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)

Respectfully, I could provide references that counter that. We both know that there are. There is no point to adding references to an article where the subject of those references shouldn't even be in the article. Therefore, we can bring those references here. Understand that you aren't going to be able to convince me that we should add any disparaging or depreciative categorization of Taiwan as anything less than a sovereign state. It is disputed; therefore, in case of dispute, it cannot be here until it is decided one way or the other. Don't worry - there are at least three other articles in Wikipedia where this matter is the subject of periodic flame wars of nationalism. I'm not about to let it happen here, too. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 05:52, 14 July 2019 (UTC)

In this case, what can or cannot be in the article should be left to editor consensus, which we are still working on now. --Matt Smith (talk) 06:01, 14 July 2019 (UTC)

Arbitrary break

Okay here are some RS articles that note Taiwan's sovereignty, as well as China's efforts to punish anyone who supports that claim:

1. "Taiwan is a modern sovereign nation"
2. "its sovereign status is being gradually erased by companies seeking to preserve access to the world’s largest market."
3. The Holy See recognized Taiwan's sovereignty in 1942
4. "China says Taiwan not a country, Taiwan says China needs reality check"
5. "Beijing policy dictates that China will refuse diplomatic relations with any country that recognizes the island as a sovereign state"
6. "Taiwan will always be a sovereign country: Tsai Ing-wen"
7. "China aviation authorities are threatening to punish foreign airlines operating in China if they refuse to comply with their demands to refer to Taiwan as a part of China on their websites and other marketing materials"

The list goes on and on, with Taiwan insisting that it is sovereign and independent from China, and Chinese nationalists insisting that it won't rule out "forceful reunification."
The clear fact is that this article discusses specific, decided matters of history; historians, through the lens of the passage of time have decided that something was in fact a rump state. China is the only country insisting that Taiwan is such (ie. a 'wayward' or 'renegade' province), and the latter threatens to punish anyone who sides with Taiwan. Listing them here adds legitimacy to what is essentially considered by most of the world community as bullying.^1234[4]
Until the matter is decided, we should not be listing Taiwan as a rump state of China, as it only feeds the Chinese propaganda machine and is as accurate a claim as noting that the USA is a rump state of the UK. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 16:23, 14 July 2019 (UTC)

This not about if state X say or not say Taiwan/ROC is a rump state. Its about what reliable sources (RS) say, and certainly various RS mention Taiwan/ROC as such. –Dentren | ^Talk 16:55, 14 July 2019 (UTC)

@Jack Sebastian:

1. That's an editorial. It is a POV.
2. Anyway, those companies do not recognize Taiwan as a sovereign state.
3. What the Holy See recognize is that the ROC represents China, not that Taiwan is a sovereign state.
4. Those are the PRC and the ROC's POVs.
5. The PRC's POV.
6. Tsai Ing-wen's POV.
7. The PRC's POV.

And there are countless sources that regard Taiwan as "Province of China".

I think we can append "some regard it as a province of China; some regard it as a sovereign state" to the content to make it fair. --Matt Smith (talk) 17:05, 14 July 2019 (UTC)

Respectfully, any cite you are going to add is a POV as well. The links I provided serve the purpose I explained they would. China does not agree with Taiwan's claim of independence and sovereignty, adn is working hard to punish anyone who take's Taiwan's side in the matter.

The Holy See recognizes Taiwan as independent and sovereign, while it has also entertained discussions with the PRC. And I find that calling the president of Taiwan's opinion POV to be pretty disingenuous. She represents her country. For someone claiming to be against reunification, you fight pretty dang hard to support China's viewpoint.

As for your suggested edit, I don't think it belongs anywhere in this article. I do believe I have said that before at least twice, right? Even if - and it is a MIGHTY BIG 'if' - we were to have an entrant in, the more appropriate entry would be, "While Taiwan and others consider Taiwan to be a sovereign and independent state, China still considers it a 'wayward' or 'renegade' province." That's more accurate. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 20:23, 14 July 2019 (UTC)

When a thing is in dispute, every cite has to be considered a POV. Wikipedia cannot favor any POV. "Taiwan's claim of independence and sovereignty" is not correct because that's just pan-green faction's POV (And yes, Tsai Ing-wen belongs to pan-green faction). On the contrary, pan-blue does not consider Taiwan independent and sovereign; they consider China independent and sovereign and consider the ROC the sole representative of China.

