Talk:List of historical unrecognized states

  1. Home
  2. Wiki

Flag images

[edit]

Several of these should have been made with borders -- they had borders on the original page. The white-on-white color scheme doesn't make for easy visualization of the flags. Squamate 18:36, 12 September 2007‎ (UTC)[reply]

Catalan Republic

[edit]

Now that is has been disestablished, should we add the Catalan Republic (2017) to this list? LoneWolf1992 (talk) 4:15, 30 October 2017 (UTC)

French communes

[edit]

You removed all revolutionary communes like Paris Commune... for no reason. I don't understand. Risikas (talk) 10:12, 16 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The reason given was that the entry for the Paris Commune was unsourced; it does strike me that there might be significant debate as to whether the Commune constituted a "state". AntiDionysius (talk) 10:14, 16 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Ok thank you! Risikas (talk) 10:19, 16 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Inclusion

[edit]

German soviet republics

[edit]

Hello! In 1918, 3 republics were created after the end of German Empire: Bavarian soviet republic, Bremen soviet republic and Wurzburg soviet republic. I didn't see them in the article so I ask to add them. Reason: Alsace soviet Republic is in the page so why the 3 others couldn't be in. Risikas (talk) 09:09, 4 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Bavaria and Bremen are already listed. The attempt to form a Wurzburg soviet was put down in about 24 hours, so doesn't meet the inclusion criteria. For inclusion, states must have de facto control over a territory and some form of organised government. DrKay (talk) 10:30, 4 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for your answer Risikas (talk) 18:18, 6 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Philippines

[edit]

One of the inclusion crityeria us "de facto control over a territory or a significant portion of the territory ...". Given that, I question the includion of Sovereign Tagalog Nation#Bonifacio and Republic of Biak-na-Bato. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 23:39, 4 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Since they're not cited, they can be removed. DrKay (talk) 16:31, 5 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Those two entries have now been removed by another editor. It now strikes me that the following other Philippines entries also do not meet the inclusion criteria:

I've mentioned this section over at the Philippines Wikiproject talk page in case of interest there. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 22:56, 14 August 2024 (UTC) I've removed those additional four items. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 21:32, 15 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

United States

[edit]

Should the U.S. be here? Before 1783, United States referred to thirteen states and was not itself a state. In 1783, it became a state by becoming the successor state of each of the original states. Before then it had no power to agree to treaties on behalf of any state. TFD (talk) 18:03, 13 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

In my unschooled opinion it should be included. The United States Declaration of Independence does say, "The Declaration explains to the world why the Thirteen Colonies regarded themselves as independent sovereign states [...]", but the Articles of Confederation article says, "The Articles of Confederation and Perpetual Union was an agreement among the 13 states of the United States, formerly the Thirteen Colonies, that served as the nation's first frame of government. [...] It came into force on March 1, 1781," The text of the Articles includes: "Whereas the Delegates of the United States of America in Congress assembled", which seems to establish the designation United States of America.

Native American sovereignty

[edit]

There have been a series of back&forth edits recently over this issue; beginning with this insertion of a mention of the Wounded Knee Occupation styled as Independent Oglala Nation. I initially reverted that on inclusion criteria grounds, and that was unreverted with an ES asserting that this meets the first criterion. That was followed by further reversions and unreversions with edit summaries concerning support. I'm not very knowledgeable on the details here and don't have easy access to research materials, but some googling turned this up, which led me to the mention of sovereignty on p.267 here and mention of support footnoted there as 15. That's as far as I took it, but it looks to me as if there may be WP:DUE issues here. It also seems to me that this is better discussed and mentioned, if mention is warranted, in an article more directly concerned with this issue instead of, or at least prior to, seeking to mention it here. 23:30, 20 April 2025 (UTC)

Beylik of Mastchoh

[edit]

The beylik of mastchoh is a microstate led by Sayyid Ahmad-xoʻja Ovliyoxoʻja Eshon oʻgʻli. It is located inside the Khanate of Bukhara. It was created in 1920 during the russian civil war and invaded in 1923 by red army. The page is only available in french. Is it possible to add it? Risikas (talk) 18:30, 6 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

What is the title of the French article? —Tamfang (talk) 17:21, 7 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It is fr:Beylicat de Mastchoh 2001:861:5700:1A00:9523:A7CA:3E7C:E291 (talk) 06:26, 10 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

