Talk:Quasi-state

Current and former proto-states

I'd question the decision to replace the constituent and secessionist tables with lists of current and former proto-states. This is redundant information, as it is clearly listed in both existing tables whether the proto-state in question still exists.

On an unrelated note, altering or removing sourced information from these tables and adding unsourced information in flagrant violation of the editing notice is generally frowned upon. --Katangais (talk) 02:05, 10 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I've already replied in the history section, but I'd be glad to settle a compromise here. I'm not responsible for all the modifications, what unsourced additions are you referring to? I've added Rojava, Republika Srpska (+ a fixed a confusion with Republika Srpska (1991–95)) and deleted Free France because it lacked sources. Regarding the reorganisation of current/former vs constitutional/secessionist, I didn't delete any information, just put existing proto-state in a different section to help the reader spot quickly proto-states that lives on in 2017. Best, Azerty82 (talk) 19:17, 10 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Whether or not a proto-state still exists is not as important as to whether it's a constituent (not constitutional) or a secessionist proto-state. Constitutional implies legal recognition - which becomes problematic when we remember most proto-states exist in various gray areas, even if they're not of the secessionist type, constituent does not. I also object to listing some of these states which clearly still exist as "former proto-states" (Mozambique, Communist China, etc). Yes, they are former proto-states in that they have now achieved de jure statehood, but grouping them in the same table with tons of failed proto-states which ceased to exist altogether is misleading. I will confess I was working on adding a third table to address this very issue, and your new binary organization of delineating proto-states by timeline rather than legal status has clearly preempted my plan.
Grouping all entities which meet the very, very broad definition of a proto-state together into tables based solely on their timeline rather than any other similarities they have in common is a proposal I disagree with for this reason, and it should have been broached on the talk page before this latest revision was implemented.
With regards to removal or alteration of sourced information, I was referring to the sly addition of Morocco as the de facto "parent state" of the SADR and Spain as the de jure one. The portion of Western Sahara that is currently controlled by the Polisario Front and may be regarded as a proto-state in that sense is not claimed by any sovereign country except Morocco. Hence, Morocco should be identified as the "parent state" by default, not Spain or Mauritania. Spain no longer has any existing claims to Western Sahara, and the source cited for that entry discusses Morocco and Mauritania as the new effective parent states. --Katangais (talk) 19:47, 10 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, I've restored the article back to your version + added Rojava, Åland, and corrected Republika Srpska. Azerty82 (talk) 01:45, 11 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
What about Hong Kong between 1841 and 1997? 1.64.48.201 17:50, 17 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Removing ISIL from current

The Islamic State today is referred to as a former proto-state and now operates primarily as a terrorist organization rather than an emerging unrecognized state. I'd recommend no longer using its height as the primary image / thumbnail of this article. Brendon the Wizard ✉️ ✨ 18:59, 2 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Though that is correct, ISIL is the most well-known proto-state of recent history. I cannot think of a more fitting example. Applodion (talk) 21:46, 17 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Vague table values

The column contents of “Achieved Statehood: No, De Facto, De Jure, Yes” are vague, its terms undefined, open to all kinds of interpretations, potentially misleading, and seems unsupportable as original research. We should ditch this in favour of indicating some kind of supportable facts, like international recognition, UN membership, etcetera. —Michael Z. 2020-04-03 16:46 z

Not originally based on original research, but three categories as outlined in a primary source that existed when the table was first added. Agreed that now it’s a quagmire of original research that should possibly be scrapped. --Katangais (talk) 01:38, 4 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
If the criteria were very clearly defined and reproducibly applicable it might be salvageable . . . —Michael Z. 2020-04-04 02:00 z


USA states

Why states of the USA are not included? Like Georgia, Alabama, Florida etc. They are states, they have their own constitutions. Alexxzz123 (talk) 09:09, 2 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

They are considered to be constituent parts of the parent state, much like provinces. It's honestly very confusing that they are called "states". Australia, where I'm from, has a similar problem. Jargo Nautilus (talk) 14:12, 2 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Adjaria is also considered to be a constituent part of the parent state (Georgia). "Republic of Crimea" was also considered a constituent part of Ukraine (and still is considered by Ukraine). It had less autonomy than a state within the USA. Same with many other of the examples. Alexxzz123 (talk) 11:14, 3 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The United States (1776-1783) is listed under former proto-states. One might elucidate that as the “Thirteen Colonies” or list them individually, but let’s not overcomplicate this list. I think we can safely argue that since the US Constitution has no provision for secession, and since the fifty modern states currently have no intention to secede, then whatever you call them, they are integral parts of a state and not proto-states.

