List of states with limited recognition is aformer featured list. Please see the links under Article milestones below for its original nomination page and why it was removed. If it has improved again tofeatured list standard, you mayrenominate the article to become afeatured list.
This article is within the scope ofWikiProject Limited recognition, aWikiProject dedicated to improving the coverage of entities withlimited recognition on Wikipedia by contributing to articles relating to unrecognized states and separatist movements. To participate: Feel free to edit the article attached to this page, join our WikiProject by signing your name at theproject page, or contribute to theproject discussion.Limited recognitionWikipedia:WikiProject Limited recognitionTemplate:WikiProject Limited recognitionLimited recognition
This article is within the scope ofWikiProject Countries, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage ofcountries on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can jointhe discussion and see a list of open tasks.CountriesWikipedia:WikiProject CountriesTemplate:WikiProject Countriescountry
This article is within the scope ofWikiProject Ethnic groups, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of articles relating toethnic groups, nationalities, and other cultural identities on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can jointhe discussion and see a list of open tasks.Ethnic groupsWikipedia:WikiProject Ethnic groupsTemplate:WikiProject Ethnic groupsEthnic groups
This article is within the scope ofWikiProject Politics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage ofpolitics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can jointhe discussion and see a list of open tasks.PoliticsWikipedia:WikiProject PoliticsTemplate:WikiProject Politicspolitics
This article is within the scope ofWikiProject International relations, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage ofInternational relations on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can jointhe discussion and see a list of open tasks.International relationsWikipedia:WikiProject International relationsTemplate:WikiProject International relationsInternational relations
This article is within the scope ofWikiProject Lists, an attempt to structure and organize alllist pages on Wikipedia. If you wish to help, please visit theproject page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to thediscussion.ListsWikipedia:WikiProject ListsTemplate:WikiProject ListsList
You are an administrator, so you may disregard the message below
You are seeing this because of the limitations of {{If extended confirmed}} and {{If admin}}You can hide this message box by adding the following to a new line of yourcommon.css page:
.ECR-edit-request-warning{display:none;}
Stop: You may only use this page to create an edit request
You are not anextended-confirmed user, soyou must not edit or discuss this topic anywhere on Wikipedia except to make anedit request. (Additional details are in the message box just below this one.)
The following restrictions apply to everyone editing this article:
All participants in formal discussions (RfCs,RMs, etc) within the area of conflict are urged to keep their comments concise, and are limited to 1,000 words per discussion. Citations and quotations (whether from sources, Wikipedia articles, Wikipedia discussions, or elsewhere) do not count toward the word limit.
You must be logged-in andextended-confirmed to edit or discuss this topic on any page (except formaking edit requests, provided they are not disruptive)
You may not make more than 1 revert within 24 hours (except inlimited circumstances)
If Taiwan is not officially recognizing Somaliland as a sovereign state, then shouldn't Somaliland be removed from this article? I mean that this article is supposed to be a "List of states with limited recognition", not a "List of de facto states". If Somaliland is recognized by nobody, why is it still included in this article? If all de facto states should be included in this article even though they have no international recognition, then some political entities in Africa and Myanmar should be included too. We would also need to change the article title. Isn't it?2406:3400:614:CCC0:5016:E818:81E0:BCC (talk)10:00, 10 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
There are no political entities in Africa and Myanmar that are regularly regarded by reliable sources as being de facto states not on this list, or at least if there are, such evidence has not turned up during this article's existence. Somaliland is somewhat of a example de facto state in this regard. Being recognised by 0 states is highly limiting.CMD (talk)13:56, 10 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I've provided tons of sources that Wa State functions as a de facto state. Stuff from Cambridge University, all the way to the UN itself considering it a legitimate government. The only argument given against it is that it never declared independence, which is rediculous cause that is not in the criteria of statehood.2600:382:3DF2:2398:A8CB:BD0E:47D5:C02B (talk)16:01, 10 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
What are the other arguments then? We've already been over that Wa State comfortably fits the criteria of statehood. Has a population, defined territory which it has full control over it, established a functioning government, and has relations with UN members.
