Talk:List of states with limited recognition/Archive 2

message: I'm afraid I don't know what the bias was.  Moldovans are now considered an ethnic group separate from Romanians, and I don't think the Moldovans in Transnistria identify as Romanian (just like those in Moldova do not).  To continue to call them Romanians is actually the bias—it rejects a designation that the people themselves hold. └ OzLawyer / talk ┐ 16:26, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: They they self-identify as Romanians, despite pressure from the puppet administration to repress that. For an example, see Ilie Ilaşcu's case. Why do you think they self-identify as "Moldovans"? As an ethnic designator, "Moldovan" seems to be more of an exonym.--Tekleni 16:37, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Why?  Because they live in the "Trans-Dniester Moldovan Republic" and they speak Moldovan (which is an official language of Transnistria—not Romanian).  I don't think that link to an article proved a thing. └ OzLawyer / talk ┐ 16:58, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Are there any linguists on Earth which say that Moldovan ≠ Romanian? I'll answer that, no, there aren't. Also, the word "Moldovan" in the title of the pseudo-state simply refers to geography, not ethnicity. Moldovans is undue weight (recognized only by the CIS), see the article.--Tekleni 17:05, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I understand that they are essentially the same language, but the fact that it is called Moldovan speaks volumes about the identity of the people.  I'm Canadian, but I do not speak Canadian, I speak English.  As for your assertion that "Moldovan" in the name refers to geography, that may be so, but, again, that's not evidence against identity being displayed in the name.  If there was no identity as Moldovan, there would be no need to note Moldova in the name.  Finally, the census numbers in the Transnistria article are of Moldovans, not Romanians.  If the data says "Moldovan", we are not in a position to say "Romanian"—that's putting our own point of view in, and undertaking original research. └ OzLawyer / talk ┐ 17:12, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Look, I'm just saying that the concept of Moldovan language doesn't seem to exist outside the CIS, ergo using it here is undue weight. Anyway, let's see what everyone else thinks.--Tekleni 17:45, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: But language and ethnicity are different things, and we're talking about ethnicity here, not language.  People can feel they are Moldovan ethnically and still speak Romanian. └ OzLawyer / talk ┐ 18:10, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Exactly. Also, saying that all/most "self-identify as Romanians" needs to be backed-up by sources, or else it would be original research. For example, I knew a Moldovan guy who mentioned Romanians as "close", but not the same. Furthermore, isn't one of the most important factors in what determines an ethnic group being "whatever they want to be"? I could have something like this: Austrians (Germans), but I don't because they don't want to be called Germans. I'm not saying it's the same for Moldovans, but we can't just assume that all/most Moldovans call themselves Romanians. That would be POV-pushing. Khoikhoi 19:17, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

text:  Tekleni, I happen to know quite a bit about the Ilie Ilaşcu's case. He is in no way representative of the general population of Moldova, nor is he representative of the general population (or even the 31.9% minority) in Transnistria. He is an advocate of the unification of Moldova and Romania, which is a position not shared by the majority in neither Moldova nor Transnistria. Today he has Romanian citizenship. Before he got that, however, he still called himself Romanian in order to demonstrate a political point: He feels that there is no such thing as Moldova or a specific Moldovan ethnicity, and that it should be part of Romania. We can agree with him or disagree with him on that, but the point to be made is that we should be aware that he does not approach the issue objectively and specifically introduces his own bias in order to further the cause which he advocates. - Mauco 23:08, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Osgoodelawyer 