I am surprised the Confederate States of America hasn’t been added. —Michael Z. 17:01, 3 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Or those who made that list don't like the idea of possible separatism in the USA. Because some of the parent states in the list also do not have provision for secession in their Constitution.Alexxzz123 (talk) 08:45, 4 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The fact of the matter is, none of the constituent states of the United States qualify as proto-states. You would be better off arguing that the Amerindian Reservations and Commonwealth Territories (e.g. Puerto Rico) are proto-states. Jargo Nautilus (talk) 09:00, 4 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Do the governments of Georgia (U.S. state), Alabama, and Florida claim independence, in their own constitutions or otherwise? Are they governed by militant secessionist groups? I don’t see anything about it in the respective articles, at least not post 1870. The Constitution of the State of Georgia, for example, seems to subordinate itself to the US Constitution on several matters. —Michael Z. 15:14, 4 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The government of Spanish Galicia doesn't claim independence too nor it is governed by militant secessionist groups. But Galicia is included. Same with many other examples in the list. Alexxzz123 (talk) 19:10, 4 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I think that's because there's an "active secessionist movement" occurring in Galicia. According to Galicia's entry in the table, the movement began in 1978 and has presumably been ongoing up until the present day. However, there doesn't seem to be a good citation supporting this claim. Jargo Nautilus (talk) 19:26, 4 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
This seems relevant -- Statute of Autonomy of Galicia of 1981 Jargo Nautilus (talk) 19:30, 4 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move 4 March 2021

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Proto-state → Quasi-state –  

  1. Quasi-state is used in more reliable sources, and so is supported by WP:COMMONNAME. In searches according to the guidelines given in WP:GOOG:
    • Google Advanced Book Search, with quotation marks, omitting “Wikipedia,” and restricted to English-language sources favours quasi-state by 48,400 to 8,780, or 5.5 to 1
    • Google Scholar Search, with quotation marks and omitting “Wikipedia,” favours quasi-state by 18,800 to 4,310, or 4.4 to 1
  2. Quasi-state is supported by a definition in a topical encyclopedic reference (based on my very brief search; please bring more examples and counter-examples). The Parry and Grant Encyclopaedic Dictionary of International Law (3rd ed., 2009) has a definition of “quasi-state,” also referenced by a see-also entry “state-like entity,” but does not mention the term proto-state at all[1] This at least partially satisfies WP:VERIFY.
  3. Quasi-state is broader and more likely to be an accurate name for every example in this article, and in any other case where it will be used following the main article’s title. Semantically, proto-states is a subset of the more encompassing class quasi-states. According to my dictionary, proto- means “original or primitive,” implying that something called a proto-state may be on some deterministic path to statehood. Quasi- means “seemingly; apparently but not really,” without implying any striving for statehood, or impending achievement or failure. Technically, proto-state is best used only for historical entities that have since achieved independent statehood. The term quasi-state applies to more things and doesn’t imply some pre-judgment about their future, which may well be questionable: it is less likely to violate WP:NPOV when used un-judicially, both in this article and by editors who follow its example throughout Wikipedia.

References

  1. ^ John P. Grant; J. Craig Barker (2009). "Quasi-State". Parry and Grant Encyclopaedic Dictionary of International Law (3rd ed.). Oxford: Oxford University Press. p. 493, 580. ISBN 978-0-19-538977-7. OL 23213349M. Wikidata Q105755921. A term sometimes used to describe entities with many, but not all, the criteria of statehood . . . which are nonetheless possessed of a measure of international personality. . . . a term of international relations, and certainly not of international law, it connotes former colonies . . .