Additionally, sources that Wikipedia frequently uses consider Wa State to be a de facto country:
The declarative theory of statehood lays it out pretty strongly in the name, "declarative". It's not listed in the specifics because it's so obvious an assumption that the criteria wouldn't apply otherwise.CMD (talk)01:25, 11 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Correct me if I am wrong, but isn't this article supposed to be a "List of states with limited recognition", not a "List of de facto states"? If a country receives absolutely no diplomatic recognition from other countries, why is it still classified as a "state with limited recognition"?2001:8003:9078:2401:3169:1131:158E:4497 (talk)13:06, 12 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Because that is a form of limited recognition. A list of de facto states would include most recognised states as well.CMD (talk)13:53, 12 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I agree. "Limited recognition" does not mean solely that "50 countries recognize it as a sovereign state and have full diplomatic relations with it, while 150 countries do not recognize it as a sovereign state"; it also could mean that some countries do not formally recognize a state's sovereignty but still have informal relations with it.
For example, if the few dozen states that officially recognize the Republic of China's sovereignty — and thus don't recognize the PRC as sovereign — were to switch to recognizing the PRC tomorrow, Taiwan would still meet the declarative theory of statehood and still have informal relations with over obe hundred sovereign states, so it would be correct to continue to refer to it as a sovereign state with limited recognition (the "limitation" being that it's recognition by other countries being informal rather than formal).
Similarly, Somaliland has informal relations with many countries — e.g., the United States has met with delegations from Somaliland on numerous occasions (seeSomaliland–United States relations — and thus its recognition by such countries could be defined as being "limited." I think that Somaliland should remain in the article.AuH2ORepublican (talk)15:58, 12 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
We do not have a body of scholarly sources which believe they meet the declarative theory of statehood, or external recognition from a UN member.CMD (talk)03:25, 14 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Please read the source fully, it clearly says "in due course". This has all previously been discussed. If there was a change it would be huge news, we would not have to read tea leaves in individual news stories.CMD (talk)09:39, 7 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I did indeed recently make two very simple edits to zh.wiki. The agreement with Ethiopia is quite old news, it did not accompany any recognition. The most significant recent Somaliland developments are that it has lost territory in the east.CMD (talk)04:56, 21 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The problem is that out of the places you listed, Ambazonia is the only one to claim independence and have any territorial control. The Wa State and Kokang both claim to be part of Myanmar’s territory, why would we add them if they don’t claim to be a nation? Biafra was only declared independent by some guy in Finland and the rebel groups that do control territory claimed he was not a spokesman and none of them have yet declared independence. West Papua claims independence, but no rebel groups controls any territory to enforce that claim. A similar case to West Papua is Western Togoland which also claims independence but no rebel group controls any territory to support it. Somaliland maintains territorial boundaries and actively claims independence, while Ambazonia doesn’t have solid territorial lines it at least claims independence unlike the other four examples and therefore does have reason for inclusion along with Somaliland. Furthermore if you want to stretch, the Islamic State never undeclared their global caliphate meaning that they are also technically a nation with no recognition of which not only claims independence but maintains some territorial control under its global caliphate.2600:1009:B0C7:244:2801:C511:8BB3:ABB0 (talk)01:43, 26 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry for the late reply. The declarative theory, regardless of its title, simply doesn't state one must declare independence. That is a fact.
On top of this, Niue and Cook Islands fit the criteria, but have never formally declared independence. Even the other freely associated states of the USA at least declared independence. Niue and Cook Islands simply opted for self-governance. Granted, this was a legal process, and they legally gained independence because of it, but the same is true for the Wa State. They opted for self-governance via a legal and legitimate process with the government of Myanmar. Yes, Niue and Cook Islands are recognized by some UN members which is a stark difference, but Somaliland is here, so it clearly doesn't actually matter.
As I've said, we have tons of reliable sources that claim Wa State is a de facto country, including but not limited to, New York Times, The Diplomat, South China Morning Post, and Cambridge University.