message: The issue isn't even about whether they have de facto control over the claimed territory, it's whether they have de facto control over the occupied territory.  That is, while Transnistria may not occupy everything it claims, it controls everything it occupies.  Tamil Eelam, on the other hand, only has partial control over what it occupies—it does not have a firm grasp on its occupied territory.  That's the issue here, not whether one occupies all the land claimed.  That's why Taiwan is in the total control category, even though it claims all of China.  I'll leave this for some commentary for now, but it seems like recent edits are going to have to be reverted again. └ OzLawyer / talk ┐ 18:24, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I've bumped this one up to full protection now. Perhaps the simiplest solution to this would be to insert some text under each header but above the list of entities stating what we mean by each grouping. --Robdurbar 18:33, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Osgoodelawyer is correct. Otherwise we must move Taiwan down to the "partial" list as well. - Mauco 23:02, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Osgoodlawyer, please don't impose your own definitions. Abkhazia, South Ossetia and Transnistria don't control the entire teritorry they claim - this is a fact (even in Wikipedia you can find it). Taiwan only formally claim entire China (and Mongolia as well), but didn't really made any attempt to occupy this teritorry.--MariusM 13:11, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

text: I see that Osgoodlawyer started again the revert war with his definition "de jure governments of the areas in question have no influence in the areas under question". What is influence? I am sure the People's Republic of China has some "influence" in the Republic of China, for example. The home-made definition of Osgoodlawyer is not acceptable. We can diferentiate between entities which fully control the territory they claim and those who don't.--MariusM 20:10, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Marius, you're the one who's been attempting to change the article from what it was prior to the revert war.  My suggestion above which was agreed to by Mauco, and likely also by Robdurbar, seems a way to actually make sense of this list.  Your version is ambiguous and plain out wrong. ROC must be moved if your definitions are to be the ones accepted (and if they are accepted, you have to explain what your definitions actually are, since it's not apparent by the section titles). └ OzLawyer / talk ┐ 20:46, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

text: I wonder if 3 people (Osgoodlawyer, Mauco and likely Robdurbar) are enough to impose a definition in Wikipedia. ROC don't control the entire teritorry it claims, I think ROC should be alone in a separate category, as this particular case, while being de facto independent, never officially asked for independence. Anyhow, in the last >50 years ROC never made an attempt to expand the teritorry it control, it has stable borders. On contrary, Transnistria's borders are not clear and its government made attempts to increase the territorry, not only through having something written in its "Constitution" which nobody take seriously. See attempt to take control on village Vasilievca, attempt to take control in Varnitsa. We should make a distinction between seccesionist teritorries about which everybody agree on their geographical extension, disagreement being only if they have or not the right to separate, and those territories which, even if agreement is done about seccesion, there is still a debate about the borders of a future state. I suppose that Tamil Tigers have some villages in which they have 100% control.--MariusM 21:58, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  How on earth can you claim that they nobody takes Transnistria's Constitution seriously? 555,000 inhabitants do. In terms of size, a full 10% of U.N. member states have populations that are smaller than that. There is a Supreme Court which takes it very seriously indeed. It even overturns laws from parliament and the president which it finds unconstitutional. Besides, Transnsitria controls some 99% of the area which they claim in their constitution. The section title is very precise now so stop reverting if you do not know what you are talking about: Transnistria's constitution is highly respected by the unrecognized country, and prized as one of their symbols of statehood. - Mauco 23:18, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Indeed, they take Transnistria's constitution seriously, contrary with Taiwan, which has defined in its constitution borders including the entire China and Mongolia, but never take it seriously. Transnistria don't control its entire teritorry, this is my point, and "Taiwan" argument is not valid.--MariusM 23:30, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

text: Anyways, which part of Transnistria (Dniester's left bank +Beltsy) is not controlled by its government? --Illythr 11:52, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: First time I heard that Beltsy is part of Transnistria. Villages not controlled by secessionist government are: part of Dubăsari district (33810 inhabitants according 2004 Moldovan census), Varniţa town near Tighina and I think some areas in Basarabian part of former Slobozia rayon. According Transnistrian constitution, PMR should include former rayons of Slobozia, Grigoriopol, Dubăsari, Rîbniţa and Camenca. Camenca rayon also had a part which is geographically in Basarabia, that part is not controlled by Transnistria and, contrary with Slobozia rayon, AFAIK it seems it even didn't try to controll it.--MariusM 02:50, 2 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  This is more or less correct. The 33810 figure is highly misleading, the vast majority of these inhabitants are part of Transnistria and don't want to have anything to do with Moldova. The Moldovan villages only number a few hundred inhabitants, on average. Transnistria's constitution says that the territory is all of what is on the left bank + Bender and suburbs. But they have those villages near Dubossary which they do not control, as well as Varnitsa (suburb of Bender). They are keen to control Varnitsa but they are not worried about the villages. At any rate, if you look at a map, you will see that this is a case of "splitting hairs" and can under no circumstances be a determining factor in the inclusion criteria for this list. - Mauco 23:05, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

