Talk:Rump state

Proposed merge with List of rump states

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

Article would be more useful with the examples. Rathfelder (talk) 10:38, 29 October 2016 (UTC)

Support per nom. Jellyman (talk) 16:45, 2 March 2017 (UTC)

Support. A single paragraph makes a nice introduction to a list article, but doesn't do well as a stand alone article. If the prose at List of rump states ever becomes too extensive for a list article, it can be split back out then.--Wikimedes (talk) 23:08, 9 March 2017 (UTC)

Support per nom User: Goomba_nr34

Marginal Support: I would think that the list could be merged into this one, but I don't feel that merging this into Rump (politics) as has been proposed woudl be better. Perhaps a mention at Rump (politics) with a main article direct to here?--ip.address.conflict (talk) 17:56, 9 November 2017 (UTC)

Support - MC 141.131.2.3 (talk) 22:59, 15 December 2017 (UTC)

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.

Regarding that proposed merge...

I don't recall any of the folk from the List of Rump States article being notified of any merge discussion. Checking the talk page of that article, it seems no attempt was made to notify the peeps there of it. At all.
So you can imagine my consternation when I find that someone just up and merged the articles together, removing a shi...a significant amount of cited material.
Perhaps someone could explain that to me. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 14:08, 18 April 2018 (UTC)

Hi @Jack Sebastian: first off as per Wikipedia:Merging#Step_1:_Create_a_discussion the notification of involved users is optional and secondly as you made these edits[1] [2] [3] whilst the merge template was clearly on the List of rump states article are you sure that you were not aware of the proposal? Dom from Paris (talk) 14:34, 18 April 2018 (UTC)

Here is the version of the article that existed before the merge: (1). No mention of any potential merge. Also, I note that you drew DIFFs from 2016. That's two years ago. And no merge happened then. Or in the entirety of 2017. And no talk page discussion about it in any year in the List of rump states page - where it might have garnered attention. I shouldn't have to point out the general hash that tends to make of potential discssions. It would have cost you nothing to post ont he List page...unless you thought it might.

So, no. I was not aware of the current proposal. It would seem reasonably prudent to have widened the loop on the discussion to afford input from both pages effected by the merge. Forgive me if I seem a bit perturbed by this; at best, it was pretty sloppy notification on the part of someone here. At worst, it was intended that only the folk of one article get input. Help restore my AGF. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 15:03, 18 April 2018 (UTC)

I had posted this on my page, as this merge discussion about 'oh, didn't you know about it?' reminded me of a passage from The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy:

...the Captain points out that the plans have been on display at the Alpha Centauri planning office for the last fifty years, and it is not his fault that they have not got around to inventing space travel yet. Disgusted at mankind’s apathy, the Captain orders the destruction of the Earth.

Any defense of the merge seems absurd to me. Clearly, someone screwed the pooch hugely on this. It would have cost you nothing to post comment about the propsed merge discussion in the List article discussion. And yet, it wasn't done. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 15:11, 18 April 2018 (UTC)

@Jack Sebastian: I was the one that informed you on your talk page about why I had replaced the redirect which I didn't place originally, your suggestion on your talk page (that I am watching despite your low expectations) that it was I who merged the articles is false, try checking the history. I suggested that if you didn't agree that you should open the discussion yourself. I am a new pages reviewer and this came up on my list, I don't have a dog in this fight so I really think that I have gone over and above what I needed to do and do not appreciate your wagging finger. The merge discussion was there since octobre 2016 and admittedly no-one (including yourself) bothered particpating and then an SPA IP user removed the template on the "list of" article here with a comment "deal with it" , the template was not removed from the "Rump state" article though. The discussion I believe is valid as per MOS:LISTS it seems more logical to have an article about rump states with an embedded list of rump states than an article named list of rump states and a very short Rump state article or a redirect from "Rump state". It is possible that the merge has been poorly done and a shitload of info lost but I think the most logical thing to do rather than going against the unanimous merge discussion is to merge the lost info from List of rump states into the actual article Rump state. There is not enough content to warrant a WP:SPINOFF. Dom from Paris (talk) 15:32, 18 April 2018 (UTC)

Again, I wasn't blaming any one person for the failure to post notice; only that it didn't happen. Figuring out what happened (with attendant finger-waggling) helps to point out that when a cock-up occurs, there are going to be peeps that are highly pissed about it.