Again, the Holy See does not recognize Taiwan as independent and sovereign. The Holy See recognizes China as independent and sovereign and recognizes the ROC as the sole representative of China. In other words, the Holy See considers Taiwan part of China. Please understand that "president of Taiwan's opinion" changes with party alternation so it's not a reliable source of the official position of the ROC. When the pan-blue is in charge, the "president of Taiwan's opinion" changes to what I described above. The only thing that represents the official position of the ROC is the Constitution of the Republic of China, which defines the ROC as China and Taiwan part of China.

As for "While Taiwan and others consider...", there is a considerable amount of sources which consider Taiwan "Province of China".

Lastly, I have no desire to support China's viewpoint. I'm just using any source I can find to support my own viewpoint---There is no sovereign state called "Taiwan" in the world because no one has ever formally declared independence under the name of "Taiwan". --Matt Smith (talk) 01:33, 15 July 2019 (UTC)

You and I are going around in circles. I completely understand your viewpoint, and find it to be incorrect. You undoubtedly feel the same way. I urge you to start an RfC, because having more eyes (and therefore editorial input) is always A Good Thing. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 02:56, 15 July 2019 (UTC)

I honestly know very little about RfC and don't know how to start one. Since you would like to remove the content, you may start one. --Matt Smith (talk) 05:13, 15 July 2019 (UTC)

No time like the present to learn how to do that, Matt. We aren't going to find an agreement about it remaining in, so - for the sake of article stability, do the legwork. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 23:28, 10 August 2019 (UTC)

In my opinion, editors who insist on making the change are responsible for starting a RfC. --Matt Smith (talk) 15:41, 11 August 2019 (UTC)

I think the current text is both sourced and does a fine job of maintaining NPOV and does a fine job of indicating that Taiwan's status is disputed and why. I don't think we need a separate "disputed cases" section. It is in the nature of these situations that they are disputed. The Republic of Salo' is also a disputed case and we simply explain that in the main text. Furius (talk) 10:24, 11 August 2019 (UTC)

That makes sense. --Matt Smith (talk) 15:43, 11 August 2019 (UTC)

It really doesn't.

A rump state is the remnant of a once-larger government, left with limited powers or authority after a disaster, invasion, military occupation, secession or partial overthrowing of a government. In the last case, a government stops short of going in exile because it still controls part of its previous territory. For example, after the Qing government assumed control over most of China, the original Ming regime turned to resistance in the south until its eventual conquest. The Seleucid Empire, which once controlled most of the Middle East, was reduced drastically in size by the rise of the Parthian Empire in its eastern provinces because of a regional rebellion. What was left of the once large empire was a rump state composed of little more than Antioch, Damascus, and an area roughly equal in size to modern Syria. The Domain of Soissons, left after the downfall of the Western Roman Empire, was another example of a rump state. Austria and Hungary have been rump states of the unified Austria-Hungary since the end of the First World War. Another example of a rump state was Vichy France, founded after the Battle of France in 1940 when the Axis powers defeated France in World War II. Vichy France governed all three Axis occupation zones under the control of the Axis powers until France's liberation in 1944. Similarly, the Salo regime was a continuation of the fascist-governed Italy led by Benito Mussolini, re-established by Nazi Germany in 1943 in northern Italy, and persisting until 1945.

I posit that Taiwan is not a rump state, and that its inclusion here is a form of regurgitated propaganda from the PRC. We don't do propaganda here in Wikipedia. It is not a demonstration of a neutral point of view to advocate a point of view overwhelmingly lopsided.

Taiwan asserts its independence, its powers or authority over its lands and people are not lessened. It has its own government and elections, maintains a standing army and armaments (purchased on its own from its own trading partners), maintains its own economy and currency, etc. It seems like willingly overlooking the facts to push a narrative that is, at its core, untrue.

I further argue that the way this article define's rump state is perhaps too literalist. Using a narrow definition, China is actually a rump state of Taiwan. It's also like arguing that the United States is a rump state of the UK, or that most of Europe consists of rump states of Gaul (see image).