First Philippine Republic

[edit]

Here, I have changed the description given in the Notes column for the First Philippine Republic from "unrecognized independent sovereign state" to "insurgent constitutional republic". Briefly, colonial revolutionaries declared independence from Spain during the Spanish-American War, they rekindled the revolution against the U.S. after Spain ceded sovereignty over the Philip[pines to the U.S. by treaty, and were eventually defeated with the polity dissolving. As I understand it, that polity meets the inclusion criteria here but was not an independent sovereign state. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 23:08, 10 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Wounded Knee quotes

[edit]

"However, it was the 1973 siege of Wounded Knee which finally catalyzed the American Indian rights movement to undertake a concentrated and sustained effort to raise international support for sovereignty, one major forum of which was the United Nations." pg.143

"As early as one week into the occupation, the American Indian defend- ers of Wounded Knee sent a delegation to the United Nations in New York City. By design or following advice, the group sought out the “Secretariat,” the office of Secretary-General Kurt Waldheim. At noon on March 2, 1973, they met “chef de cabinet” or Chief of Staff C. V. Narasimhan. The Native delegation was comprised of the American Indian Movement’s “roving ambassador” Vernon Bellecourt, 6 Chief Oren Lyons of the Turtle Clan, Onondaga Nation, Chief Waterman, Louis Papineau, Myron McClairy (all residing under the same address as Lyons, which links them to the Six Nations Iroquois Confederacy), and Doreen Menchini of the American Indian Community House, Luckohoe, New York. Narasimhan’s handwritten notes, taken during the meeting, and his typewritten report, based on his notes, 7 yield insights into how these American Indian activists performatively claimed Native sovereignty at the United Nations" Pg.143

"Even as they were noticeably different in the forcefulness of their approaches—Bellecourt’s militancy contrasting with Lyons’ respectful entreaties—the Wounded Knee delegation linked their cause to the larger issue of treaties between American Indian populations and national gov- ernments in the colonial settler societies of the Americas. In this, they were attempting to put the indigenous rights of the Western hemisphere, a humanitarian issue transcending the nation-state, on the agenda of the United Nations. Narasimhan’s note that Chief Lyons “claimed that those in the room represented millions of their Indian brothers,”14 attests to a powerful performance of the delegates’ bodies standing in for Native communities across the countries of the Western hemisphere. This was a performative representation of Indian sovereignty at an event of trans- national diplomacy." Pg.145

"Replying to this point, Chief Lyons said that the Indians were a sovereign people, although their territory was surrounded by the United States. They wanted to know what the pro- cedure was if they to apply for membership of the United Nations in their capacity as a sovereign people. I told them that the procedure for such applications was for them to be dealt with by the Security Council in the first instance and by the General Assembly on its recommendation. At their request, I provided them with copies of the Charter of the United Nations.17 In light of the information Narasimhan had just given the group about UN procedure, Lyons’s suggestion was logical. If only a member state can bring such an issue to the United Nations, then American Indians should pursue membership as a nation-state. Obtaining member- state status was also in keeping with the developing goals of the American Indian rights movement. However, Narasimhan’s explanation that such a membership request could be handled only by the Security Council did nothing to demystify the workings of the UN—it did not clarify how a membership application could reach the Security Council." Pg.146

"n. Only four months after the lawyers of the Treaty Council discussed independence as their ideal status for native nations, Durham submitted to the UN NGO Committee the sovereignty movement’s June 1974 Declaration of Continuing Independence. On June 13, 1975, UN NGO Council Affairs Officer Lola Costa sent a handwritten note to “Mr. Marcella” of the UN legal section. This is a delicate matter where I would need your advice. Please have a quick look at the “Declaration” attached here- with and let me know if you feel that this org.’s goals are in conflict with Article 2.7 of the [UN] Charter. 45 This is a strong declaration yet Mr. Durham’s 16 March letter is clearly [. . .] explicit—making a strong argument for admittance as an NGO. Though they would fit more under the title of “sovereign nature nations.” [. . .] Is it possible to reply at this late date and not sound as though we’re purposely putting them off?" Pg.153

