Talk:List of states with limited recognition

Wa and Chin states, Kurdistan, and Azawad

Neither of the these states are listed here, and though the latter does ot control major cities, other ones do have more or less of control over their claimed territory and functional government. I suggest they should be added to the article. 176.36.187.17 (talk) 04:02, 19 February 2024 (UTC)

Just curious, have these states even formally declared independence. I’m aware Azawad did back in 2012, but are they still claiming independence. Kurdistan has not declared independence, and is an autonomous region within Iraq, and Rojava (AANES) also doesn’t seek independence. I don’t believe that Wa & Chin have formally declared independence as sovereign states as far as I’m aware. NaniEmperor (talk) 20:19, 4 May 2024 (UTC)

South Korea

Is there a source that North Korea formally recognizes the Republic of Korea? Seems very doubtful from what I could dig up…

RadioactiveBoulevardier (talk) 03:35, 20 March 2024 (UTC)

Chechen Republic of Ichkeria and Republic of Ingushetia status

Ukraine had recognised Chechnya on October 18th 2022 and Ingushetia on February 23 2024, they should be listed as States recognised by at least one UN member. — Preceding unsigned comment added by SOROSHENKO (talk • contribs) 13:23, 20 March 2024 (UTC)

No, Ukraine has never recognized the Chechen Republic of Ichkeria; the bill to recognize it was never approved, and the resoution that eventually was approved merely called Chechnya "Russian-occupied territory." See Ukrainian recognition of the Chechen Republic of Ichkeria. AuH2ORepublican (talk) 19:58, 20 March 2024 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 1 April 2024

X=As it is. Y=Remove Sovereign Military Order of Malta. Because it's not a country anymore. It no longer exists. 80.4.77.150 (talk) 17:29, 1 April 2024 (UTC)

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. I couldn't find any sources saying that it was dissolved, and its official website has been updated quite recently. Liu1126 (talk) 18:46, 1 April 2024 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 10 April 2024

As of december 2023 a new state has declared independance from Myanmar/Burma, its named Chinland I genuinly believe it should be added to this list as an independant state with no recognition at all but still an independant state Sneakier (talk) 14:27, 10 April 2024 (UTC) Add Chinland to the list of unrecognised states please as well I noticed its considered as a rebel state but idk if it truly is sorry if I wasted your time I just love geography so much...

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. M.Bitton (talk) 15:17, 10 April 2024 (UTC)

Puntland status

Unlike the Gaza Strip and the regions of Iraq and Syria that are prevented from uniting due to situations such as wars, Puntland is an autonomous federal entity that declared itself temporarily independent, but in Somalia there is a declared intention of rupture (although temporary). Jvbignacio9 (talk) 22:31, 18 April 2024 (UTC)

I have reverted the inclusion. The temporary nature is a good sign that this is not secession. "We are not declaring independence", so it does not fit on this list. CMD (talk) 22:43, 18 April 2024 (UTC)

Rfc on removing Armenia, China, Cyprus, Israel, Palestine, and North Korea from this article

Should we remove Armenia, China, Cyprus, Israel, Palestine, and North Korea from this article? WikiCleanerMan (talk) 16:24, 27 April 2024 (UTC)

Do you support or oppose removing Armenia, China, Cyprus, Israel, Palestine, and North Korea from this article?

Prior to this discussion, I had removed the main category of this article from Armenia, China, and Israel articles before being reverted for the Israel one where the editor cited this article as to why Israel has limited recognition. However, I would argue that none of these countries have limited recognition. The articles list two theories as to what counts for a country having recognition. Wikipedia is not run by theories. We shouldn't be beholden to ideas or opinions and label them as fact when there is no universally agreed-upon rule of thumb or rule regarding which of these two theories should be the basis of a nation holding recognition. What we should constitute a nation having recognition is when a majority of countries have recognized another formally. Perhaps a two-thirds majority rule in which a nation has been recognized by two-thirds of nations would mean the current roster of UN member states having widespread recognition.