When a country asserts its independence, two things happen: either the original governing country forcibly takes it back (ie. Catalonia or East Timor c.1975) or acknowledges - either through ratification or inaction - its independence (ie. the Velvet Revolution or East Timor c.1998). China has not invaded Taiwan and allows it to maintain an "autonomy" that not even Hong Kong enjoys. That said, China exerts considerable pressure on its trading partners (with varying levels of success) to not recognize Taiwan as anything but a breakaway republic, a wayward child that will one day return. That China does this is indisputable.

What is a far more reasonable assertion is that - simply by adding Taiwan to this list - we are bowing to that exerted pressure. It is a subtle parrotting of China's "shit-talking".

Until the matter is resolved and properly viewed through the lens of Time, it shouldn't be here. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 17:29, 11 August 2019 (UTC)

The entry currently says that some people think it is and some people think it isn't. Your arguments here are just your opinion unless you back them up with sources that say that Taiwan was not a rump state. Your claim that only PRC propagandists present Taiwan as a rump state is false; it is regularly referred to as such in scholarly sources. For example:

• R. A. Madsen (2001) in Problematic Sovereignty: Contested Rules and Political Possibilities ed Stephen D. Krasner (Columbia University Press), p. 148 "rump+state"+Taiwan&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwijkqigw_vjAhWuRhUIHSaVB7MQ6AEIMTAB#v=onepage&q="rump%20state"%20Taiwan&f=false
• Jack Williams, Ch’ang-yi David Chang (2008) Taiwan's Environmental Struggle: Toward a Green Silicon Island (Routledge), p. 18 [5] Note that Ch’ang-yi David Chang is a professor at the National Taiwan University, so hardly someone who can be painted as an outsider.
• R. Mitter (2013) in The Oxford Handbook of the Cold War edited by Richard H. Immerman & Petra Goedde (Oxford University Press) p. 134 [6]

You seem to think that a rump state has limited powers and is in some way not "independent", but the term has no implication of that. It means a state that has been reduced in size and yet continues to claim continuity with the old larger state. Ethiopia, Serbia, and Sudan are all on the list and are indisputably sovereign, so your arguments about Taiwanese sovereignty are not germane. Moreover, the argument needs to be made on the basis of reliable sources - you have offered none that claim Taiwan is not a rump state of the Republic of China. Furius (talk) 19:35, 11 August 2019 (UTC)

Taiwan asserts its independence. That is a problematic description. What is the "Taiwan" you are referring to? If it's the ROC, then its constitution still claims sovereignty over mainland China. And the ROC considers Taiwan a province of China and considers itself the China. --Matt Smith (talk) 02:13, 12 August 2019 (UTC)

Should the UK be added to the list

Shouldn't the UK be added to the list? They used to control a significant chunk of the world and now they're down to one and a half islands. (talk) 17:24, 6 August 2019 (UTC))

I think it should be not, since they were not necessarily joined/united with UK proper.(KIENGIR (talk) 13:55, 10 August 2019 (UTC))

I think the OC's post reflects a far too narrow understanding of what a rump state is. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 17:34, 11 August 2019 (UTC)

A stronger case for the UK being a rump state would not be losing its colonies, since they were never part of the Metropole, but rather losing most of Ireland in the 1920s. But even then it wouldn't be a rump state since the UK still retained most of its territory. – Illegitimate Barrister (talk • contribs), 02:41, 22 November 2023 (UTC)

I think the United Kingdom generally relinquished control over most of its colonies peacefully. This means that it is not a rump state since there was no "disaster" which caused it to lose control of all of its colonies. Still, I do believe that the UK's colonies can be considered to have been part of its core territory, rather than as peripheral regions. I don't see how those colonies "not necessarily [being] joined/united with UK proper" can somehow render them as not having been parts of the UK's core territory. Jargo Nautilus (talk) 04:08, 15 September 2019 (UTC)

Not yet, but wait a few years and they'll make this list. — Red XIV ^(talk) 05:38, 8 December 2021 (UTC)

hahahaha xD we'll see if Scotland or Northern Ireland will decide to leave Boris' UK Ocemccool (talk) 07:26, 24 May 2022 (UTC)