". According to Roxanne Dunbar-Ortiz, the Socialist Second World’s propensity to sup- port Third-World initiatives in the UN prompted Indian activists to build alliances with Third-World countries, as well as their more radical national liberation organizations such as the African National Congress, the Pan-African Congress, the Southwest Africa Peoples Organization, and the Palestine Liberation Organization. In addition to winning Third- World states—whose 77-member bloc wielded serious voting power in the UN—there were a few other countries the support of which held the key to accomplishing any major task in the world body." Pg.164

This is without getting into the earlier chapters on dialogue between the revolutionaries at Wounded Knee and Central European states. Surely this is enough to satisfy these truly exceptional demands @Chipmunkdavis Genabab (talk) 16:02, 20 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

None of these quotes convey that wounded knee was an unrecognized state. CMD (talk) 16:40, 20 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Chipmunkdavis What you requested a source for was the fact that the Independent Oglala Nation was capable of holding foreign relations. This is what these quotes convey. Respectfully, what on earth are you talking about????? Genabab (talk) 17:07, 20 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The criteria for inclusion are listed as:
1. Had a population:
The book "Wounded Knee 1973: Still Bleeding" by Stew Magnuson reveals that there was in fact a population living at Wounded Knee during the uprising.
2. and an organized government with a capacity to enter into relations with other states
The above sources more than qualify this.
3. had de facto control over a territory or a significant portion of the territory of an otherwise-recognized sovereign state
That is what the Wounded Knee Occupation was. The page linked here further describes:
"On March 8, the leaders declared the territory of Wounded Knee to be the independent Oglala Nation and demanded negotiations with the U.S. Secretary of State, William P. Rogers.[1] The nation granted citizenship to those who wanted it, including non-Indians.[2]
A small delegation, including Frank Fools Crow, the senior elder, and his interpreter, flew to New York to attempt to address and be recognized by the United Nations. While they received international coverage, they did not receive recognition as a sovereign nation by the UN.[1]"
The declaration of independence also demonstrates that there was in fact an attempt at creating a state, the second part of the source further reflects foreign relations (or at least attempts) at it. Barring prejudice, this is more than enough to qualify the independent Oglala State as an unrecognized nation. Genabab (talk) 17:15, 20 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
We need a source affirming that there was an unrecognized state, not original research from editors. Your interpretation is so expansive as to include every uprising in this list. CMD (talk) 01:19, 21 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
> We need a source affirming that there was an unrecognized state not original research from editors.
@Chipmunkdavis at this point im about to crash out. What do you mean. I just gave you a source that says just that!!!! ""On March 8, the leaders declared the territory of Wounded Knee to be the independent Oglala Nation and demanded negotiations with the U.S. Secretary of State, William P. Rogers. The nation granted citizenship to those who wanted it, including non-Indians."
Alongside the source already provided earlier, here are some others who say the exact same thing:
1. https://web.archive.org/web/20231001000000*/https://www.newyorker.com/news/dispatch/the-siege-of-wounded-knee-was-not-an-end-but-a-beginning
"On March 11th, the protesters declared themselves part of the Independent Oglala Nation, citing the 1868 Treaty of Fort Laramie, which acknowledged the Lakota nation as a sovereign entity separate from the United States."
2. https://www.ebsco.com/research-starters/politics-and-government/native-americans-occupy-wounded-knee
"The occupiers declared the Independent Oglala Nation (ION) on March 11. This declaration was supported by traditional chiefs and headmen and was not an independent action by AIM. "
3. https://muscarelle.wm.edu/rising/wounded-knee/bury-my-heart/
"On March 11th, federal and tribal forces lifted the surrounding roadblocks to Wounded Knee allowing both additional supporters and supplies to enter the site. In a press conference, citing the 1868 Treaty of Fort Laramie, occupiers declared their territory the Independent Oglala Nation and requested a meeting with the U.S. Secretary of State."
4. Historian Pekka Hämäläinen writing in "Lakota America: A New History of Indigenous Power" writes:
"When the BIA categorically refused to remove Wilson, the negotiations faltered, and the Indians at Wounded Knee seceded from the United States. They revived the 1868 Fort Laramie Treaty and declared that Wounded Knee had become the Independent Oglala Nation."
Barring the craziness of saying anything in the previous reply was somehow original research, and barring prejudice, these sources all seem very clear, academic and otherwise. There was an unrecognized state. I don't understand why you are so opposed to this. Genabab (talk) 11:00, 21 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Declaring a state does not make a state. None of these quotes affirm there was an unrecognized state. CMD (talk) 12:46, 21 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
> None of these quotes affirm there was an unrecognized state.
Incorrect. Historian Pekka Hämäläinen writing in "Lakota America: A New History of Indigenous Power" writes that Wounded Knee's occupation was a state as they seceded from the United States.
Here is another quote from an academic RS that says that what happened at Wounded Knee can be called a state. This one, again, from Toth's From Wounded Knee to Checkpoint Charlie:
"During the seventy-one-day standoff, Oglala traditionalists and AIM activists physically took and held the village of Wounded Knee—this slightly over one-square-mile piece of land—and in effect placed it outside of the legal jurisdiction of the U.S. government and its sanctioned tribal police of the Pine Ridge Reservation. U.S. federal, state, and reservation laws were not enforceable in Wounded Knee as long as AIM and the Oglala held the village. However small the area and however brief the occupation, the activists captured space and time from the United States as a nation state and opened them up to implement their vision of an alternative sovereign country made up of Indians and their allies. Accordingly, they early on declared that “Wounded Knee will be a corporate state under the Independent Oglala Nation,”22 and soon appointed a “provisional government”23 with committees on housing, defense, immigration, internal security, public health, and information.24 According to AIM leader Russell Means, this “symbolic Indian government” needed help from all over the country so that Native people could demonstrate to everyone that they were fit to rule themselves."
