Talk:List of irredentist claims or disputes

message: This is an awkward description:  'The PIRA's claim that British rule in Northern Ireland hinders the prospect of a United Ireland. '
1)  The PIRA is not a state.  The Republic of Ireland is.  Do we know if the Republic claims Northern Ireland? If not, we need to adjust this entry somehow.
2)  We don't need to say that having another government control land that your goverment claims will 'hinder the prospect for a United' anything.  That's pretty obvious, isn't it?
MilesVorkosigan 19:31, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I changed some names and titles. See if that fits better.--Zereshk 21:02, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Ireland 

message: WHER IS THE MENTION OF GRATER ITALY  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.222.95.81 (talk) 21:58, 22 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  GREATER ITALY 

message: I have deleted the last sentence "and it even forbade use of the language" because it's not related to the territorial dispute, and therefor a rupture of neutrality.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.137.171.81 (talk) 11:41, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Olivenza 

message: I reverted 'officially' part of NL as it simply is.  The convention on this page is it seems to me, not to say 'region x claims region y that is officially a part of z' Dbrodbeck (talk) 14:37, 5 July 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Which snuck back in years later and I just fixed it...  Dbrodbeck (talk) 12:20, 25 January 2020 (UTC)
thread_title: Labrador

message: The Scottish National Party, the largest pro-independence party in the Scottish Parliament do not seem to cite this as official policy, nor is it clear if any other pro-independence parties are in favour of this, however there have been claims by individual members of these parties. This appears to be very minor and a not altogether serious irredentist claim, should this be included on the list? Benson85 (talk) 17:13, 21 May 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: this sounds like it should go under minor claims because the SNP is a mainstream party.2607:F5F0:110:1:0:0:0:4A (talk) 22:13, 11 November 2020 (UTC)
thread_title: Berwick-upon-Tweed

message: South Dobrudja had aн insignificant Romanian population before it became part of Romania; the Romanian population then grew to 20% as a result of settlers from Romania and the Balkans: Dobruja#Southern_Dobruja.
Northern Bukovina also didn't have a Romanian majority in the early 20th century: Northern_Bukovina#Historical_population.
:See how easy that is when you explain yourself.  Take a moment and think how difficult it is for someone who has this page on their watch list for vandal patrol.  Have a nice day now.  Justin talk 16:54, 17 September 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Romanian irredentism and demographics 

message: Just pointing it out xD. --Yalens (talk) 18:39, 15 August 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  This list is going to get very, very, big... 

message: This is an honest question. Is there some technical reason why tribal nationalism (like the Sami independence, the Iriquois nationals, independent Nunavut and the greenland equivalent, etc) is not included in these lists?  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.255.9.201 (talk) 15:10, 2 March 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Because the lists are incomplete (though for some peoples, perhaps not for Sami and Iroquois, "tribal" is an insult, so it would be best not to use). --Yalens (talk) 16:07, 2 March 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: I think this list should only include claims officially made by countries, not claimes that some individuals or private organizations might advocate. Pinut (talk) 09:24, 22 April 2012 (UTC)

text: Well if it is something like a tribe wanting to expand their reservation then its internal irredentism, so should be allowed.  If a group of Nevadas started demanding parts of California like Truckee, Bridgeport, and Death Valley, then it would be sensible to include.  If the Iroquois had a party demanding, like, their lands from 1700, then it should go on the list.  Otherwise, IMO, it should be left off, and be added to one of the Lists of active separatist movements.  2607:F5F0:110:1:0:0:0:4A (talk) 22:21, 11 November 2020 (UTC)

text: I mean, the way i see it is that while Irredentism is a pretty multifasceted phenomena(historical,Etnic,Geographic,linguistic), It is kind of a byproduct of finished nation states, or emergent, split nationalist movements, etc. The Wikipedia category got starightfoward Pan-Nationalist claims, ie finished territories joining each other, but also more straightforward seperatist movements that wants independence from one specific state, rather than adding territory to an existing state or administrative entity, a bit of a clarification on the point already made, either its an internal territorial dispute for a public entity like a tribal territory, a seperatis movement seeking indpendence from the US or Denmark in these cases, which both fit into their own categories, a cross border tribe wanting some territory added to their prefered national state might be closer to fit the bill for example. Akiosi (talk) 11:26, 21 February 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  tribal nationalism 

message: I removed the sentence "*Many in Sudan still claim South Sudan" because Sudan has officially recognised South Sudan. What some people in Sudan may think about this in private is not interesting. Pinut (talk) 09:24, 22 April 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: But if there are political parties/movements still claiming South Sudan, it does count. --Yalens (talk) 00:41, 13 December 2012 (UTC)
thread_title: Africa