Now I know it could be seen as opening the flood gates for other de facto independent areas, and I can see avoiding the Wa State for that reason alone, but at the same time, the other ones don't really fulfill the criteria anyway. Rojava follows Syrian civil law, Gaza doesn't have an efficient government, Puntland and Chinland don't have diplomatic relations, and that problem extends to pretty much every other entity. Wa State is a clear outlier, not only in legal status, but in how news articles consistently portray it as a de facto state.2600:382:3DF2:C301:80EA:DA34:A4F:6C4D (talk)21:04, 17 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with @CMD and @AuH2ORepublican, andoppose including Wa State at this time. To include it I would want to see evidence that Wa State claims to be legally separate from Myanmar. It can govern itself all it wants but if it doesn't claim to be an independent country, it's technically an autonomous region which Myanmar has delegated power to.
Cook Islands/Niue are different because they have recognition as sovereign states from several countries + (arguably) the UN. Somaliland both explicitly claims to be independent and has been described as a de facto independent state by numerous sources.JSwift4923:11, 31 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Wa State is only "technically autonomous" because they promised to pledge allegiance to the Burmese army and never interact with other states. Those were the conditions
- "The UWSP says it wants to cooperate in the peace and stability of the Union with complete self-determination. UWSP leaders have said that Wa State will not secede from the Union, but the UWSP will manage their state independently except for national defense and diplomatic relations."
We know the Wa State has explicitly gone against their promises as they have established relations with China as well as openly stated they no longer pledge allegiance to the Burmese army. While not directly declaring independence, they have already gone against the promises that made them "technically autonomous", so no, they are no longer autonomous, they are fully independent.2600:382:1234:62F9:C85D:9B1:DFA9:3B55 (talk)01:59, 1 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
technically, it fits the Montevideo convention (Declarative Theory). By having a per meant population, a capacity to enter relations, government and defined territory.Breck0530 (talk)16:30, 6 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
It is also important to note that the extant polities in Burma have never actually declared independence or formally declared themselves to do. The only one of them to do so, Khun Sa's Shan State, dissolved in the 1990s.XavierGreen (talk)20:14, 21 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Armenia and Pakistan establish diplomatic relations
While it is true that South Korea doesn’t recognize North Korea, and Japan agrees with this in a treaty, the USA does in fact recognize North Korea. They simply lack diplomatic relations. The official list of sovereign states on the USA government website lists North Korea as a sovereign nation.2600:381:EE84:A04B:45F0:2168:10B8:5805 (talk)06:35, 1 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@2600:381:EE84:A04B:45F0:2168:10B8:5805 If "the USA does in fact recognize North Korea" is true, then there should now have a way a North Korea citizenship can apply for United States visa, but realllll(65535*l)ly, there's no way, asuscisguide.com suggested:
“
Unfortunately, it is not possible to visit the United States from North Korea. The U.S. government has alongstanding policy of not granting visas to citizens of North Korea.