Like come on. WHat more do you need? @Chipmunkdavis Genabab (talk) 13:04, 21 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I feel I have answered this question, as have others. There is a huge spectrum of polities along various axes of 'statehood'. It is very rare for attempts to make states to succeed, and I've not seen such small and temporary occupations really come up in the literature. CMD (talk) 13:53, 21 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Chipmunkdavis This isn't even seriously engaging with the reply. You asked for source that affirms there was a state, here it is.
"However small the area and however brief the occupation, the activists captured space and time from the United States as a nation state and opened them up to implement their vision of an alternative sovereign country made up of Indians and their allies." This is about as direct as you can get. The correct response isn't "I haven't read about this in the literature before" its "ok, that source does say what I'm looking for"
Or alternatively find a reason why this source is wrong. I feel like I'm taking crazy pills here.
Furthermore, the list already includes unrecognized states just like this one. See:
New Afrika, Ganienkeh, Rupununi (the latter only existed for 2 days, whereas IOS existed for ~ a month). So there's already precedent for this. Genabab (talk) 14:30, 21 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
That's really not as direct as you can get. The source does not say what I'm looking for. This is per the tags hanging around since 2009 not the best list, feel free to trim. CMD (talk) 15:06, 21 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
> The source does not say what I'm looking for.
Could you be any more vague? What is it that you believe is missing? @Chipmunkdavis Genabab (talk) 15:20, 21 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Chipmunkdavis I am once again asking what is it in the source you allege is missing? Genabab (talk) 10:56, 23 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
It's simply not a source about statehood, and doesn't really discuss the topic. CMD (talk) 13:07, 23 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
What??????
How is saying ""However small the area and however brief the occupation, the activists captured space and time from the United States as a nation state and opened them up to implement their vision of an alternative sovereign country made up of Indians and their allies"
Not a source about statehood????? @Chipmunkdavis Please break this down for me because I have no clue what you're talkin about Genabab (talk) 14:01, 23 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
That sentence is talking about capturing space and time and implementing a vision, not the fundamentals of statehood. It's also very weak, being just a sentence. For those entities with ambiguous status, think Somaliland or Niue, there are reams of papers and books that discuss how they might be classified. CMD (talk) 14:16, 23 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Chipmunkdavis I fail to see how "implementing their vision of an alternative sovereign country" is not taking about statehood. Given that they are *implementing it*
> It's also very weak, being just a sentence.
Yeah, because I can't paste the entire chapter here? If I quoted any of the supporting lines you'd just complain its OR vilations. I don't see why you can't accept how a book saying "yeah they created a state here" is saying that. Genabab (talk) 10:45, 26 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Your assertion of belief that "this is more than enough to qualify the independent Oglala State as an unrecognized nation" is noted. WP:V requires support by a cited reliable source having topical weight abd stating that explicitly. WP:DUE requires mantion of differing views published by sources of similar weight and reliability. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 02:19, 21 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
> Your assertion of belief that "this is more than enough to qualify the independent Oglala State as an unrecognized nation" is noted.
Why is it just "noted" can I ask. Do you not agree that any of these previously cited sources say there was a declaration of independence? And that they do not also say there were foreign relations held by these states?
All the sources seem reliable and I'm not aware of any source that would make DUE overrule this. Are you?
Like, the book "Wounded Knee Still Bleeding" is told by the FBI's perspective, not the native perspective, (the author is a member of the FBI) and nowhere in it does it suggest they didn't delcare independence.
What you're saying is the equivalent of saying "we need to revert ISIS calling itself a caliphate, because what if another hypothetical source exists out there that says it didn't call itself one" Genabab (talk) 11:08, 21 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with the others. This is more of a civil disturbance rather than an unrecognized state. It doesn't meet criterion 2 because it didn't enter into relations with another state. The federal authorities were always treating it as a civil disturbance. It doesn't meet criterion 3 because there was in practice very little control and for only a short time. Criterion 1 is only barely met with such a small population, which is similar to the number of Branch Davidians at Waco. DrKay (talk) 11:25, 21 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
> This is more of a civil disturbance rather than an unrecognized state.
@DrKay Then how do you explain the fact they declared independence? Genabab (talk) 11:44, 21 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Furthermore, I reject the comparison to Waco.
Quoting from the book "From Wounded Knee to checkpoint Charlie"
" Accordingly, they early on declared that “Wounded Knee will be a corporate state under the Independent Oglala Nation,”22 and soon appointed a “provisional government”23 with committees on housing, defense, immigration, internal security, public health, and information." and "After the declaration of the independent Oglala Nation, newly appointed defense minister Stan Holder told U.S. government officials, “Since we are an independent nation now we no longer recognize your authority and I have no authority on behalf of our country to negotiate with you. Any agreements made until now were made by me as an American citizen and are no longer in effect."
This is not something that happened at Waco. There was no Branch Davidian provisional government that created committees on any and all affairs of the state. Genabab (talk) 11:52, 21 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Limited recognition