message: It seems that have been considered claims beyond any reason by Ukrainians nationalists. For instance parts of Poland, Romania and Bielorussia. I would suggest to keep the same rules of the nationalists of other countries and cancel nonsense. Ukrainians cannot claim the moon, or perhaps Northern Italy, given that now there are many Ukrainian nurses. Following this line Italy could claim Serbia (once under Roman rule) and France could claim Slovenia once conquered by Napoleon.--Deguef (talk) 09:33, 3 July 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: We're not supposed to discuss how rational they are, but whether they exist. --Yalens (talk) 00:41, 13 December 2012 (UTC)
thread_title: Claims by Ukrainians nationalists

message: Why is Israel not considered an irredentist project of its own? The idea of its re-colonization was born in Europe and based on a national unity project. There was no Jewish sovereignty in Palestine for ~2000 years before the birth of Israel. This makes it a perfect candidate for an entry of its own on this page, in spite of the politically correct concessions to 'mutual' irredentism.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2607:F470:12:5:91E2:E5E1:12CA:3816 (talk) 00:04, 13 December 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Actually, it doesn't fit the bill. Irridentism is the adding of new territories onto an already existing state, or (more rarely) the merging of various territories all in different states to form a new state (this is both irridentism and separatism, seen in pre-independence Poland and modern Kurdistan). Zionism fits neither description. --Yalens (talk) 00:39, 13 December 2012 (UTC)

text: They have their own issues within Russia: Chechnya feels it should have a part of Dagestan that was historically inhabited by Chechens, Ingushetia similarly wants a part of North Ossetia. Internal irridentism. Not sure what that has to do with Israel though.--Yalens (talk) 15:29, 28 January 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Israel 

message: Clarification12 please read the article, it doesn't matter if it's constitutional irredentism. Please revert yourself. Macedonian, a Greek (talk) 09:00, 28 January 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: I will redirect you to United Macedonia (and Macedonian nationalism). Macedonian, a Greek (talk) 09:11, 28 January 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: This article is not about constitutional irredentism, there is such a section in Irredentism#Constitutional irredentism. For more, please, read United Macedonia (and Macedonian nationalism). Macedonian, a Greek (talk) 09:29, 28 January 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Clarification12 disruptive editing 

message: Should this list include the Russian/Ukrainian claims, issues and conflicts?  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.7.80.2 (talk) 13:36, 22 August 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  current Russian/Ukrainian situation? 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to  on List of irredentist claims or disputes. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add  after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add  to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/20050426064023/http://www.mef.qc.ca:80/question_du_labrador.htm to http://www.mef.qc.ca/question_du_labrador.htm
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).
Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 09:18, 21 March 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: I think it's time for this article to get a thorough cleaning out. There's a lot of WP:COATRACK happening, but finger-pointing both ways with no reliable sources is essentially a blog or forum, not an encyclopaedic article.
As it has been tagged for multiple issues for years, none of which have been addressed, I think the only sensible way to handle the article is to just remove anything that isn't reliably sourced. This will possibly only leave enough sourced content for to push it past the stub post... but that's better than than fabricated content. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 04:43, 27 April 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree. Roger 8 Roger (talk) 10:10, 25 October 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  An article of little substance, but a whole lot of [[WP:POV]] and [[WP:SYNTH]] 

message: Would it be questionable to mention the Falklands War under the associated bullet point? I think something along the lines of:
"In 1982, Argentina unsuccessfully attempted to militarily annex the Islands."
is unbiased and uncontroversial. AuburnAttack21 (talk) 00:41, 20 January 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Falkland Islands 

message: I don't get it if this "Historical and fringe disputes" is referring only to the europeans territorial disputes or all disputes listed down but speaking of fringe disputes, could somebody here explain me why is Brazil listed as if Bolivia is actually claiming something from them based on irredentists concepts? just because president Evo Morales expressed his disgust in how Brazil gained Acre(which is a baseless statement btw, as the Treaty of Petrópolis clearly specifies in how Brazil buyed Acre from Bolivia) that doesn't mean he or the bolivian state is claiming that area, the only territorial claim that exist between Bolivia and Brazil are the 80 fluvial islands that lies in the Mamoré river like the Guajará-Mirim island, all of those islands are unassigned to no country but no irredent claim is being made by none of them not even bolivian nationalist groups nor bolivian parties, and speaking about parties, if the Greater Romanian Party wants to reclaim all territories gained in 1918 and recreate Greater Romania i'm pretty sure they are including all of Moldova's territory.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dark Tails Uruguayo (talk • contribs) 04:55, 7 October 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Fringe disputes" Bolivia & Romania 

message: This article has gone way off track and needs to be started again from a much earlier point. There is still a lot to thin out, especially all those flags if anyone has the energy and time. I have left in cited detail but even those entries are questionable. Roger 8 Roger (talk) 11:11, 25 October 2019 (UTC)
thread_title: Major culling