We should bear in mind that diplomatic relations are a form of recognition, but recognition doesn't imply bilateral relations. Despite territorial disputes between two or more claimants, there is recognition of the political entity as a nation and thus shouldn't be the basis of how recognition is built if they have been recognized by a majority of states.

• Armenia: Not recognized only by Pakistan. One UN member out of 193 member states. One single nation not recognizing Armenia can't make Armenia as having limited recognition. Even Armenia recognizes Pakistan as a nation and has done so for many years. Even two non-member states of the UN, Holy See/Vatican City and Palestine recognize Armenia. So Armenia has vast recognition.
• China: Not recognized by 11 UN member states and Vatican City. Only 12 entities don't recognize China and instead have recognized or have relations with Taiwan. Taiwan has limited recognition as the vast majority of countries have formal relations with China.
• Cyprus: Same with Armenia. One UN member state, Turkey, out of the 193 member states does not recognize Cyprus as a nation. Cyprus maintains relations with both the Vatican and Palestine. Cyprus has vast recognition.
• Israel: According to the article, 28 UN members don't recognize Israel. But the rest do. From the International recognition of Israel article, "As of December 2020, it has received diplomatic recognition from 165 (or 85%) of the 193 total UN member states". This means that a vast majority of countries recognize Israel. Therefore, it can't be limited if the majority of countries recognize Israel.
• Palestine: Similar to Israel. From the International recognition of the State of Palestine article, "As of April 2024, 140 of the 193 United Nations (UN) member states have recognized the State of Palestine." Therefore, Palestine has received recognition from the majority of countries.
• North Korea: As stated in the article, South Korea, which maintains a long dispute as to who is the legitimate Korean nation/republic, is the sole UN member that does not recognize North Korea. It maintains relations with 157 countries if the Foreign Relations of North Korea article is up to date. And all 157 are UN members. By this same logic, the article could state South Korea has limited recognition because North Korea views South Korea as an illegitimate Korean nation/republic and itself as the sole claimant of all land in the Korean peninsula including what is all of South Korea. So since both countries view the entire peninsula as belonging to them, we should ask ourselves why SK is not on this list. This could be a case of NPOV violation which NK is added probably due to a negative image, which NK does have, but the addition of North Korea tied with the land dispute with SK not included makes it a suspicious case of perhaps a viewpoints of bias. Wikipedia should not choose one over the other as it would imply bias and bias is what we have to avoid especially on a topic such as this.

I hope I made my arguments clear as to why these six countries should be removed from this article and why the mainspace category for this article does not apply to their respective articles. Please let me know if there is anything I missed. WikiCleanerMan (talk) 16:24, 27 April 2024 (UTC)

The RFC question needs to be neutral so to make things work and not confuse the bot, sign the question at the top and then add a Discussion section heading right after that and put the rest of your argument there as a !vote. Selfstudier (talk) 17:11, 27 April 2024 (UTC)

Might have been a good idea to have had an RFCbefore discussion, you could still do that by removing the RFC tags, wouldn't prevent you from running the RFC at a later time if you still wanted. Selfstudier (talk) 17:13, 27 April 2024 (UTC)

This has been a bugbear of mine for a time tho no-one else seems bothered by it. From my perspective, all of the countries in this article should be listed in Category:States with limited recognition but they are not although they were once upon a time if memory serves.

Then folk on the cat side started arguing that this one or that one, China say, should not be in the cat, apparently based on the way the countries are divided into sections in this article.

Now you want to remove some from this page so that those will also disappear from the cat and leave those that only the cat folk believe are truly "limited".

It's not really supposed to be that way imo, it's the other way around, the cats should follow this page.