I am fine with the articles being merged, though I am not sure that you will feel the same way. The list article was often a source of rampant nationalism and WP:SYN and thusly often unstable. I guess you all will find that out now. I will add this page to my watchlist, and help out when that happens. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 15:42, 18 April 2018 (UTC)

• With all due respect, WP is a group effort - no one is assigned to specific pages. Every page is part of WP to share and share alike. There are not specific groups of editors attached to specific articles. If there is POV pushing anywhere on WP, that is to be addressed by everyone. I appreciate you offering to help with this article, however. We will hopefully address any issues as a team. ‡ Єl Cid of ᐺalencia ^ᐐT₳LKᐬ 00:16, 20 April 2018 (UTC)

No Map Links

Sorry, but to be included in this article requires the EXPLICIT statement that this or that is a rump state. Whoever keeps adding map links as if to say 'see? SEE? It's teh obvo rumpy state' is adding their personal view that something is a rump state or, at the very least, is synthesizing their personal knowledge with a map and making a connection that they, as editors (who are not citable), get to make. I've removed those examples which use only maps as reference. Find an explicit statement by an RS that they are rump states, and we're golden. If not? Well, I've already removed them, and will keep doing so. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 20:31, 23 May 2018 (UTC)

Byzantine Empire

Would the Byzantine /Eastern Roman Empire count as a Roman rump state? RoninMacbeth (talk) 19:10, 7 March 2019 (UTC)

My opinion is yes, but it can only be included in the list if there is a reliable source calling it that. Furius (talk) 01:31, 8 March 2019 (UTC)

Time to go find a source, then. RoninMacbeth (talk) 03:16, 8 March 2019 (UTC)

Republic of China

@Matt Smith: I have undone your revert of my edit, as you did not give any explanation. I assume you reverted because the status of Taiwan as a rump state is disputed, and thus you feel it should be separated from the other examples. Besides being stylistically confusing (the heading suggests that the section should be about some controversy related to the very concept of rump states), the text for the other examples suggest that there is also some disagreement about the classification there. However, if it truly is the case that Taiwan's status is another level of ambiguous than the others, I would propose that you put it under a L3 "Disputed" section under "Examples", as the purpose of inclusion in this article is clearly to give examples of the concept's applications. Alternatively, if the other examples are sufficient, the part about Taiwan can be removed losslessly.__Gamren (talk) 19:56, 27 April 2019 (UTC)

I had put it under "Disputed" section. In the future, please give an explanation when you merge sections otherwise such edits have a high chance of being reverted. --Matt Smith (talk) 23:22, 27 April 2019 (UTC)

See below for new section on this matter. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 16:08, 13 July 2019 (UTC)

Who is calling it a "rump state"?

I've removed several examples from the article. Most were removed for not being referenced to a legitimate source. Two were removed because the source utilized was a bible (not a legitimate source for historical detail), and some were removed because the sources did not explicitly call them rump states - meaning that the editor adding them with sources was perhaps 'reading between the lines' - something we as Wikipedia contributors don't get to do (as we are not sources).
Keep in mind that all WP articles are to be explicitly sourced to secondary, bedrock-solid references. In doing so, the article remains stable and neutral. If you think something is going to be a controversial addition, you can go ahead and add it, but it will likely get curb-stomped if it isn't well-sourced. Alternatively, you could bring it here first, and we could find some consensus within the boundaries of what we can and cannot do. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 05:32, 25 May 2019 (UTC)

ROC, part deux

(this is a continuation of the 'Republic of China' section, above)

I've removed the following, listed as "disputed":

The Republic of China: Following the victory of the Communist Party of China in establishing the People's Republic of China on Mainland China during the Chinese Civil War, the Government of the Republic of China fled to the island of Taiwan and continues to claim authority over all of China. Since then, some regard it as a rump state[16] while some others regard it as a government in exile.[17] For more details, see political status of Taiwan.

Reference #16 by Krasner(Problematic Sovereignty: Contested Rules and Political Possibilities. Columbia University Press. p. 148.) "For some time the Truman administration had been hoping to distance itself from the rump state on Taiwan and to establish at least a minimal relationship with the newly founded PRC."

Reference #17 (a Reuter's pull) states in its timeline, "1949: Chiang Kai-shek’s Nationalists lose civil war to Mao Zedong’s Communist forces, sets up government-in-exile on Taiwan."

The PRC considers it a "wayward province" ^a and flexes its considerable economic muscle against anyone who opts for anything other than their official "One-China".
Political posturing aside, however, Taiwan (aka, the ROC) meets every single criteria of being an independent country ^b. It is a contentious issue only because China's ego is absolutely tied up in the 'one that got away', and is ignoring the fact that its 'former girlfriend' is now dating others and living her own life apart from her abusive former boyfriend, and the PRC has noted a willingness to throw down with anyone who points the obvious.
So, any argument that seeks to de-legitimize the ROC as an independent state - contrary to all evidence otherwise - is almost certainly politically motivated by (and likely funded by) the PRC, we can't put a lot of weight on that, as per a very narrow interpretation of WP:UNDUE. With sources equally opposed and in favor of delegitimizing the ROC, calling it a rump state here is in fact playing favorites, and we aren't going to so that. At all. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 16:46, 13 July 2019 (UTC)