@Zntrip I really doubt so, at least for Japan (where you recently removed), Botswana, Estonia, Israel, Ukraine and UN observer Vatican. Anyway, zhwiki said that another UN observer Palestine doesn't recognize South Korea?Liuxinyu970226 (talk)22:47, 21 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
In not sure I understand what you said. Is there any source to support these claims? It just appears to be a list of states that don’t have diplomatic relations. I do not have an archive link, but I’ve already provided ample evidence. Here’sone more. – Zntrip05:12, 23 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Zntrip I have no idea whether your first word of sentence,In, is a typo which should originally beI'm or not (or are you speaking somewhat a Creole/Pidgin here?), For "any source to support these claims?" It's at leastyes for the IMF:[4], they just list theKorea as one of their members. According to this source, shouldn't I list IMF asan organization who really doesn't recognize North Korea?Liuxinyu970226 (talk)12:38, 3 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Liuxinyu970226: Yes, my last reply did have a typo. I intended to say "I'm". You are wrong about the IMF. North Korea is not a member of the organization. That is all that the source says. It does not say that the members of the IMF do not recognize North Korea as a state. You have basically ignored everything that I and the IP user have told you. Lack of diplomatic relations does not mean that states do not recognize each other as such. – Zntrip18:18, 4 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Anyway, one of the "source" source you claim to support "United States recognize North Korea",[5], isnowadays 404 Page Not Found, can you please try to provide its archive or elsewhere updated version?Liuxinyu970226 (talk)22:59, 21 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Also dear that IPv6 user, this state.gov URL lists "Korea, North" and "Korea, South", how do you really think they recognize North Korea and South Korea separately,instead of one Korea with North and South parts? Moreover, there are several international organizations who really only have one Korea as member, e.g. IMF[6]Liuxinyu970226 (talk)23:08, 21 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Anyway, the same link you (this IPv6 user, can you please consider register an account? It's really impossible for me to follow what you said via such anonymous status, and it only impose privacy concerns) also listed Taiwan, though separately under "OTHER" section as its only entry, so under your logical US also recognized Taiwan, right?Liuxinyu970226 (talk)14:19, 28 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Here's one example of zhwiki who claimed "US didn't recognize North Korea":@逐风天地:, if that user also accepted what your said, I fully withdraw, but if that user oppose you, then I'm afraid a RFCto really re-add United States as a country who doesn't recognize North Korea shall be started.Liuxinyu970226 (talk)14:23, 28 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
And still, where are evidences forJapan, Botswana, Estonia, Israel, Ukraine and UN observer Vatican recognized North Korea andanother UN observer Palestine recognized South Korea? Still, I'm certainly waiting for both answers of them, they are key parts that whether such restoration shall be did or not, Really, Really, Really...(just guess how many Really I've said here).Liuxinyu970226 (talk)14:26, 28 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The USA doesn't list Taiwan as a sovereign state. As you yourself pointed out, it's listed as other with the note explicitly saying it is just two governments both claiming China. As for the other countries, none of them have ever said they don't recognize north Korea, so why assume they don't? Japan however doesn't recognize north korea. In a treaty, Japan explicitly said they don't, so I support Japan being listed, but none of the other ones have ever said they don't.2600:382:6703:F5D2:606A:63BE:8EA5:D8BB (talk)18:39, 28 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
And how about Ukraine? zhwiki says "乌克兰在2022年7月与之断交后撤销外交承认。" (lit. After cutting diplomatic relations on July 2022, Ukrainede-recognized the North Korea.)Liuxinyu970226 (talk)00:42, 29 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The fact that Japan does not have diplomatic relations with North Korea does not mean that it does not recognize North Korea as a sovereign state. If Japan is to be added as a state that does not recognize Norh Korea, a source must be added to support that claim. Notably, both states have signed theJapan–North Korea Pyongyang Declaration, which includes language such as "issues between the two countries," "among the countries concerned," etc. that demonstrates that both Japan and North Korea recognize each other as sovereign states. – Zntrip18:25, 4 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Now North Korea's officials call South Korea as "Republic of Korea" (대한민국,Daehan Minguk) instead of "남조선" (Nam Chosŏn) (e.g.[15]), did North Korea recognized South as per se?Liuxinyu970226 (talk)06:00, 5 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
By the way again and again, If you're really interested in, you can also sign one treaty e.g.Svalbard Treaty, and deposit your instrument of ratification/accession/succession, so after some months later of depository's confirmation, you can just be such a member of the treaty. There's no need and no indicates to say one country recognizes another country by just depository identities.Liuxinyu970226 (talk)06:13, 5 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
If it is about whether "(Japan)does not recognize North Korea as a sovereign state", most will cite the Article ofTreaty on Basic Relations Between Japan and the Republic of Korea, that "the Government of the Republic of Korea isthe only lawful Government in Korea as specified in the Resolution 195 (III) of the United Nations General Assembly".
@Saimmx: I never brought upWP:SYNTH. The problem with Liuxinyu970226's RfC proposal (aside from it being malformed) is Liuxinyu970226 is giving theirown interpretation of the sources they provided, an interpretation based on a flawed understanding of the connection between recognition and diplomatic relations, which is that something being true or false about one does not automatically mean the same for the other.