Poland after the partitions

I added the following text to the article

"The [[Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth]] was left as a rump state after the [[First Partition of Poland]] by [[Russian empire|Russia]], [[Prussia]], and [[Archduchy of Austria|Austria]] in 1772.<ref>{{cite book |last1=Fazal |first1=Tanisha M. |title=State Death: The Politics and Geography of Conquest, Occupation, and Annexation |date=2011 |publisher=Princeton University Press |isbn=9781400841448 |page=110}}</ref> The resulting rump state was [[Second Partition of Poland|partitioned again]] in 1793 and [[Third Partition of Poland|annexed]] outright in 1795. After [[Napoleon]]'s victory in the [[War of the Fourth Coalition]] in 1807, he created a new Polish rump state, the [[Duchy of Warsaw]].<ref>{{cite book |last1=Lerski |first1=George J. |title=Historical dictionary of Poland, 966-1945 |date=1996 |publisher=Greenwood Press |isbn=9780313260070 |page=121}}</ref> After Napoleon's defeat, the [[Congress of Vienna]] created a state, [[Congress Poland]] in 1815; it is unclear whether this should be seen as a rump state or a puppet state.<ref>{{cite book |last1=Marcus |first1=Joseph |title=Social and political history of the Jews in Poland, 1919-1939 |date=2011 |publisher=Mouton Publishers |isbn=9783110838688 |page=73}}</ref>" 

Jack Sebastian removed it with the comment "one person's opinion does not an entry make. Poland is a state on its own." But (a) a rump state is "a state on its own," so I don't see how that fact is relevant, (b) the entry is about Poland, the Duchy of Warsaw, and Congress Poland in the late 18th and early 19th century, so I don't see how what Poland is now is relevant, and (c) there are relevant cited sources calling Poland a rump state at each of those three stages in its history. So the text should be included. Furius (talk) 20:35, 11 August 2019 (UTC)

For the record, the definition of a rump state is as follows"

"A rump state is the remnant of a once-larger government, left with limited powers or authority after a disaster, invasion, military occupation, secession or partial overthrowing of a government. In the last case, a government stops short of going in exile because it still controls part of its previous territory"

Does modern Poland strike you as a country with limited powers or authority over its people, economy or borders? I am fairly certain that its government, people and neighbors might disagree a little bit. I'm not arguing with the work you put into the Poland entry (its actually not bad at all), but it doesn't fit the criteria of a rump state. There has to be a time when a country is no longer a rump state.

Perhaps we need to further distinguish sections by century. I am sure there is a term for the period between the middle ages and the modern one. Something that happened in the 1800's or even 1918 isn't really modern at all. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 21:23, 11 August 2019 (UTC)

I'm not talking about modern Poland at all - the last thing I mention is Congress Poland, which ceased to exist in 1831. Modern Poland is a new state created after World War I. The start of the modern period is usually placed around 1500 - see our article on the Early modern period.Furius (talk) 22:10, 11 August 2019 (UTC)

Czech Republic

Is the Czech Republic considered a rump Czechoslovakia or is it a new state altogether? – Illegitimate Barrister (talk • contribs), 20:19, 25 August 2019 (UTC)

No it is definetly not, as historically back in time such state composition alike Czechoslovakia did not exist, the historical Bohemia and Moravia would correspond to the Czech Republic, roughly even identical by territory.(KIENGIR (talk) 11:02, 26 August 2019 (UTC))

I think a state counts as a rump state only (or largely) if it specifically claims to be a rump state. If its successors deem it to be a rump state, then it also might be retroactively considered to be one. To my knowledge, the Czech Republic does not claim itself to be a rump state. It sees itself as being equal to Slovakia. So this was a partition of a country into two equal parts, rather than the secession of the Slovak region from Czechoslovakia resulting in the formation of a Czechoslovak rump state by the name Czechia. Jargo Nautilus (talk) 03:54, 15 September 2019 (UTC)

Alright, thanks guys. – Illegitimate Barrister (talk • contribs), 13:37, 28 September 2019 (UTC)

State of Japan (Modern Japan)

Technically speaking, modern Japan, also known as the "State of Japan" is a rump state which has survived the partition of the Japanese Empire.