text:  Er, mixed up Beltsy with Bender, sorry. --Illythr 11:30, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Not true what Mauco told about transnistrian constitution, about the 33810 figure and the will of vast majority of those inhabitants. In general, not true what Mauco tell about Transnistria.--MariusM 13:59, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Please supply a source that states how I am wrong. - Mauco 00:58, 23 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  The partial and full control revert war 

message: Both are countries with de facto controller over some territory. Zazaban 03:04, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The Gay and Lesbian Kingdom of the Coral Sea Islands controls no territory whatsoever.  Bangsamoro, as far as I can tell, is just the land claimed by the Moro, the Autonomous Region in Muslim Mindanao is what is "controlled" by them, but it is an autonomous region within the Philippines, and thus is not a country. └ OzLawyer / talk ┐ 14:47, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

text: From the article: The kingdom's claims are not recognised by any state, and as no permanent settlement has been established, the Coral Sea Islands remain uninhabited. – If you have no people on the territory, you cannot possibly control it. └ OzLawyer / talk ┐ 15:36, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  add Bangsamoro and The Gay and Lesbian kingdom. 

message: There is a difference between non-recognition and the absence of diplomatic relations. For example, countries at or near war have routinely broken off diplomatic relations, without denying the existence, or right to existence, of the other side. Saying that the PRC does not recognize the Vatican requires a source. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 20:13, 16 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: The Vatican and the PRC

message: A reminder is in place for the newcomers here on the difference between partial control and full control. We are not referring to pockets of the claimed territory which is under control of another sovereign, but rather to the extent that an unrecognized country is able to exercise its sovereignty in the territory which it does control.
A disputed territory alone therefore does not count. Otherwise almost all RECOGNIZED states would fall under the "partial control" heading, too (since there are hundreds of territorial disputes in the world.
The cutoff point has a lot more to do with effectivity in the area under its control. Transnistria has a few border villages that it lets Moldova control, because that is how the villagers prefer it. But it has to be listed under the full control category without a doubt. Somaliland is there, though the issue of the border with Sool and East Sanag region, which is disputed with Puntland, covers a much larger area than the few Transnistrian villages and is the scene of much more violent armed confrontations. Abkhazia, despite the Kodori gorge, should probably also be under the full control category, but I am willing to hear how others feel about this before I make the move. - Mauco 01:05, 23 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: No agreement, already explained in "The partial and full control edit war" section.--MariusM 12:08, 23 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  You can not have Somaliland in one section and Transnistria in another. Completely illogical. Face reality, please. - Mauco 14:47, 23 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Don't know Somaliland situation. Just move Somaliland in other section if you think so.--MariusM 14:52, 23 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Evading the real issue. The point is that both places exercise full sovereignty over the areas which they control. This is not "partial control" so both should be in the same full control category, and most likely Abkhazia should be there as well. I am open to discussing this latter point, however. But do not revert Somaliland and Transnistria from their real, de-facto on the ground  status. Do not hide the actual reality and the facts of the situation as it exists there. - Mauco 14:58, 23 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Partial control = limited sovereignty/shared sovereignty 

message: Please replace the png flag of Moheli with a vector version. Thanks, --odder 01:05, 1 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[:Image:Flag of Mohéli.svg|New Moheli flag available]] 

