Talk:Aspirant sovereign states

message: Does anyone know what Basque separatists want to call their proposed state? I guess it stands between Euskadi and Euskal Herria, but I have no idea. Anyone know? Joffeloff 13:00, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Basque 

message: Nearly the whole list can be found either on List of active autonomist and secessionist movements, Unrepresented Nations and Peoples Organization, or Nations Without States book (listed in the References section).  The only exceptions are Ciskei, Transkei, Bangabhumi, Isratine, Maphilindo, Suvadives, Europe and Acre; all of which have reasons for inclusion on the linked Wiki pages.  Therefore I have removed the OR tag. SimonX 03:47, 17 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  OR 

message: Whatever the viability of this list, as mentioned above, the name itself is quite simply wrong when applied to some of the countries included here. I won't go through them all, but as a Welshman I find it insulting to see my country referred to as a "proposed country" (I'm sure the majority of the English and Scots would feel the same way). Wales is not a polity or sovereign state, but I would not advise anyone to try telling the Welsh people that Wales is merely a "proposed country". That implies that it is not a country. People should learn to differentiate between the terms "country", "nation" and "state" (in the sense of a fully independent sovereign polity). This article needs renaming to something that makes sense and respects established national identities: either that or a good number of the entries - those which are countries rather than regions aspiring to greater self-determination, such as Alsace - should be removed as inappropriate and likely to cause offence. How about Non-sovereign countries and regions? Enaidmawr (talk) 00:55, 28 January 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I fully support the need to rename this article so that countries like Wales, Scotland etc. - which can reliably be referred to as "countries" and "nations" now, but are not recognised "sovereign states" - can validly be included within it.  One of the problems in WP is that, at least to editors from the US and to some extent elsewhere, the term "country" is used solely with the meaning of "sovereign state", when that is not the only definition used in the UK. To the UK government and residents, the UK contains four distinct "countries", a point which has been much discussed on other pages.  Another point is that the referencing of this article itself needs to be greatly improved, so that it is possible to identify for each area/country the source of the assertion that each is a "proposed country" or whatever terminology is used.  Regarding a possible new name, how about "Aspirant sovereign states"?  Ghmyrtle (talk) 10:28, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

text: PS - I've added some tags to the article.  Ghmyrtle (talk) 10:57, 28 January 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Indeed. 'Aspirant sovereign states' or 'Proposed independent states' would be much better. The list is non-encyclopedic rubbish though, and at the very least needs a vigorous pruning. On what criteria are these places included? Some of them aren't even places. Aztlán is a student organisation that seems to be something about the empowerment of Mexicans born in the US; I can't even begin to fathom what North American Technate is doing on this list. If this list is to survive in any form, it needs basic criteria for inclusion, and of course proper sourcing. Without those two elements I'd support its deletion. AlasdairGreen27 (talk) 10:41, 28 January 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I also agree with the points above, though I'd favour Proposed sovereign states or Proposed independent states. This article does need a lot of work to prove its notability and seperate identity from List of active autonomist and secessionist movements, as it is basically a crossover of that article. It could also do with some text explaining about the concept in general - as at the moment its only a list that could just as easily be a catergory.Lord Cornwallis (talk) 19:14, 28 January 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Glad to see some positive feedback. I deliberately avoided discussing the contents as, frankly, it's a mess. I'd agree with AlasdairGreen27 that if it can't be sorted out it might be best to delete it. If it remains I'd go with renaming it either 'Aspirant sovereign states' or 'Proposed sovereign states' (neither adjective is perfect, but we have to have something). Enaidmawr (talk) 22:28, 28 January 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: In the absence of any further response and in particular the lack of opposition to a move, I've changed the title to Aspirant sovereign states. I can't say I'm entirely happy with it but almost anything is an improvement on the absurd original title. It remains an eclectic unreferenced hotch-potch of an article. Maybe deletion is best after all. Feel free to nominate it! Enaidmawr (talk) 23:31, 25 May 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: It's a shame some of the earlier contributors to the article haven't contributed to this debate - we'll see if they object to the renaming.  Yes, it is a hotch-potch, but it's a fascinating one.  What it needs is someone to have a go at classifying the entities listed, for instance into the extent of recognition - eg are they recognised to some extent by nation-state governments (such as Wales is), or by other countries, are there active secessionist movements, or are they only recognised by their owners, or are hypothetical.  There are big overlaps with other lists, and those need to be minimised.  I'd like to spend some time on this (it'd make a change from arguments over "British Isles" or the celticity of Cornwall!), but doubt whether I'll be able to.  Has it been flagged up at WP:COUNTRIES?  Ghmyrtle (talk) 07:49, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