As I said earlier in the discussion, if something is verifiably true, thenreliable sources will state it explicitly without editors needing to interpret the words and propose their own meaning. If reliable sources are provided thatclearly state "X does not recognise Y", then strong opposition should not be expected, and certainly not any opposition that leads to the proposer feeling the need to start an RfC. If this is the case with Japan and North Korea in particular, then there is no reasonable reason to oppose it.Yue🌙19:41, 30 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
That said, instead of poking such personal attacks, let's just start such a RFC to seek for consensus on whether they should be re-added. As such, ISupport re-addingBotswana, Israel and Ukraine as 3 nations who don't recognize North Korea --Liuxinyu970226 (talk)08:06, 5 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Assuming the non-existent RfC question (the RfC is currently malformed) is something along the lines of "Should countries that have severed diplomatic relations with a particular country be regarded as having withdrawn their recognition of that particular country?", my answer isno because severing diplomatic relations does not equal withdrawing recognition. If they were the same then there should bereliable sources stating not only the former but also the latter, but I doubt anyone will find the latter for the situations mentioned in this discussion because none of those countries withdrew recognition. Their inclusion is being insisted based on a flawed understanding of two connected but non-interchangeable terms. Insisting on the flawed understanding, and also highlighting personal analyses of nomenclature, is just pushing badoriginal research.Yue🌙07:59, 6 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Liuxinyu970226: That state the former, not the latter. To reiterate, not having formal diplomatic relations with a country does not necessarily mean not recognising a country. Both are often true at the same time, but this is not always the case. Countries that formally recognise, unrecognise or have never recognised a country will explicitly say so; it should never requireyour personal analyses to determine. Please providereliable sources that say Country A does not recognise Country B, and you will find more support for your proposals in this RfC.Yue🌙16:57, 7 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Liuxinyu970226: Why are you mentioning a different user's point instead of responding to mine? I don't care what Zntrip said. The bottom line isno original research, no original analyses, no original commentary. You cannot interpret a source to say something it does not say and cite your own understanding of international law and treaties. Providereliable sources that say Country A does not recognise Country B, and you will likely receive support for your proposals. You aren't going to get anywhere if you keep ignoring the substance of the responses you're getting and restating your personal interpretation of sources, which I and a number of others editor contend is a flawed understanding of the material. I've already said all I have to say; good luck garnering support for your proposals.Yue🌙01:55, 8 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Liuxinyu970226: No, you did not. I've read your sources and I do not seeanything about the withdrawal of recognition. To be more explicit with what I said in my initial reply, you provided sources that stated Countries A, B, C severed diplomatic relations with Countries X, Y, Z, but not that Countries A, B, Cwithdrew their recognition of Countries X, Y, Z, which is not the same thing. Oftentimes both scenarios are true, but not all the time, such as in the cases you are proposing. Can you provide quotes from the sources, in their original Chinese text, that explicitly say "Countries A, B, Cwithdrew their recognition of Countries X, Y, Z"?
I think part of this is you're assuming causation from correlation. In most cases, countries do not have official diplomatic relations with countries they do not recognise; this is obvious and well understood. However, thisdoes not mean a country withdraws its recognition automatically when it severs diplomatic relations. That's not how it works, which is why I can't and you won't find a source that says "Countries A, B, Cwithdrew their recognition of Countries X, Y, Z" for the countries you are making your proposals for.Yue🌙02:08, 8 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Yue So under your claims, North Korea currentlyrecognized South Korea, as they are currently calling them "Republic of Korea (Daehan Minguk)" instead ofNam Chosŏn, right?Liuxinyu970226 (talk)02:14, 8 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Yue andZntrip, still, if you both are claiming Japan recognize North Korea just based on theJapan–North Korea Pyongyang Declaration, then there are problems on how many countries are recognized PRC, as for those countries that don't have diplomatic relations (e.g. Belize, Eswatini, Paraguay...) with PRC, are they considering"PRC and Taiwan are both indepencence"? Or are they considering"Taiwan government is the only legitimate government representing all China"? From zhwiki's reply, it looks like for those, many of them are considering previous, with only one known as consider the later, the State of Vatican. We probably need to investigate this question seriously instead of copy-pasting sources which someone consider "reliable" but someone else really don't consider so, that way, this list will only became the famous playground of edit wars.Liuxinyu970226 (talk)02:07, 8 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Liuxinyu970226: You are completely missing the point with that last sentence. You are advocatingoriginal research as a replacement forreliable sources as a policy to stop edit wars, when the whole point of having policies is to have an established guideline, right and wrong ways to approach things, to avoid edit wars. You didn't start the RfC properly and now your argument has devolved into "What if we explicitly went against policy?" Wikipedia is an encyclopedia,not a forum.