message: According to the Republic of Cabinda article, 80% of the Province is in control of a government seperate of Angola. Zazaban 03:19, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Wikipedia is not a reliable source. We need a source outside Wikipedia to support such clams.--MariusM 03:21, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Cabinda 

message: Is the People's Republic of China not basing their unrecognition of the Holy See based solely on the See's unrecognition of the PRC, and thus completely bypassing the process of actually considering the legitimacy or illegitimacy of the See? Excuse my terramorthification, but is that not akin to the Vatican saying, "We do not recognize the People's Republic's control over China," only to have the PRC say, "Oh, yeah? Well, we don't recognize the Holy See's control over Vatican City! How do you like it now?" VolatileChemical 07:55, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Typical. NikoSilver 11:26, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  The Old Hans and the See 

message: Did Zimbabwe-Rhodesia actually claim to be a sovereign state?  I thought it returned to a status as a British colony during that period. john k 19:33, 20 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Zimbabwe-Rhodesia 

message: The Iraqi Kurdistan Region is officially recognized by Iraqi constitution and currently has constitutionally recognized authority over its region. So can it be removed from the "Historic unrecognized or partially recognized states with de facto control over their territory" section?  --D.Kurdistani 04:01, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Iraqi Kurdistan

message: This section (which lists Israel, Peoples' Republic of China, and others) is difficult to compile and probably incomplete.  There are many countries who do not have diplomatic relations with each other.  Often it is not because of any dispute but because the two countries are not too big and not geographically close to each other.
For example, Singapore and Barbados did not establish diplomatic relations until around 1996.  There is still no Singapore High Commission in Barbados.VK35 22:55, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Partially unrecognised states

message: What reference are we using to define who the prime arbiter of recognition?
Taiwan is recognized by 23 states. What makes their recognition of less value than say...the U.S.A. or the UN? Sounds incredibly POV or chauvinistic.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Maowang (talk • contribs).
:The article clearly separates out states with no international recognition, states only recognized by the country that created them, states that have partial recognition (Taiwan is one of these), and states that have greater but not universal recognition. No country's viewpoint is given any extra priority, these are simply a matter of fact. Vizjim 12:08, 7 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Unrecognized by whom?

message: Let's make a new list and move the partially recognized ones there. DenizTC 23:35, 6 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: There's not enough of them imho. I support keeping all of them here. Alaexis 12:30, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

text: Sections 1, 2, 5, 7, 9, and some from section 8 (maybe most). The title can be list of not fully recognized states or something like that. Otherwise we may need to change the title. DenizTC 13:26, 7 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  suggestion 

message: I think "States recognized by only one country with de facto control over their territory" section should be merged to the "Partially recognized states with de facto control over their territory". In the end it doesn't matter how many countries recognize it, it's still partially recognized. In the current wording, Turkish Republic of Northern Cyprus (TRNC) falls under both of the sections. Therefore we don't need the second section. The explanation next to the TRNC says that it's recognized by only one country anyways.
Or else it would break up more confusions / conflicts. we would also need a seperate section for Repuclic of Cyprus (Roc), goes as "States that are recognized by all countries except one". Or renaming of the section that witholds TRNC, as "States recognized by only one country (Turkey) and one autonomous republic (Nakhichevan) with de facto control over their territory". And Guess what if a country declares its independence tomorrow and only two countries recognize it :) Regards, Kerem Özcan 10:16, 13 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I take it as a consensus since nobody spoke against it. Regards, Kerem Özcan 09:30, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Section merging / confusion 

message: *Partially recognized governments. The subsections will explain "in exile", or "on disputed territories" or something similar, or whatever.
:support :Dc76 16:44, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: support :no big difference Alæxis¿question? 19:44, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

text: oppose: illogical. A government cannot be “on disputed territories” when he don't control any territory. Therefore, this is not a government, but a state. --Juiced lemon 21:10, 16 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  So, are you saying that when it controls territory, you call it "government", and when it does not, you call it just a "state"? If it is so, than you POV differs from mine only in the interchanged usage of the two words. In that case, maybe we can find a linguist to explain us the words and settle it. :Dc76 15:40, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  2 