message: See the comment two sections above. I agree that the best way to deal with this article is to remove most of the detail and start again. I have begun doing that, leaving behind anything that is referenced. However, even those claims may need removal if they prove to be territorial claims not based on irredentism. Once the culling is done a rearrangement of the structure might be helpful too. I think we should remember that this is intended to be only a list of claims and not an article in detail about any one claim. Only summary detail should be provided with a link to the claim's main wiki article, if there is one. The detail about Russia is IMO too detailed, even if correct and even if cited. Roger 8 Roger (talk) 01:16, 26 October 2019 (UTC)
thread_title: Major changes to this article

message: I feel like the notes in the Africa, Asia, South and Central America and Europe sections are sparse. The notes could be a good place to give brief explanations for some of the claims (e.g. why does Afghanistan claim parts of Pakistan?). Even notes like "Country A has claims to this part of Country B" would be useful for readers. 106.69.178.122 (talk) 09:24, 13 December 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Notes seem to be very bare bones 

message: This language is clearly irredentist. 
“Nothing needs to be done. We certainly don’t need to ratify it. If we signed a new border treaty and surrendered those territories (Ivangorod and the Pechorsky District, which were meant to go to Estonia according to the 1920 Treaty of Tartu), it would have huge legal consequences."
Source: https://uawire.org/estonia-will-not-ratify-border-treaty-with-russia
--208.72.125.2 (talk) 15:00, 10 January 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  This article mentions Russians irredentism on Estonia but not Estonia's irredentism on Russia. Biased much? 

message: Hey, I don't know if this counts, but there's a fringe group in the USA (http://expansionistparty.tripod.com/), and they have a website, but I don't know if it deserves to count as a minor claim, because this could just be some random guy claiming Canada, the UK, Australia and New Zealand. 2607:F5F0:110:1:0:0:0:4A (talk) 22:11, 11 November 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  USA 

message: This article would improve if it was structured a bit more like List of active separatist movements in Europe. In particular there are a lot of claims without any information on who make the claim. I would suggest the following criteria for claims making the lists:
*Actor/claimant
**To make the list for 'Official or major disputes' - The government of a country currently claim the territory
**To make the list for 'Unofficial or minor disputes in Europe' - A party with representation at national, regional or local level
*The claim must be current 
*The territory must have a (real or imagined) past that is different from its current status.
Examples:
*Actor/claimant - It is hard to tell without sources, but many of the listings under 'Unofficial or minor disputes in Europe' seems very obscure. It is not helpful for the reader to list everything anyone has ever suggested should belong to another country. The should be some cut-off mark to clarify how politically important the claim is.
*The claim must be current - Most Scandinavian items on the list seems to just reflect areas that at some point belonged to another country and not relate to anything current.
*The territory must have a (real or imagined) past that is different from its current status -  If that is not the case it is just a border dispute. Rockall is listed quite frequently, but no actor claims that their state or people have ruled over Rockall or anything such - it is just a border dispute (for the seabed rather than the < 1000 m2 land)
For the claimant I would suggest adding a column to the 'unofficial or minor disputes' where the claimant(s) is/are listed. I would also suggest that the first table for each continent is just called 'official disputes' to make it more clear. (I will make those changes if no-one objects) Gunnar Larsson (talk) 21:31, 6 August 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: @Gunnar Larsson I sort of agree with what you are saying. Please see the talk page on the main article Irredentism where this problem, and here  was raised by me. (Have a look through if I am not providing a clear link here). My view is that we should have the debate on what to do on the main page rather than this list page. The main page is effectively a list anyway, so the problem of having two articles saying the same thing also needs to be sorted. I had rearranged the headings on the main page to better reflect my opinion of reality and simplicity, which correspond reasonably well with your views here. Since then not much has happened on the main page, but now might be a good time to resurrect the debate. Roger 8 Roger (talk) 02:41, 7 August 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Claimed by who? / Suggestions for criteria for inclusion 