No. Various reliable sources mention ROC/Taiwan as a rump state and that is enought to have it at least as a disputed case. That sources are in "favor of delegitimizing" is only your opinion. Dentren | ^Talk 17:20, 13 July 2019 (UTC)

Sorry, but you should feel absolutely free to note those "various reliable sources" right here in discussion for consideration. Of course, I will also add various reliable sources that note that it is not a rump state. The only people who dispute the recognition of Taiwan is (wait for it) China. Using your logic, we can argue that the USA is a rump state of the UK, or that Indonesia is a rump state of the Netherlands, or that Mexico is a rump state of Spain.

I posit that even listing them as disputed adds undue weight to the Chinese claim of eventual sovereignty of the country. If you disagree, please feel free to open any sort of RfC you wish. I have heard nothing in your post that convinces me that adds credence that there is any actual disputed nature to Taiwan's sovereignty. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 20:38, 13 July 2019 (UTC)

To meet every single criterion of being an independent country, every single criterion needs to be indisputable. Taiwan is currently not being in that category because the territorial sovereignty of Taiwan (island) is disputed, as explained by this source: Stephen D. Krasner: "Many have argued that Taiwan qualifies for statehood, since Taiwan has its own government that controls a population on the territory of the island of Taiwan and conducts its own foreign affairs, and since Taiwan has already been recognized in the past as an independent state. But to make such an argument, one has to reject China's claim of sovereignty over the territory of the Taiwan island, a claim that has been recognized by most states in the world."

So, no, Taiwan is not meeting all criteria of being an independent country. --Matt Smith (talk) 01:51, 14 July 2019 (UTC)

I've removed it yet again. It was added in very recently and, as per WP:BRD when a Bold edit is Reverted, it is time to Discuss. Please do not add it in again until a consensus is found for its inclusion or exclusion.

The dispute begins and ends with China. China does not decide who is and is not a country. Full stop. And I included a link to the Krasner article, so you didn't need to add the full reference (as it messes up the article discussion page).

And, seeing as I added the reference, shall we get into a sourcing tug of war, where I bring at least a dozen sources that note that Taiwan is a sovereign country? You could do that yourself. The sole source of dissent is from China itself. You will find no other country that would agree that Taiwan is a 'wayward province.' Some might agree, however, out of respect for China's political, military and economic might, but it would be no more correct. You will also note that your source (Krasner) fully admits that others disagree with his view.

Since you seem determined on this fact, you should probably initiate an RfC with regards to this. You should have no qualms about this; since you think you are right, you will doubtlessly find everyone shares your views, I don't think that's the case, but you aren't really listening to me. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 02:54, 14 July 2019 (UTC)

It has existed for a long time, not added in very recently. It is time to discuss, not to remove it. If you want to remove it, please get a consensus first otherwise you would be considered provoking edit wars.

What begins the dispute is not important. The point is that lots countries and organizations in the world are regarding Taiwan as part of China. I personally don't like to see that, but I cannot deny that fact.

I had just reverted it back to what it has been for a long time. Again, do not revert. Instead, get a consensus first. That's how Wikipedia works. --Matt Smith (talk) 03:12, 14 July 2019 (UTC)

Sorry, I've reverted it back again. Please leave it be. You should know with your previous history with the Taiwan article that discussion is key. As well, you are well aware that even listing Taiwan as a disputed territory is an insult to Taiwan's recognized sovereignty. We shouldn't do that. And, as I have mentioned before, there is a literal fuqton of sources that note both sovereignty and China's disingenuous attempts to curry support for delegitimizing their aforementioned sovereignty. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 03:32, 14 July 2019 (UTC)

Yes. Discussion is key, so please discuss first before removing the content.

The territorial sovereignty of Taiwan (island) is in dispute. "Taiwan's recognized sovereignty" is a POV. I hope you understand that. --Matt Smith (talk) 03:49, 14 July 2019 (UTC)

The sources provided do not allow for their inclusion, especially with the presence of dissenting views. Because being considered a rump state is a disparaging (and somewhat demeaning) term there can be no room for maybe. It is a rump state or it is not. If there is recognized source of dissent - especially from the country itself - we should not include it. The country itself does not consider it a wayward province. We should give all weight to that view. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 04:54, 14 July 2019 (UTC)

Wikipedia's contents are base on reliable sources, not on any person or country's own POV. Since there is a source claims that the ROC is a rump state and another source claims it is a government-in-exile, I think it's fine to include the ROC in the "Disputed cases" section. --Matt Smith (talk) 05:03, 14 July 2019 (UTC)