message: *singular to plural, b/c everything else is plural, even when there is only one entry.
:support :Dc76 16:44, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: support: --Juiced lemon 21:22, 16 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  4 

message: *historic states vs historic governments. I stared at the titles of the two subsections 5 minutes until I saw states vs governments (the only difference). The new titles makes this more clear to read. Slight variations also possible.
:support :Dc76 16:44, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: support :Alæxis¿question? 19:47, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

text: “Unrecognized or partially recognized” is also superfluous. You can specify that in a note after the title of section 2. “Governments” as a subsection of Historic geo-political entities with de facto control over some territory is contradictory. --Juiced lemon 21:33, 16 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I guess you prefer title of section: "Historic geo-political entities", first sentence "This is a list of historic geo-political unrecognized or partially recognized entities with de facto control over some territory." Title of one subsection "states". Title of second subsection "governments". Please, note that this says no more and no less than the current verstion says, only that one does not have to read several times to observe what is the difference between the two subsections.:Dc76 15:59, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  5 

message: Here is a rough cut of the table. Kindly comment.
Name	Disputed    	Since	Recognized by                 	Unrecognized by                                  	More information
    	Independence	1974 	Turkey                        	Other countries                                  	Turkish invasion of Cyprus
    	Independence	1976 	45 countries                  	Most countries, Arab League, UN                  	Foreign relations of the Sahrawi Arab Democratic Republic
    	Independence	1991 	None                          	                                                 	Recognized as part of Azerbaijan
    	Independence	1991 	None                          	                                                 	Recognized as part of Somalia
    	Independence	1992 	None                          	                                                 	Recognized as part of Georgia
    	Independence	1991 	None                          	                                                 	Recognized as part of Georgia
    	Independence	1992 	None                          	                                                 	Recognized as part of Moldova
    	Statehood   	1988 	103 countries                 	Israel, United States, United Nations            	Proposals for a Palestinian state
    	Statehood   	1949 	167 countries                 	24 countries                                     	PRC's diplomatic relations
    	Statehood   	1949 	24 countries                  	Most countries                                   	Political status of Taiwan
    	Statehood   	1960 	                              	Only Turkey                                      	See Turkish Republic of Northern Cyprus
    	Statehood   	1948 	157 countries                 	34 countries                                     	Foreign relations of Israel
    	Statehood   	     	176 countries                 	Notably People's Republic of China               	Holy See
    	Name        	1992 	Over 100 countries            	Greece, international organizations              	Macedonia naming dispute
    	Name        	1989 	Most countries, United Nations	United States, Australia, Ireland, United Kingdom	Names of Burma/Myanmar
--Drieakko 13:18, 16 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Excellent, and I drop my objections.  I just couldn't visualise it before.  This allows for explanations and nuance (so for example you could include the recognition of the TRNC by the Organization of the Islamic Conference), and it works very well. Vizjim 15:34, 16 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Also lovely.  By the way, would it be possible to create another column of the table just for sources? It would be good to promote sourced edits in a disputed article such as this one... Vizjim 15:35, 16 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks. For sources, IMHO Wikipedia:Footnotes is a clean way. --Drieakko 16:21, 16 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I bow to your wisdom. Vizjim 06:44, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

text: The column "Disputed" attempts to indicate the element that is not recognized. For Macedonia and Myanmar, the name of the country remains disputed, making the countries only partially recognized. --Drieakko 12:18, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I disagree with that. There are certainly name disputes, so we have the relevant articles (hence I said we can have a see also for them), but these don't make them partially recognized. Myanmar is fully recognized since 1948. There is even an embassy of Myanmar in US and Australia, two countries which make Myanmar unrecognized according to some people here. DenizTC 13:00, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: If a country can not get recognized by the name it wants to be recognized as, it is then IMHO partially recognized. --Drieakko 13:14, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: We don't matter. Anyway I made some changes, please check. I went ahead and inserted the table combining recognition and non-recognition, also the table is sorted ('statehood' above 'independence', and then temporal order; don't know whether we should put Vatican on top). I commented out Myanmar and Macedonia for now. 14:34, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: You also did not seem to matter to wait for the discussion to close before carrying out major edits. Anyway, good points. I further simplified your edits. This article is a list, nothing else, and all information is available in additional articles that need not take their arguments here for any other than just the basic facts. --Drieakko 21:02, 19 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Sorry about not waiting much. To avoid any deadlocks any further, I decided to just be bold and do the edit. DenizTC 03:38, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