I do concede that the "violently conquered" regions of the Japanese Empire -- at its greatest extent, it controlled a significant portion of East Asia and most of Southeast Asia -- should not be considered as having been core parts of its territory, as their local populations were in constant resistance throughout the half-a-decade that they were being occupied (e.g. The Philippines and Indonesia). However, the case was different for three specific major territories; Taiwan, Korea, and Manchuria (as well as for the handful of other territories which the Japanese annexed, such as Ryukyu and the South Pacific Mandate). These territories WERE parts of Japan's (read: Empire of Japan) core territory. Taiwan was ceded in perpetuity to Japan with the Treaty of Shimonoseki by Qing China, so there should be no dispute over whether it was actually part of Japan's core territory. Meanwhile, Korea and Manchuria were annexed unlawfully by Japan (unlike Taiwan, which was annexed lawfully), but they were both annexed before the Second Sino-Japanese War and WWII started. Hence, they were annexed prior to war-time, and I don't consider them to have been "war-time occupations". All three cases were still occupations, but they were occupations during times of relative peace, and all three territories were fairly well-consolidated within Japan (though they were considered peripheral regions for the majority of the time that they were under Japan's control). The Japanese did make attempts to fully integrate Manchuria and Taiwan into Japan's core territory towards the end of WWII. Taiwan was going to be considered to be one of the "Home Islands"; this plan was mostly abandoned upon the Surrender of Japan. The Japanese made efforts to populate Manchuria with Japanese settlers, but this plan ultimately failed and the Japanese settlers were all deported from Manchuria at the end of the war.

Modern Japan is technically a rump state of the Japanese Empire because it still claims to be the same country as the Japanese Empire, rather than a completely different country. It even still has an emperor, who is directly descended from all of Japan's emperors who lived during modern history, including Emperor Meiji, who established the Japanese Empire. Furthermore, Shinzo Abe, the current prime minister of Japan, is officially regarded to be the 77th prime minister of Japan (he was also previously the PM of Japan). Japan begins counting its prime ministers going way back into the mid-1800s, which includes the entire history of the (modern) Japanese Empire. This is proof that -- at least ceremonially/traditionally -- modern Japan considers itself to be the same country as the Empire of Japan.

Since the State of Japan is the same country as the Empire of Japan, rather than an entirely new country, it follows that the State of Japan is a rump state of the Empire of Japan. The Empire of Japan lost several core territories which were widely recognized by foreign powers (such as the United States and China) as being parts of its territory; this included Taiwan, Korea, and Ryukyu (before it was returned to Japan by the United States in 1972).

Note --> Manchuria was also a core part of Japan's territory, but it was annexed only slightly before the Second Sino-Japanese War broke out, it was poorly consolidated (in comparison to Taiwan, Korea, and Ryukyu), and no (or at least barely any) foreign countries recognized Manchuria as belonging to Japan (in modern times, Manchukuo is considered to have been a puppet regime of Japan); also, Manchuria was annexed by Japan at a time when the rest of China was experiencing a "Warlord" period as well as the Chinese Civil War, so there technically was a war going on, though Japan wasn't a direct belligerent in this war until the Second Sino-Japanese War broke out. I should mention that Manchuria wasn't initially claimed as being part of Japan; when they initially invaded and annexed Manchuria, the Japanese established a puppet regime "Manchukuo" under the guise of "creating a homeland for the Manchurian people (and liberating them from China)". Of course, the Japanese fully intended to incorporate Manchuria (aka Manchukuo) into their territory at some point. Jargo Nautilus (talk) 04:48, 15 September 2019 (UTC)

So, whilst regions such as the Philippines, Indonesia, Vietnam, Burma, various portions of China, and other regions which were occupied by Japan during the Second Sino-Japanese War and WWII cannot be considered to have been parts of Japan's core territory, the regions of Taiwan, Korea, and Ryukyu CAN be considered to have been parts of Japan's core territory, and they WERE lost by Japan following the signing of the Treaty of San Francisco in 1951, resulting in the formation of a rump state which we know as simply "Japan" in modern times, officially going by the name "State of Japan".

In conclusion, the State of Japan is a rump state because it claims to be the same country as the Empire of Japan, and since the Empire of Japan did lose several portions of its core territory following the end of the Second Sino-Japanese War and WWII and the partition of the Empire of Japan into what is now North Korea, South Korea, Japan, and the disputed island of Taiwan. Ryukyu was under US occupation for over two decades but it was eventually returned to Japan. Jargo Nautilus (talk) 04:48, 15 September 2019 (UTC)

Note --> According to some commenters, there is an undefined point in time when a rump state ceases to be a rump state and simply becomes a "normal country". In modern times, Japan is pretty much a normal country, though it still has many issues and disputes between itself and China, Korea and Taiwan as a result of its actions over the past two centuries. It also has a territorial dispute with Russia over the status of the Kuril Islands. Jargo Nautilus (talk) 04:53, 15 September 2019 (UTC)

