: Edits by [[User:Nixer|Nixer]] of July 28th

message: *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)
thread_title: Palestine

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

message: 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)
replies: text: See the above talk which is trying to establish why this change occured! --Robdurbar 19:52, 29 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Palestinian Authority and State of Palestine

message: 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)
replies: text: Another article here  about it, looks a bit amateurish imo. -- RND  T  C  19:03, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yeah; the bodies on this page appear to be far more established than this lot. --Robdurbar 21:53, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Democratic Republic of Bakassi 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Azad Kashmir 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Shan? 

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

text: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)

text: 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)
thread_title:  Israel 

message: 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)
replies: text: Osgoodelawyer posted a new T.E. flag.  Thanks.  Inkan1969 22:07, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Tamil Eelam Restored 

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

message: 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)
thread_title:  Greenland 

message: I removed the contents about the Nepalese Mission in Tibet and the alleged Tibeto-Mongolian Treaty of 1915:
*[1] 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.
*[2] 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)
thread_title:  Asia - Tibet 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Asia / Europe 

message: Why is the Kingdom of Hawaii on this list? It was as widely recognized as Siam.  Septentrionalis 13:53, 1 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: the Kingdom of Hawaii was widely Recognised as Siam?? hmm thats news to me... wasn't Thailand widely recognised as siam? Maku desu 08:29, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

text: Maybe you mean Hawaii was recognized by Siam? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 24.180.7.125 (talk) 03:56, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Hawaii

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