Offer policy-based proposals and respond to policy-based arguments with policy-based refutations, or stop wasting everyone's time.Yue🌙02:13, 8 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Yue If you are opposing me to re-add those as not recognizing North Korea, just because they signed or even ratifyed declarations, then please instead, allow me to move Somaliland toNon-UN member states recognised by at least one UN member state and deprecateNon-UN member states not recognized by any other state, as per Ethiopia's recognition:The Somali Digest andReuters (the later one is recognized reliable as perWP:RSP).Liuxinyu970226 (talk)02:20, 8 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
It was never fully discussed, but this entity definitely belongs in the entities with limited recognition section. Antigua and Barbuda has explicitly declared recognition of the entity as a state as well as establishing official diplomatic relations. There is no debating this fact.~2025-31049-16 (talk)19:35, 4 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Let's first ensure there is (1) A well sourced Wikipedia article about theJoseon Cybernation (2) Clear evidence that the cybernation is in fact a "state" (most definitions I found require territory which Joseon does not even claim) (3) Clear and unambiguous government law (or similarly strong document)from Antigua and Barbuda that fully recognises it as a state (which goes beyond diplomatic relations with a partner which is the best I could find). The onus to provide this is with the editor suggesting to add this. Let's pause further discussion until all 3 criteria are met.Arnoutf (talk)18:22, 5 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Doesn't matter. Your criteria says as long as they are recognized they should be added. San Marino called SMOM a state which is why it's here, same should be true for Joseon. SMOM being older doesn't matter. Both are non territorial entities referred to as states by a UN member.~2025-31277-46 (talk)17:50, 6 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Read this paper Cox, Noel S.B., The Continuing Question of Sovereignty and the Sovereign Military Order of Jerusalem, of Rhodes and of Malta (June 2008). Available at SSRN:https://ssrn.com/abstract=1140462 orhttp://dx.doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.1140462 Indeed the sovereignty of SMOM is to some extent controversial but important (if not essential) is that (1) It did indeed possess territory when it was first accepted as a sovereign entity (2) Its recognition of sovereignty predates current laws (back to 12th century) and it seems the long standing status as sovereign state plays a substantial role in its acceptance after the loss of territory (3) From the loss of last territory in 1798 it remained being regarded as sovereign entity (still preceding current law), and given this 200+ year status there is little push to change is. So to make the comparison I would say the cyberstate must have possessed but lost sovereign territory in the past (it did not), its claims no fitting current laws and definition must be traditional and preceding current definitions (it does not). Hence the comparison is fundamentally flawed and hence irrelevant.Arnoutf (talk)19:15, 6 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
We could change it so it needs to meet both criteria because I feel like there are other "states" that would meet the constitutive theoryBreck0530 (talk)20:28, 9 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
One of the criteria is that it be a state; a second criterion is that it be recognized by at least one other state. The "Josean Cybernation" fails on the very furst criterion, so we don't need to argue about whether the Antiguan PM's declaration of diplomatic relations equals recognition as a sovereign state, because *it is not a state to begin with*.AuH2ORepublican (talk)04:20, 7 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
technically, it says if it follows, one of the criteria, not both. If it was both, then Somaliland should be removed. However, I think that having a defined territory should be a required criterion.Breck0530 (talk)06:29, 7 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I disagree with your take on what the article's criteria require. Yes, it mentions two traditional views of what constitutes a state, the declarative theory and the constitutive theory, with the second stricter than the first. But that does not imply that there are two ways to qualify as a state, because the constitutive theory presupposes that the entity that is being recognized by a state as sovereign already was a state under the declarative theory. If the United States announces its "recognition" of Alberta as a sovereign and independent