Citations on Ukraine being a rump state

An unregistered user recently added Ukraine to the list of modern rump states. I then moved Ukraine to the list of disputed rump states but didn't provide sources. I am not very well-informed about the situation with Crimea and Ukraine. However, I have noticed this particular statement in the introduction of the Ukraine Wikipedia article: Excluding Crimea, Ukraine has a population of about 42 million, making it the 32nd most populous country in the world. This phrase suggests that Ukraine is already a rump state, just as people say "Taiwan, excluding China, has a population of 23 million" (or vice versa). If the Wikipedia article really did consider Ukraine's sovereignty over Crimea to be non-negotiable, then it would instead state "Ukraine's population is _____" and not exclude Crimea from the statement. Jargo Nautilus (talk) 02:11, 2 October 2019 (UTC)

There has been a lot of pro- and anti-Ukraine editng going on recently, covered in both AN and AN:I. I'd head there, vecause there are some ArbCom protocols in place for dealing with them. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 23:40, 17 October 2020 (UTC)

No citation, no inclusion. No exceptions

I've been removing uncited entrants to this list of rump states; I will continue to do so. In order to pass the litmus test for inclusion, the editor adding them must include a reliable source explicitly noting the area as being a rump state. If it is a contested viewpoint, not the dissenting view and cite that as well.
Not doing any of that will just get your hard work reverted. I know that sounds arrogant, but this is Wikipedia, not some random crufty list site. Thoughts?

I appreciate what you are trying to do here, and that this article attracts a lot of fly by editors, but immediate reversion is not the answer. It took me two minutes on google books to find a reference. If you are going to monitor this article like a hawk, I salute you for taking on that role, but you are going to need to do so in a more constructive manner. Template:Citation needed exists for a reason... Furius (talk) 18:20, 18 October 2020 (UTC)

Should this article even exist?

● I can't find any dictionaries that even have "rump state" as an actual term, and this term doesn't appear to be used very much by reliable sources.

● We have this academic paper which appears to be one of the first, and one of the few instances of the term, and is cited as the definition for this article.

● The New York Times article says "rump Yugoslav state". You could argue then that they are saying "rump state", but they also could've said "Yugoslav rump state" if they were referring to this specific term.

● The Afghanistan article from the National Interest appears to be the only other instance of "rump state" being used clearly in a reliable source, and I would wager the author happened to look at this Wikipedia article and thought to use the term.

This article also suffers from WP:NOR where editors are drawing their own conclusions about what is and isn't a rump state without reliable sources specifically stating as such. A number of these sources are in books, which makes it harder to challenge, but it's likely the books don't even use this term. I honestly think this article shouldn't even exist. Thoughts? LittleCuteSuit (talk) 17:58, 4 September 2021 (UTC)

The books do likely use the term, its a common one. I will agree however that some of the content has OR/SYNTH issues. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 01:27, 5 September 2021 (UTC)

Thank you for the second opinion on this. Out of curiousity, I went ahead and double-checked the books just to see, and you're right, a number of them do use the term "rump state." I had originally tried to do a web search of the term and didn't get very many results, which was what brought me to bring up the question in the first place. Based on the fact some of these books do specifically use the term, so yeah, the article can stay. LittleCuteSuit (talk) 18:18, 5 September 2021 (UTC)

Canada

Since Canada was formed from the few British colonies that did not rebel in 1775, would it be accurate to say that Canada is a rump state?ᗞᗴᖇᑭᗅᒪᗴᖇᎢ (talk) 22:55, 8 September 2021 (UTC)

Probably not, given the various colonies were up to that point not united into any sort of state. CMD (talk) 04:05, 9 September 2021 (UTC)

That's a breakaway state, not a rump state. Beshogur (talk) 11:43, 9 September 2021 (UTC)

That's a relief! InedibleHulk (talk) 04:24, 12 March 2022 (UTC)

Italy a rump state of Nazi Germany

I've now had to remove - twice - statements to the above effect. Italy remained a sovereign country during the entirety of WWII, and the inclusion of references to that effect suggests that the person doing the adding is using snippets from Google Books and not the actual books themselves. This allows comments to be taken entirely out of context; ie. cherry-picking what we are looking for. Which, of course, is not what we do. I own one of the books in question, and have verified via Google Books that the other two do not in any way refer to Italy as a rump state of Nazi Germany. They may not have been equal AXIS partners, but trying to pigeonhole to fit a notion is counter-productive. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 23:18, 4 March 2022 (UTC)