   —Michael Z. 18:21, 4 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment - I am doubtful about the search methodology used to substantiate the claim that one name is more common that the other. Specifically unless you page through to the end of the results the count is only an estimate produced by Google's algorithms and as such may be out by an order of magnitude or more. In this case all of the GScholar counts are greater than the total number of pages that GScholar can display (100) and as such the hit-counts are very likely highly inaccurate. In the case of the GBooks hits "Proto-state" tops out at 407 results whilst "Quasi-state" tops out at 587. Whilst this shows a lead for quasi-state it is not nearly so dominant as that portrayed in the nom. The lower GBooks counts seem more realistic for what is essentially academic terminology.
A review of the first GScholar hits for "Quasi-state" finds the following titles:
  • "The Kurdish quasi-state: Development and dependency in post-Gulf War Iraq"
  • "The Kurdish quasi-state: Leveraging political limbo"
  • "Quasi-State monopoly of the education system and socio-economic segregation in Argentina"
  • "Quasi-state estimation and quasi-synchronization control of quaternion-valued fractional-order fuzzy memristive neural networks: Vector ordering approach"
  • "School choice and quasi-state monopoly in education systems in Latin America: The case of Argentina"
  • "Islamic Caliphate: A quasi-state, a global security threat"
  • "Kurdistan in Iraq: The Evolution of a Quasi-state"
  • "The phenomenon of quasi-states"
  • "From rebel to quasi-state: Governance, diplomacy and legitimacy in the midst of Afghanistan's wars (1979–2001)"
  • "Confinement and the imagination: Sovereignty and subjectivity in a quasi-state"
That is, probably ~30% of the time the phrase "Quasi-state" is being used in the GScholar corpus it is being used for something other than the subject of this article (e.g., some kind of partial involvement of the state in an area of public policy, concepts in mathematics). Doing the same with "Proto-state" I see only one dubious hit in the first ten ("Digital surveillance/militant resistance: Categorizing the “proto-state hacker”).
This isn't an "oppose" vote because despite the above it seems at least possible that "Quasi-state" really is the more commonly-used term for e.g., Kurdistan, ISIS and so-forth, I just doubt the high ratios presented as they don't match the GBooks hits. The NGrams hits also indicates that Quasi-state may be the leading term though I've got doubts about ambiguity with "quasi-state" based on the above. This in turn invokes WP:CRITERIA (i.e., we need to avoid ambiguous titles if possible). FOARP (talk) 15:57, 8 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I don’t think you’re interpreting WP:GOOG correctly. When you get to the last page that shows results, Google Books displays a different, apparently more accurate total number at the top (you might have to hide the Tools to see it). A comparative ngram search supports the high ratio in favour of quasi-state. That said, you are right that these terms are used in physics, etc., and the comparison is noisy. But adding a relevant subject to the search terms helps eliminate this effect, and still shows a significantly higher usage of quasi-state in international relations: 107 (11 pages) to 24 (3 pages), or 4.5 to 1 for me. —Michael Z. 03:49, 9 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Seems like the better name, as well as the more broad term for such entities. Des Vallee (talk) 02:41, 9 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose it seems to me based on search results that the definition of "proto-state" and "quasi-state" is not identical, and the former term more precisely identifies the subject of the article. (t · c) buidhe 18:29, 11 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    1) Referring to a source is not exactly “research.” Is there any source that contradicts the dictionary and says these are the same? 2) The majority of entities listed in this article are not proto-states, or proto- anything, as they never became states: in the two “current” tables, 107 of 107 are shaded red or yellow, and in the “former” tables, 24 of 79, less than a third, are green indicating that they became anything else. —Michael Z. 19:10, 11 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Agree that the terms are not identical. In which case, and if this one article covers both as at present, shouldn't the title be the more inclusive of the two? Andrewa (talk) 05:45, 13 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support - it's a slightly broader term and a better catch-all. Yes, this may change the scope of the article slightly, but it's worth it to have a more recognizable name. Red Slash 21:58, 12 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Exactly. So far as improving the encyclopedia is concerned, those who are discussing what the dictionaries say are barking up the wrong tree in several different ways IMO. Andrewa (talk) 23:14, 12 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. Agree that this is a change of scope, sort of, but a good one. Currently the article explicitly covers both, claiming that they mean the same thing. But everyone here seems to agree that they mean different things, and that Quasi-state is the broader term and that a Proto-state is a form of Quasi-state. So the current scope doesn't match the current title, and as this article covers them all, it should have the more inclusive name. I also think that the natural meaning of Quasi-state is more obvious, making the title more recognisable. The resulting redirect from Proto-state should remain of course, but may eventually link to a section depending on exactly how the (currently inaccurate) article lead is fixed. Andrewa (talk) 05:48, 13 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Definition of proto-state