text: This is about the table itself though. But as for the names, the formal was only done for China so as to tell them apart. That-Vela-Fella (talk) 20:58, 25 August 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Table proposal 

message: I did have a look at the archives but the discussion is thin. Kosovo is not an unrecognised country because it does not presently claim recognition. That's the bottom line.
It is, of course, the subject of a long-running dispute between Serbia and the Kosovo Albanians but that is not the same. Kosovo Albanian parties did announce a Republic of Kosovo in 1999 (only Albania gave recognition), but when the United Nations took over administration an agreement was reached (the Constitutional Framework) under which all parties agreed to contribute to the interim civilian administration; the Republic of Kosovo was (quietly) dropped at this point and you will find no further reference to it anywhere. 
Kosovo Albanians still desire and seek independence, for which they are contributing to UN-backed status negotiations. They may get it. This is in no way the same as being an unrecognised state. There is no putative state to which recognition could be given. The Kosovo Albanian parties seeking independence are in this way no different from (say) the Scottish National Party in the UK which desire and are working for independence and are in control of the devolved administration: yet no one is claiming that Scotland is an unrecognised state.
I'd be interested to hear opinions, but it is pretty clear to me that Kosovo belongs on lots of other lists, but not here. DSuser 16:14, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: As there is no established sovereign de jure authority or controlling de facto authority (or, more specifically, international forces are the de facto authority), I would agree with you on this point. I'm sure good references can be found on this. —  Pēters J. Vecrumba 02:40, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Here, here Kosovo clearly doesn't belong. -Justin (koavf)·T·C·M 04:29, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

text: Kindly note that Taiwan or Palestine have not declared independence either. --Drieakko 11:35, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: But for the love of god, stop changing it! It's a fact, it's not just "considered by some to be" it's objectively de jure a part of Serbia just like Abkhazia is de jure a part of Georgia but de facto independent. And if you change it, give us a reason why!  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 193.157.236.219 (talk) 20:08, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

text: According to UN resolution 1244 (1999) Kosov is not mentioned as part of Serbia but as part of Federal Republic of Yougoslavia.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 193.0.254.46 (talk) 08:46, 31 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text:  That's right. Also, that tid-bit only appears in the PREAMBLE of the resolution, which is legally non-binding. The word "de jure" is simply Serbia's claim. Exo (talk) 03:45, 16 September 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Kosovo 

message: Whatever position you personally take regarding Kosovo - should it be recognized or not - the objective facts are that it is AT PRESENT (i) a self-declared republic, (ii) recognized by certain states, (iii) de jure still a part of Serbia. This last fact keeps getting edited a way, now this is just not fair folks! Legally, that is according to international law, Kosovo is still a part of Serbia. This is objective fact, so why edit it away?
::But for the love of god, stop changing it! It's a fact, it's not just "considered by some to be" it's objectively de jure a part of Serbia just like Abkhazia is de jure a part of Georgia but de facto independent. And if you change it, give us a reason why!  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 193.157.236.219 (talk) 20:08, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: According to UN resolution 1244 (1999) Kosov is not mentioned as part of Serbia but as part of Federal Republic of Yougoslavia.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 193.0.254.46 (talk) 08:46, 31 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text:  That's right. Also, that tid-bit only appears in the PREAMBLE of the resolution, which is legally non-binding. The word "de jure" is simply Serbia's claim. Exo (talk) 03:45, 16 September 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: De jure part of Serbia