It's saying that the Republic of Salo was a rump state of Italy not Germany, because it only controlled the northern part of Italy. Furius (talk) 23:31, 4 March 2022 (UTC)

Then...would it not be better for the article to say just that? The reverted part mentions pretty much none of that, making claims that are unsupported by the source. It is our responsibility to state what the sources state, not reinterpret them. For reference, this is what was reverted out:

The rump Italian Social Republic (1943–1945), led by Benito Mussolini, claimed to be the legitimate successor of the Kingdom of Italy; it was in fact a puppet state of Nazi Germany.

That is pretty different than what was used in the article. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 07:35, 5 March 2022 (UTC)

I think the first clause of that is pretty clear - it was a rump and "successor of" tells us what it was a rump of. The final comment is meant to be an aside, so perhaps it would be better if it were bracketed. Since you found the current phrasing unclear, other people might do as well, so perhaps it would be good if you rephrased it however you think is most clear, but I don't think removing it altogether is reasonable. Characterisations of the RSI as a rump are common - see [7]. Furius (talk) 10:49, 5 March 2022 (UTC)

Maybe it's just me, but there seems to be a problem with -re-adding, without correction, text that you yourself know to be worded so as to be actively false. Please stop doing that; I've reverted you accordingly. My job is to remove it if it is incorrect or misleading. If you wish to have it re-added, it becomes your job to alter so it is no longer false or misleading before doing so. I would think imagine that that's just common sense. It's not going back into the article until its critical flaws are removed, and I would ask that you respect that prohibition. Instead, bend your intellect towards solving the problem at hand. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 22:13, 7 March 2022 (UTC)

I really don't understand how you managed to find the text unclear, so I cannot rephrase it in a way that you will find clearer. From my perspective it is you who is being unconstructive in that you keep deleting the text without explaining what you actually want. You will see that I did change the text to try to remove the "critical flaws". I really don't understand how to make it clearer that the ISR was a rump state of the Kingdom of Italy because it only controlled the northern portion of Italy. Do you dispute that? (actually it doesn't matter if you do because the link I posted above shows that dozens and dozens of reliable sources say the same) Furius (talk) 22:30, 7 March 2022 (UTC)

Let's try this again, step by step.

What qualifies the area as a rump state, in accordance with the defining characteristics presented in the Lede of the article?

It is your contention that Salo is currently a remnant of and a rump of nazi Germany, yes? - Jack Sebastian (talk) 18:38, 8 March 2022 (UTC)

No. The Republic of Salo was a remnant and rump state of the Kingdom of Italy. It is not "currently" anything because it no longer exists. Per the lead, "A rump state is the remnant of a once much larger state, left with a reduced territory". The Kingdom of Italy up to 1943 contained the entire Italian peninsula plus overseas territories. The Republic of Salo contained only northern Italy, of which it was a remnant, left with a reduced territory. That is why the text I added said "The Italian Social Republic (1943–1945), established following the fall of the Fascist regime in Italy claimed to be a rump successor state of the Kingdom of Italy" with the point about it being a puppet state in brackets because that is an important fact about it but neither here-nor-there in regard to its rumpness. Furius (talk) 18:51, 8 March 2022 (UTC)

Okay, we are starting to get at the meat of the problem. I do not consider the opinion that Salo was a puppet of the nazis; indeed, it was what made me notice the general weakness of the entire rump state claim. You consider it an important fact; I do not; it is better left to the article about Salo itself, not here.

Secondly, it is pretty much the view of academia that while fascinating, the nature of Italian politics and Italian political boundaries change as often as the weather. What are we to do with Friuli Venezia Giulia, a region that itself became a rump state when it broke into over a dozen of UTIs? If Greece left the EU, would the latter become a rump state? Was the Roman Empire a rump state?