From the article intro:

In more recent usage, the term proto-state has most often been evoked in reference to militant secessionist groups who claim, and exercise some form of territorial control over, a specific region, but which lack institutional cohesion.

This cites one source, Griffiths’ Age of Secession (2016). The problem is that the statement seems to be false. Griffiths’ book is a case study that analyses and compares two large datasets. Page 12:

In the first dataset I identify 403 secessionist movements between 1816 and 2011. This is the primary unit of analysis. The second dataset captures the administrative architecture of states. Here I constructed a dataset of 638 proto-states between 1816 and 2011, which are political jurisdictions within state that are above a minimum size and either nationally distinct, geographically distant, indirectly ruled, or else recently transferred from another country. The combined value of these two datasets is that I can separate the formation of secessionist movements from the achievement of secession itself.

Griffiths uses proto-state as his own term of convenience for parts of normal countries, specifically not “militant secessionist groups,” as one of the questions he examines is whether secessionist movements are more successful if they are associated with an administrative entity that qualifies as a “proto-state“ or not. Page 52:

The second dataset consist of administrative units inside sovereign states. Some of the cases will exhibit secessionism, some will not, and some will eventually become sovereign states and exit the dataset. Others will be reorganized or dissolved over time and cease to be proto-states. Some will endure over the entire range of years.

I define proto-states as identifiable administrative jurisdictions with the following traits:

  1. They have a minimum population of 1000 people and a minimum size of 100 square kilometers and,
  2. They either possess complete internal independence (indirect rule),
    1. or they are granted specific rights in accordance with a unit-wide ethnic group or nation,
    2. or they are the result of a territorial transfer,
    3. or they are separated from the metropole by at least 100 miles.

As I discuss in Appendix B, this set does not include . . .

Source is from the preview on Amazon. Unfortunately, I can’t find this in a nearby library, and his two lists in Appendixes A and B are not available to me on Amazon.

Anyway, it is clear to me that this article relies on citations of Griffiths heavily does not use the term in the way that he does. —Michael Z. 19:59, 11 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Appropriateness of Autonomous Administration of North and East Syria (commonly known as Rojava) on these lists?

Pretty simply, I noticed the Autonomous Administration of North and East Syria (which I shall from here out now refer to as Rojava) is on one of these lists (Secessionist and insurgent), I am not sure that that is an entirely accurate representation, as Rojava's own constitution establishes itself as an integral part of Syria, and intends itself to be a model for a federalised, post-war, Syria, as opposed to seeking secession. Is there another explanation for as to why this is on the list? If such lists were to include other such increased-autonomy movements, or ones that wished to redefine internal jurisdictions within a sovereign state, something like Jefferson state or the movements for devolved Cornish or Northern England assemblies would be similar such ideas. None of which I would think are what these lists are about, and as such I have to question why Rojava is here, certainly I can recognise it may suit a similar list, but not this one. Melias C (talk) 20:57, 7 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Melias C: The AANES / Rojava is mainly on this list as it has been defined by researchers as functioning proto- /quasi-state (unlike proposed territories like Jefferson or movements without state powers like the Cornish Assembly). It has a functioning government, law enforcement, military, etc. However, you raised a very good point in arguining that putting it under separatist and insurgent quasi states is kinda wrong (though one could argue that the AANES is a rebel state, albeit that's stretching it due to its complex relation with the syrian government). I have consequently added "self-proclaimed autonomous" to the heading as to be include functioning quasi-states which are not completely separatist nor rebel in nature. Applodion (talk) 22:01, 7 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hawaii?