text: As the creator of the original stub, I've no problem with renaming the article. I do wonder if there is an academic name we could adopt? --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk  17:04, 26 May 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm busy with a number of other things and only really got into this because I objected strongly to seeing Wales (and England and Scotland) listed as "proposed countries" so I can't really commit much time to it, but perhaps we could start by weeding out the non-starters. Aztlán is noted above, and turns out to be M.E.Ch.A. (Movimiento Estudiantil Chicano de Aztlán, "Chicano Student Movement of Aztlán"), "a student organization that seeks to promote Chicano unity and empowerment through education and political action [in the USA]". Surely that could go for a start? Quite a few of the other "items" on this list look dubious too. As for the name, I'm open to suggestions. Removing separatist, seccesionist and ethnic movements would be a step in the right direction; they already have a seperate list anyway so unless we have an article on the intended homeland I see no reason for their inclusion here. Shall we start by removing 'Aztlán'? Enaidmawr (talk) 21:29, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

text: I've removed four: Aztlán, Venda, Far Eastern Republic (1920-22!) and Toro Kingdom. Don't think these will be controversial. If there is no mention of a modern independence movement or for autonomy/sovereign status they should go. Enaidmawr (talk) 21:52, 26 May 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  This needs renaming 

message: It would seem that NI is the only missing constituent of the UK, should it be in some way concluded as the event of the others becoming nation states would render NI an independant nation? NI has the same, if not more autonomy than Wales and arguably England (Which has none, only majority over total government). Also, on the subject, would an all Ireland state not also qualify as there are movements that wish for such a thing?(82.8.219.105 (talk) 03:54, 6 November 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: A United Ireland is already on the list. Discussion of an independant Northern Ireland has and is taking place (see Ulster nationalism), but this is very much a fringe element. Alastairward (talk) 10:25, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

text: Very very much a fringe element. Are there any parties that seek/support an independent Northern Ireland? It doesn't belong on the list. --rannṗáirtí anaiṫnid (coṁrá) 23:50, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

text: I've never heard of anybody wanting an independant Northern Ireland. GoodDay (talk) 15:56, 10 November 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Nobody in recent history springs to mind, not even mad old Bob McCartney. Alastairward (talk) 16:03, 10 November 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: In agreement, United Ireland is the proper entry. GoodDay (talk) 16:04, 10 November 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I've put my response to this on NI talk. The idea of an independent NI has had serious thought given to it, and there is evidence of people (esp in recent generations) who would like to have a country that doesn't have such inherent British and Irish ties. Certainly younger people are identifying more with NI as a singular identity (ie, their 'country') - which is as you would expect given both the nature of identity (which is as culturally immediate as it is tied to the past), and NI's troubled past. Matt Lewis (talk) 21:55, 10 November 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Northern Ireland. 

message: * support - It says what it is on the 'tin'. As long as the entity is a nation, and a significant element calls for sovereignty (proved in Talk if need be), who cares who's in the list? Energy is better spent elsewhere. Matt Lewis (talk) 11:48, 6 November 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Poll 1: [[List of nations with calls for sovereignty]]

message: * Support - probably clearer than "Aspirant...", and avoids preconceptions over the concept of "nation".  Ghmyrtle (talk) 08:39, 9 November 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Agree - amended title above.  Ghmyrtle (talk) 17:18, 9 November 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Poll 2:  [[List of proposed sovereign states]]

message: * support - I also support deleting the article. I don't think it is one that Wikipedia is crying out for, and perhaps it could come back if we ever get a 'List of nations'. Until then it could always be problematic, especially under the current title (or something too similar to it). Matt Lewis (talk) 19:51, 9 November 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Poll 3 - delete article

message: Noting the presence of Haida Gwaii and Nuxalk on the list, it's worth noting that many aboriginal people in Canada and certain governments assert unsurrendered sovereignty in addition to the Haida and Nuxalk (the Nuxalk name for their territory, also, is somewhat different, I'd have to dig around to find it though).  Most of the nations represented by the Union of BC Indian Chiefs are among those who reject surrender of sovereignty and are therefore staying outside the BC Treaty Process, which seeks to extinguish aboriginal title/sovereignty in its settlements; in many cases it's hard to say if the official government's position is along these lines, or whether it's popular sentiment within those nations; the Lil'wat Nation government is one of the co-hosts of the Olympics but I know that there is a large faction of that group, using the same name, who insist that their country is sovereign; other St'at'imc groups including the Lillooet Tribal Council have the same position, and there are dozens of other examples around BC; even when there is some kind of agreement such as the Xeni Gwet'in agreement concerning Tsy?los Provincial Park and other lands, i.e. an agreement with provincial and federal governments, they still maintain their sovereignty as a principle; two that should definitely be added are the Gitxsan and Wet'su-wet'en who jointly pressed the Delgamuukw case, and who assert a historical Gitxsan-Wet'su-wet'en Confederacy.  In both those cases, as in others, the Indian Act-mandated band government is a proxy for the traditional governments; which are known as the Hereditary Chiefs of the Gitxsan and Hereditary Chiefs of the Wet'su-wet'en; I don't know their respective names for their territory or would add these to the list.  It's complicated and often very POV to describe, but I just wanted to note this issue re the potential inclusion of other aboriginal nations; who btw aren't "aspirant", they're not wanting sovereignty, they assert they already have it.Skookum1 (talk) 19:39, 6 November 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Canadian FNs