message: I think there is too much information in this article at the moment. The previous format with tables was supposed to be easily readable at a glance. This is a list article, not a thesis. It is supposed to summarise irredentist claims/disputes very briefly. As it stands, there is too much information in this article, and the "list" element seems to have been totally removed recently. • I also preferred the system whereby irredentist claims/disputes were indicated by flags, rather than by maps. This emphasises the diplomatic nature of these claims/disputes, whereas maps (especially ethnic maps) tend to dehumanise people. • It is also important to differentiate between different severities of irredentist claims/disputes. For example, the dispute that Albania has with Serbia over Kosovo (which itself is also an independent actor, albeit heavily sided with Albania) is much more high profile than the dispute between Albania and North Macedonia over ethnic-Albanian areas within North Macedonia. A distinction must be made in a situation like this. • Again, this article is supposed to be something of a shorthand reference to redirect readers to more detailed articles. It's not supposed to be a main article in and of itself. Jargo Nautilus (talk) 10:58, 30 October 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: There used to be two lists (one at the main article and one here). What I did a while ago was to move the one at the main article here, as that list was of much higher factual quality than the one that was here (which had a lot of rather odd and poorly sourced list items) and having two lists for the same thing is far from optimal. The advantage with having more text is that it is easier to condense it rather than the other way around. Gunnar Larsson (talk) 13:39, 31 October 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Layout of article 

message: It should probably also be better sourced, but it appears that this dispute hasn't been an issue for over 180 years, so it should probably be moved to the historical claims section. Thoughts? Cat-fivetc  ---- 19:00, 31 January 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: Would make sense, it is a bit of a stretch to consider the early 1800s as "current" :-D Maybe it should even be removed altogether? Without knowing overly much about the Spanish American wars of independence it does not seem to fit "a land that the movement's members consider to be a "lost" (or "unredeemed") territory from their nation's past." very well. Gunnar Larsson (talk) 22:22, 31 January 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Should the Republic of the Floridas information under the Venezuela section be moved to historical? 

message: Sri Lanka does not claim the territory of any other country. Sri Lanka's territorial and maritime borders are recognised by all United Nations member states and observer states. Irredentism is claiming territories of foreign countries.
Sri Lanka is an island nation. It has been united for most of its history. The Democratic Socialist Republic of Sri Lanka is thr sole legitimate government of Sri Lanka. There is no other state within the territory of Sri Lanka. This is accepted by the United Nations.
Saying that Sri Lanka is irredentist is completely falsehood. 112.134.223.86 (talk) 18:17, 13 March 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: You seem to lack reading comprehension. The entry in the article says that Sri Lanka is a country that is divided between two main ethnic groups; the Sinhalese (who are generally Buddhists) and the Tamils (who are generally Hindus). These two ethnic groups are not evenly dispersed throughout the country, with the north-east of the country hosting a high concentration of Tamils. According to the entry, some Sinhalese hold animosity towards the Tamils, whom they view as invaders (on the basis of some Sinhalese Buddhist temple ruins located nearby to contemporary Hindu temples). If Sinhalese people inside of Sri Lanka were to attempt to "retake" areas inside of Sri Lanka that are currently occupied by Tamil people inside of Sri Lanka, then that would still be classified as a form of irredentism even though it is all occurring inside of Sri Lanka. This is irredentism on the subdivision/subcommunity level, rather than on the state-to-state level. Irredentism is still irredentism even if it's on a lower level than state-to-state. Irredentism between different villages can even be a thing. Jargo Nautilus (talk) 20:48, 14 November 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: @Jargo Nautilus The land of Sri Lanka belongs to all Sri Lankans and it is indivisible. Why should you try to "retake" something when it belongs to you already? The Sri Lanka (talk) 09:05, 26 December 2023 (UTC)

text: From the article Irredentism: "Irredentism is a desire by one state to annex a territory of another state." - that's clearly not what's going on in Sri Lanka. I can't find any sources or articles that describe the settlement policy as "irredentism" or "irredentist". In fact, the only mention of irredentism I could find with regards to Sri Lanka is Tamil irredentism, i.e. the Tamils forming their own independent state, potentially with territory in both India and Sri Lanka. I've removed the section again, and I don't think it should be restored without sourcing that explicitly refers to irredentism. Kdroo (talk) 21:56, 16 January 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  Is Sri Lanka irredentist? 

message: Merger discussion 92.0.152.112 (talk) 22:25, 13 November 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: Are you going to provide a reason/rationale for your merge proposal? As of yet, I can't see such a thing. Jargo Nautilus (talk) 20:31, 14 November 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Merger discussion 

message: In Kazakhstan, nationalist circles often voice demands for the return of Orenburg (formerly the capital of the Kazakh (then Kyrgyz) ASSR in 1920) and the southern part of the Omsk Oblast and the Astrakhan Oblast.https://vz.ru/politics/2017/9/14/887052.html Thingsomyipisntvisable2 (talk) 17:43, 9 April 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  Kazakhstan 

message: I have removed a fair amount of maps from the article. As it was, the amount of them meant that maps in many cases were placed far away the text they were meant to support. In some cases (when an item was covered by several maps) I have just removed them, but in most cases the links are still in the wiki text, just commented away (using ). The maps I removed were typically for list items that had just one line of text or so (meaning that the map took up much more space than the text). Gunnar Larsson (talk) 20:46, 26 May 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  Images