[edit]

What about countries like Manchukuo, the Soviet Union in the 1920s or even Armenia until 2025 (by Pakistan). The Italian Social Republic or Independent State of Croatia are included. Braganza (talk) 06:43, 1 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

See The Criteria for inclusion section of the article. Those seemingly meet the criteria. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 23:23, 1 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Armenia isn't an extinct geopolitical entity. DrKay (talk) 06:02, 2 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I agree. It is in the 20th and 21st centuries table with a note saying,"Not recognised by Pakistan." I think that such cases are both potentially confusing and likely to be a source of future article maintenance problems. I suggest the addition of a new table listing countries currently lacking full recognition -- cases such as Armenia and, probably, quite a few otherrs. This would localize associated maintenance of the notes on those countries as their recognition status changes to that table. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 01:57, 3 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
There's already a list for those at List of states with limited recognition. DrKay (talk) 05:22, 3 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks; I should have seem that in the See also section. I do not see Armenia mentioned in that article; I've added a {{cn}} to the unsupported assertion here that it is not recognized by Pakistan in 1991–2025. I suggest that this article avoid mentioning states with currently-limited recognition in order to avoic synchronization problems between the two articles. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 00:58, 4 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Finland 1742

[edit]

Finland 1742 does not belong here. It was a proposal first expressed in Russian propaganda, and then seized by the Diet of Turku, which decided to send a petition to St. Peterburg to ask for Duke Charles Peter Ulrich as a ruler. But the petition was rejected, and there was no claim for sovereignty. Jähmefyysikko (talk) 06:57, 25 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion

[edit]

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 06:06, 20 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Remove Kharkov and Odessa's People's Republic

[edit]

These two seem to fail criteria for inclusion, as the first one was just a bunch of pro-Russian separatists occupying a building and the later one was declared by an Internet group that said that they wanted Odesa to be an autonomous region within Ukraine, rather than to join Russia. Per these, they both fail both criteria, as they don't seem to have been able to enter diplomatic relations with another state nor did they hold a significant portion of another country's territory. Oakchris1955 (talk) 12:03, 7 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  1. ^ a b Cite error: The named reference PBS was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
  2. ^ Cite error: The named reference Churchill was invoked but never defined (see the help page).