Should Hawaii be added, due to its long, and historical sovereignty movement? Melias C (talk) 20:58, 7 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

We could only include it if Hawaii has been dexcribed as proto- or quasi-state by experts or if a group in Hawaii (besides the US government and its affialtes) holds state power. As far as I know that is not the case. Applodion (talk) 22:02, 7 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

  • Northern Alliance flag flown in Panjshir 2021.svg

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 21:09, 23 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

  • Native America Flag.svg

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 00:23, 28 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Taiwan

Describing Taiwan as having "achieved independence" from the PRC is erroneous. They were never actually controlled by the PRC; the ROC territory just shrunk to encompass only Taiwan and a few other territories. I propose that the "parent state" and "date of independence" sections be changed to "N/A" or "-".

PtolemyXV (talk) 17:03, 26 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

That's pretty much accurate. Under international law, Taiwan and the PRC are effectively equals of each other (obviously, this is not the case in reality, but rather in theory). Taiwan and PRC are essentially jointly the successor states of "China", whatever that is defined to mean. Of course, historically, the PRC technically came after the ROC. With that being said, internally, I don't think the PRC necessarily recognises that the ROC was ever legitimate to begin with. Theoretically, the PRC considers itself to be the "true successor" and the ROC to be an illegitimate government from the get go. Overall, from an outside perspective, I think it is clear that both the ROC and PRC qualify as successor states to the historical state of "China", particularly the Qing dynasty. Even Mongolia technically fits within this category as well. But yes, in conclusion, the ROC never declared independence from the PRC. Instead, the ROC declared independence from the Qing dynasty, effectively (although, technically, it declared succession as the true government of China... it's complicated). Jargo Nautilus (talk) 14:09, 10 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
the ROC declared independence from the Qing dynasty, In reality it were some provinces which first declared their independence from the Manchu Ch'ing empire and somehow federalised themselves, to be joined later by the remnant of the empire overthrown by its chancellor Yüan Shih-Kai. 1.64.45.187 (talk) 13:25, 1 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
They were never actually controlled by the PRC; the ROC territory just shrunk to encompass only Taiwan and a few other territories. If we are to talk about in theory as Jargo Nautilus put it, the constitutional amendments and the transformation of the electorate to its remaining islands have effectively made these territories independent from the original ROC. 1.64.45.187 (talk) 13:25, 1 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Some of current "proto states"

Kosovo, Taiwan, Northerm Cyprus, etc. are not proto states. They have proper state institutions and are nowhere comparable to militant regions like Ambazonia, Donetsk, etc. Beshogur (talk) 00:54, 30 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know about Northern Cyprus, but Kosovo and Taiwan certainly do behave as independent sovereign states. Northern Cyprus might be a different situation since it is heavily reliant on Turkey. In that case, Northern Cyprus might qualify as a "client" state, although I don't think it is a direct puppet of Turkey, certainly not to the extent that Donetsk and Luhansk are blatant puppets of Russia. To clarify, Kosovo is not actually a client state of Albania at the present time, although it might enter into such an arrangement in the future, perhaps. On the other hand, Artsakh has been described as a client state of Armenia, and I think there's pretty much no chance for Artsakh to have sovereignty after its losses in the 2020 Nagorno-Karabakh War. Note also: A lot of countries that are generally recognised as fully sovereign (i.e. UN member states) behave as client states anyway, so that's not necessarily a definitive proof against statehood. Jargo Nautilus (talk) 13:41, 10 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Svalbard???

Why is this on the list? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2001:4646:626A:0:3CCC:7ABE:6B4F:E0C1 (talk) 23:45, 22 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Want to add a state but unsure under what section

I believe that the Free State of Bottleneck should be included in the list, as it’s own article (at https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Free_State_of_Bottleneck) states it’s a quasi-state, but I’m not sure what section to put it under— secessionist or constituent. Can someone add it or let me know what section it should be added under? Should Free France and CSA be added to this list as well? 71.161.115.47 (talk) 18:56, 29 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Quasi-state&oldid=1209925679"