message: I'd remove Islamic Emirate of Waziristan from the list. The area is not seeking international recognition so listing it here is rather pointless. --Drieakko 15:13, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Sure Its an unsourced "some people say" line. Some people say lots of stuff. -Justin (koavf)·T·C·M 17:59, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Islamic Emirate of Waziristan]] 

message: The article says "It declared its independence based on USSR constitution and according to international forms." I should note that this statement is quite blatantly incorrect or at the very least highly disputable. Former autonomous republics of the USSR had no right to declare independence, while Union Republics did have such a right. Nagorno-Karabakh was an autonomous oblast (not even an autonomous republic) within Azerbaijan and therefore had no right whatsoever to declare independence from the USSR. This is a quasi-legalistic trick (more properly a propaganda lie) used by the NK separatists to justify their claims. Any lawyer with a working head will confirm that what I said is correct.  And what is meant by "international forms"? Well, to sum up, this whole sentence makes no sense, conveys wrong factual information and, therefore, should be deleted.
: I removed this POV claim. Check the Iternational status section in the Nagorno-Karabakh article, specifically what Council of Europe says. "NKR" is considered illegal entity by international community, so the facts should be presented fairly. --Grandmaster 10:32, 2 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The passage as is needs clarification, but there is indeed some sense behind it. There was a law that said that in the event a union republic secceeded (Azerbaijan), autonomous entities had the right to determine their own future. Thus NK decided to stay in the SU and when the latter was dissolved, NK became independent. And I believe that NK was the only autonomous entity to explicitly appeal to this procedure at the time.sephia karta 10:37, 2 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  No, the procedure only gave the autonomy a right to remain within the USSR, but not to declare its independence. So it was actually a violation of USSR laws. Grandmaster 10:54, 2 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It did stay within the SU, but the SU then disbanded, didn't it? Anyway, I'm not saying that this legitimises their independence because in the end, that is down to personal opinion, I'm just saying that the argument is not void and that, if presented tastefully, it can have a place here.  sephia karta 11:39, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

text: USSR disbanded, but NK was not one of the 15 Soviet Republics. Soviet constitution granted the right of secession only to the 15 Soviet republics. In any case, I agree that it is better to keep questionable interpretations out of this article and mention only indisputable facts. --Grandmaster 12:16, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

text: Recognition is no less OR than Montevideo unless explicit sources are provided. It just is not that clear cut. sephia karta 19:26, 2 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Nagorno-Karabakh 

message: What is this distinction meant to signify at present? Neither the TRNC, nor Nagorno Karabakh, nor Somaliland controls all of what it claims. If the classification is instead meant to indicate the degree of control with which the unrecognised states control their territory, then we really need sources to back this up. sephia karta 09:52, 8 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Sorry, you're right. Because the TRNC does not recognise the Republic of Cyprus, I took that to mean that it claims the whole island, but that of course does not automaticaly follow. sephia karta 12:56, 8 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The Republic of Cyprus does not control all of what it claims, because 37% of the island is occupied by Turkey. OfficialDocument, can you name one good reason why Turkey should occuppy the buffer zone as well? You have no right to occupy any of Cyprus. Cyprus was Greek for thousands of years, yet the Turks didn't arrive there until 1570. The population of Cyprus was only 18% Turkish in 1974, and yet you took 37% of the land, and are so hungry for more blood that you also want the buffer zone, you should be ashamed--Waterfall999 07:48, 3 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I guess that every place that ever was ruled by or was home to Greeks should just relinquish their sovereignty and submit to Greek rule because it was Greek land thousands of years ago. Forget the Megali Idea, let's just bring back Alexander's empire! As for the Turks, they're just all squatters on Greek land they conquered between 1071 and 1453. They should go back to the steppes of Asia where they came from. Sarcasm mode off... Jsc1973 (talk) 03:43, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  "partial control" vs. "complete control"