state, it would not meet the criteria for sovereign statehood because Alberta did not previously meet the definition sovereign statehood under the declarative theory (because it lacks a government that purports to be independent of a national government and thus also packs the ability to enter into treaties that are not approved by Canada's national government). Similarly, the "Josean Cybernation" fails at the very least the first two requirements for meeting the definition of a state under the declarative theory (defined territory and permanent population), and thus is not a "state" irrespective of what any sivereign state may claim.AuH2ORepublican (talk)11:53, 7 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The criteria explicitly says it must fit one criteria “OR” the other. This is why SMOM is here. Yes Joseon is not a state, but that’s why there is the entity section. Why even have that section if the rules don’t apply to it?~2025-31049-16 (talk)12:27, 7 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe, we can remove the "or" part, so it needs to fit both the declarative theory and constitutive theory. But, then Somaliland and SMOM would need to be removed because SMOM has no currently defined territory (this can be changed by requesting that it formerly has territory) and Somaliland has 0 states recognizing it (un or non-un).Breck0530 (talk)16:06, 7 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
like notability? reliable sources? Or even official recognition (opening diplomatic relations is not necessarily the same as recognising it as a state)? Please provide actual evidence (not just empty claims as been put in this thread so far) to substantiate this (and the points above).Arnoutf (talk)19:03, 6 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
In the source linked, Antigua refers to Joseon as a state. If this isn’t reliable enough, remove SMOM, as its recognition was the exact same. San Marino simply referred to it as a state once, yet that constitutes recognition, so the same should be true here.~2025-31049-16 (talk)19:24, 6 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Diplomacy isn’t recognition SMOM only has recognition from San Marino. I must admit, Joseon talked about, but it still fits the criteria regardless.~2025-31049-16 (talk)23:17, 6 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
If there were more independent reliable sources, I would support including Joseon Cybernation. However, there just isn't enough yet. Not enough to create an articleBreck0530 (talk)01:24, 7 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I would argue that an entity being considered ade facto state would automatically make it notable enough to have its own article, regardless of whether it otherwise has one.TheLegendofGanon (talk)00:50, 4 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I noticed when you edit the article. It said that every entry must be supported by the criteria. However, The section has been changed from Criteria for inclusion to Criteria. Can someone fix that on the notice because it still says Criteria for inclusion? Thanks!Breck0530 (talk)22:38, 6 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Certain governments in Exile do not exercise control over territory that are supported by certain countries and could potentially serve the purpose of raising awareness of these issues.
Simply being "supported" by another state is insufficent, a government in exile must actually be recognized as a sovereign state by another sovereign state to meet the inclusion criteria.XavierGreen (talk)20:15, 21 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The United States does not and has never recognised an independent Tibet, nor does it even have unofficial relations with an entity that claims to represent an independent Tibet, as it does with Taiwan (ROC). TheRadio Free Asia source does not back up the claims you are making about theCentral Tibetan Administration's recognition, and even without access to the source, I highly doubt thatMelvyn Goldstein of all people would be making such claims in 1997.Yue🌙05:31, 29 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Here Taiwan not only calls Somaliland a country AND a nation, but it says their relations are diplomatic, and further says their relation is "recognition":https://www.roc-taiwan.org/smd_en/post/1242.html
Warning Unnamed parameter
Not done: please providereliable sources that support the change you want to be made.Day Creature (talk)18:50, 28 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Not done: It's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a"change X to Y" format and provide areliable source if appropriate.NotJamestack (talk)01:09, 4 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