I haven't gone into all the history about how this page definition of limited came about but it was a very long and involved process that included a discussion of the issues you raise. Selfstudier (talk) 18:48, 27 April 2024 (UTC)

 Note: This RfC is not neutral, therefore, I suggest you retract it and start a discussion (per WP:RFCBEFORE). M.Bitton (talk) 20:05, 27 April 2024 (UTC)

• No, but a general question about the pages notability may be in order... Why do we need to have a stand alone list for a topic which doesn't lend itself well to a list? Horse Eye's Back (talk) 20:55, 27 April 2024 (UTC)
• "The articles list two theories as to what counts for a country having recognition." This is not true. There is only one 'theory' being used for what counts as recognition, it's country 1 saying they recognise country 2. (The academically discussed concept of "de facto recognition" is not something that lends itself to this sort of binary categorisation.) The second paragraph is a similar red herring, a lack of diplomatic relations is not used in this article. South Korea is not on the list because there was a lot of excitement about this story that spread around en.wiki. In my view unwarranted excitement that should be reverted, but it certainly wasn't because of any particular viewpoint bias. CMD (talk) 02:29, 28 April 2024 (UTC)

• Comment Since the Rfc expired and did not have a consensus. I still think these countries should be removed from this article, there hasn't been a counter argument to the nations listed and South Korea has been added to the list, but South Korea doesn't have limited recognition just because North Korea doesn't formally recognize it. --WikiCleanerMan (talk) 13:29, 14 June 2024 (UTC)

  Agreed- they should be removed. It's ultimately very deceiving to readers to keep near universally recognized countries on this list. Archives908 (talk) 14:24, 14 June 2024 (UTC)

  How do you wish to redefine "limited" in that case? In other words, how would you amend the List of states with limited recognition#Criteria for inclusion? Selfstudier (talk) 14:37, 14 June 2024 (UTC)

  Just a suggestion- but perhaps we can redefine the inclusion criteria to include states with less than 80% recognition by UN member states. For those who may reject this recommendation, please offer an alternate suggestion. Archives908 (talk) 15:30, 14 June 2024 (UTC)

  A limit to its recognition literally gives it limited recognition. Before thinking about counterarguments, the argument has to address it is trying to redefine the words being used. CMD (talk) 15:06, 14 June 2024 (UTC)

  Redefining the inclusion criteria would solve this dilemma. If we make clear that "limited" means X, then we can remove countries like South Korea and Armenia which have near universal recognition, and keep states like Kosovo which do not have near universal recognition. It's that simple. Archives908 (talk) 15:25, 14 June 2024 (UTC)

  That's not answering the question, redefine how? Selfstudier (talk) 15:29, 14 June 2024 (UTC)

  I responded above. Archives908 (talk) 15:30, 14 June 2024 (UTC)

  Why 80%? Why not 70, or 90? Or some other arbitrary %? Selfstudier (talk) 15:38, 14 June 2024 (UTC)

  It's a rough number- open to all suggestions. Archives908 (talk) 15:39, 14 June 2024 (UTC)

  It is simpler still to not try and redefine words at some arbitrary and so far unexplained point. CMD (talk) 15:32, 14 June 2024 (UTC)

  It would only be difficult if we make a mountain out of a molehill over this. A reminder to all that nobody is obligated to participate in this discussion if it is to "difficult" for them. The issue of redefining the inclusion criteria has been brought up for years and its about time this is concretely addressed- whether it's a challenging conversation or not. Archives908 (talk) 15:38, 14 June 2024 (UTC)

  Keep your reminders to yourself. Selfstudier (talk) 15:39, 14 June 2024 (UTC)

  Keep your rudeness to yourself. Archives908 (talk) 15:40, 14 June 2024 (UTC)

  You started it, I finished it. Selfstudier (talk) 15:41, 14 June 2024 (UTC)

  Nope, I've been nothing but constructive here- you've been hostile and negative for no apparent reason. Keep it focused to content, thanks :) Archives908 (talk) 15:42, 14 June 2024 (UTC)

  I did, until you started with a snarky comment. Selfstudier (talk) 15:43, 14 June 2024 (UTC)

  Not snarky at all :) Please stay focused on content, thanks so much! Archives908 (talk) 15:44, 14 June 2024 (UTC)