message: There is already an article at Stateless nation, and there is a useful source with its own article, Encyclopedia of the Stateless Nations.  That latter article includes a lengthy list of the "stateless nations" referenced in the book.  I haven't compared it with the list in this article, but obviously there is a big overlap.  What I suggest now is that:
# The list is cut from that article The article on Encyclopedia of the Stateless Nations be merged into this article
# It is added to this article, with Overlaps are removed and the "nations" from that list referenced from that source book
# Other "nations" which are now in this article list, but not the other list, have  tags added for a period so that sources can be found - or deleted if not
# This article be renamed List of stateless nations.
What do you think?  Ghmyrtle (talk) 19:52, 9 November 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I think people will be concerned about using someone else's content. Those kind of book titles are often meant to be provocative too (not necessarily in a negative way) - the author himself might not see them all as nations. If this title was changed to "List of nations with calls for sovereignty" you could copy them in in a rearranged way I suppose (providing they do all have 'calls'). But 'List of stateless nations' could be seen as too close to the book you are borrowing them from (and the book seems pretty conclusive - I doubt anything is here that isn't there). Matt Lewis (talk) 20:04, 9 November 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: "Stateless nation" is a neutral and well-used term - for example here. (Take a look - you and Yorkshirian will love it...)  Ghmyrtle (talk) 20:06, 9 November 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes of course, but in the same context? 20:10, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

text: RE your eurominority.org example ("Peoples in search of freedom"!!), I would hardly call it neutral! It takes the view that it is better to have more countries in the world than less (not at all a neutral position), and equates nationalism with a 'fight' for freedom. Their map spells Iceland "Island" too! It's not a bright site. Matt Lewis (talk) 20:18, 9 November 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: See :is:Island, I think...  Well, that site was perhaps not the best example, but there are others - , for instance.  Ghmyrtle (talk) 20:44, 9 November 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I'd forgotten that Iceland was Island (!) - not a good example though, your right. The other isn't either, as the context is in its title - "Plurinational democracy: stateless nations in a post-sovereignty era". I do know the term is often used, but I also know you could run into problems merging the books data with such a similar title, as I've run into issues into the past myself when I've used 'outside' data, against people who wouldn't budge. I don't see what's wrong with my proposed title anyway, it might even work for you here. 'Stateless nations' could be read in so many ways (without a state, robbed of a state, desiring a state) - why bother being ambiguous when you don't have to be? And in retrospect, (despite my first poll) I think it could be wise to develop the nation issue first anyway, and that deletion may be a better option here. 21:21, 9 November 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: This is a long-established page, with many editors over the years.  I'd certainly oppose any hasty moves to delete it, but it should be possible to get a consensus over improving it.   Ghmyrtle (talk) 21:40, 9 November 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Nothing links to it, and 200 edits over over 4 years isn't as much as it looks considering the revert edits and the IPs. There's was only one section in Talk until someone renamed it to its current title in Jan this year (from proposed country - was that really established?) - to a title he wasn't altogether happy with, after also considering deletion. And then nothing again until an IP mention Northern Ireland! All the old editors had clearly abandoned it (if they were ever consistently here), or are no longer editing on Wikipedia. I do agree that consensus can be found, but this is in no way an established article - it's just an old article, like literally countless other entirely unknown flotsam on Wikipedia. An uncontroversial title is certainly needed, or its got to go I think. Matt Lewis (talk) 23:10, 9 November 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Obviously I do agree there's a lot of rubbish in here that needs to be taken out, but some of your earlier statements suggested to me that you wanted any mention of "stateless nations" (or similar terminology) taken out as being trivial or unencyclopedic.  In fact, there is ample evidence that statelessness (or whatever you want to call it) is an important political issue globally, and there are refs to back that up.  If we can agree on that principle, we can move forward as to the best form of an article - one which lists the entities covered by the Encyclopedia of the Stateless Nations or which can be referenced from other WP:RS.  To do that, I still think that we should use the list in that article as the basis, bring it over here, delete any from this list which are not referenced, and rename this article.  Ghmyrtle (talk) 23:36, 9 November 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: See the discussion in the above comment section between me and Ghmyrtle - statelessness is not the same as seeking a state. Only Wikipedia could confuse the two. AlasdairGreen27 (talk) 00:16, 11 November 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Merger proposal - another suggestion