  And its "too difficult" not "to". Selfstudier (talk) 15:42, 14 June 2024 (UTC)

No sensible argument has been put forward, oppose any change to inclusion criteria.Selfstudier (talk) 15:46, 14 June 2024 (UTC)

I'd say the the criteria should be a simple majority of recognition by UN members. Perhaps 1/3. For instance, Armenia isn't recognized by only one UN member, Pakistan, as stated in the article. But one nation isn't enough to validate the idea that Armenia has limited recognition. Armenia is not Taiwan where countries have shifted recognition and formal relations to China. Palestine is recognized by 140 of the 193 United Nations. And since the October 7 war, four more European countries have moved to give it formal recognition. All four are UN member states. So if the count is now 144 out of 193, then forty-nine countries not having formal recognition with Palestine doesn't make them in the majority of 1/3. One-third of 193 is 64 percent. These 49 countries are not in the majority, and the map on the International recognition of the State of Palestine article shows the majority of Asia, Africa (minus two countries), and all of South America recognizing Palestine as a nation. All of which comprises more than 2/3 of the world. I hope my math was correct in terms of percentages. --WikiCleanerMan (talk) 16:34, 14 June 2024 (UTC)

If we do that then its just not a list of states with limited recognition any longer... its now a list of states with a simple majority of recognition by UN members which is a completley differenty and largely unrelated standard (why is UN membership status relevent for example). Horse Eye's Back (talk) 17:25, 14 June 2024 (UTC)

Because countries with majority recognition are members of the UN. Can anyone prove that any of the countries in the list above have limited recognition? --WikiCleanerMan (talk) 22:40, 14 June 2024 (UTC)

Yes they can, but apparently you don't think that having limited recognition validates the idea that they have limited recognition so you are unlikekt to be swayed... Anything less than complete recongition is limited recongition... 1% and 99% are both limited. This is an issue with your comprehension, not the sources or the page. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 23:43, 14 June 2024 (UTC)

You're now making this an issue on the user not with the subject matter. So Wikipedia is at the behest of the foreign policy of countries because they are the sole nation that doesn't recognize another? How is 99 percent limited? That's like saying 99 votes out of 100 total casted for a candidate for office is limited because they didn't get all of them. That's nonsense. By this logic, these countries being on this is in OR. Limited refers to a small amount, not a lot. The countries that I believe should be removed don't have this issue. You also questioned the notability of the article. Do you still think this topic doesn't do well as a list?--WikiCleanerMan (talk) 00:33, 15 June 2024 (UTC)

Even Limited Recoigntion WikiProject doesn't have these countries included other than Palestine which is interesing to point out. --WikiCleanerMan (talk) 00:39, 15 June 2024 (UTC)

That's not interesting at all, the Wikiproject has picked a specific focus where it felt it could contribute (now dead of course, like most Wikiprojects). If you read this article you'll see that the countries listed are divided into different groupings. CMD (talk) 01:27, 15 June 2024 (UTC)

I think the biggest issue is the wording of the article. We have two theories of recognition as stated in the criteria section in regards to UN member states, one where it states a state has limited recognition if not recognized by all UN members and then another that says a state has recognition if recognized by one UN member state. But then the list of these six countries supports the former rather than the latter. Even though, most UN member states recognize these six. So we have two conflicting elements here. So let's forget my original RFC and try to figure out if the way the article is written has to change. Because this is what I think is causing the conflict here. --WikiCleanerMan (talk) 02:56, 15 June 2024 (UTC)

The criteria section bullets are to limit potential entries ("criteria for inclusion on this list is limited to") to those on List of sovereign states. From that wider list, this sublist includes all those who "lack recognition from at least one UN member state". CMD (talk) 08:13, 15 June 2024 (UTC)

• No redefining the word "limit" (as in restrict) is not an option and neither is entertaining the WP:OR idea of an arbitrary cut-off point. M.Bitton (talk) 17:21, 14 June 2024 (UTC)