My argument here is that perception is the silly putty that allows one country to be classified as a rump state and another not so much. This may seem like an armchair argument, but I can foresee the slippery slope being gently ushered in here. Deniers of the Roman Empire as a rump state will point to the fact that only Rome fell, and not the physical empire, but you would be hard-pressed to find a historian who would not equate Rome with the empire ('all roads lead to Rome', etc.). The question, imo, is where we draw and defend that line. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 19:41, 8 March 2022 (UTC)

Sorry, but this is mostly nonsense that has nothing to do with anything. Anyway, you seem to think that we are meant to logically deduce whether the ISR was a rump state. We're not. That's WP:OR. The only thing that we are meant to do is record what is stated in reliable sources and they say that the ISR was a rump state (loads of them: [8]). As for the ISR being a 'puppet state', I think that's a red herring, but you're pushing a PoV - it is literally the first sentence of Italian Social Republic. Furius (talk) 22:00, 8 March 2022 (UTC)

• @Jack Sebastian: from what I can tell Furius is correct. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 22:43, 8 March 2022 (UTC)
• @Jack Sebastian and Furius: I also saw the request for a third opinion. Looking over the discussion, I agree with Furius that the sources unambiguously identify the Republic of Salo as both a rump state, and as a German puppet state. I think it should be listed with language like "The fascist Republic of Salo, a German puppet state led by Benito Mussolini, was a rump state of the Kingdom of Italy between 1943–1945." The initial wording that Furius used was a bit confusing, I think, because it made it sound a little like ISR was a puppet state instead of being a rump state, whereas the sources I've looked at describe it as both simultaneously. The later wording proposed by Furius addresses that concern so some combo of that & the wording I propose here seems suitable. Jack Sebastian, it seems like a lot of your comments on the talk page are not really addressing whether the term is used in RS, which is the most important criteria for determining whether a particular example belongs on the page. ~ L 🌸 (talk) 22:59, 8 March 2022 (UTC)

As I've noted, I did think that the initial wording was - at best - confusing, and I unfortunately didn't have much of an opportunity to address the merits of the revision proposed, couched as it was in what appeared to be a rather odd definition of a rump state, and that if it were not tightly defined other, even less deserving places would be given the term. The Republic of Salo - by every single reference noted by Furius - was an intermediary term applied during the last two years of the war. Also noted by each of the sources presented, the claim of Salo was false; it was not a successor state - rump or otherwise - of the Kingdom of Italy. It was not a rump state.

As per the definition of such in the lede of the article, a rump state is

"the remnant of a once much larger state, left with a reduced territory in the wake of secession, annexation, occupation, decolonization, or a successful coup d'état or revolution on part of its former territory. In the latter case, a government stops short of going into exile because it controls part of its former territory.

Salo was not a remnant of a much larger state. It was not left with reduced territory, as it had been artificially created by a fascist dictator. Lastly, the government of Salo - namely Mussolini - neither went into exile nor controlled any territory; he was shot by partisans towards the end of the war.

The sources themselves admit that Salo was an artificial state. At most, we shouldn't put this instance among other, far more legitimate instances of a rump state. Perhaps a subsection should be created to address artificial, pseudo-rump states. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 02:11, 9 March 2022 (UTC)

Jack Sebastian, can you point to a source that says any of this? Furius has provided several sources which do call it a rump state. To show that those are doing so erroneously requires a contradictory source. ~ L 🌸 (talk) 04:53, 9 March 2022 (UTC)

its right before my bedtime here [never post when you are too tired], but I will point out that every source points out that the state was a puppet regime created by the nazis. As there was no predecessor state from which it was a rump, it can't be a rump state. It was an artificial construct created as propaganda during a war, anot an actual vestige. If my response is seen as unclear, say so and I'll address it better in the morning - about 9-10 hours from now. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 06:05, 9 March 2022 (UTC)

Yes we understand that is *your personal opinion* but to be brutally blunt we do not give a flying f*ck what your personal opinion is... By sharing it you're wasting both our time and your own. Either you have a source which says that Salo was not a rump state or you don't. A rump state can also be a puppet state those are not mutually exclusive. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 16:21, 9 March 2022 (UTC)

To begin with, you are allowed to disagree with my viewpoint, even vociferously. That said, don't cuss at me; I have a notoriously bad temper, and if I can manage to hold my temper, then you had better find a way to spank your inner child, eat a piece of chocolate or whatever is necessary to offer the courtesy I provide you, as per civility. I will not address this with you ever again, except in a far more punitive forum. I am sure that this was simply a momentary lapse on your part.

Secondly, the point was that what is or is not a rump state is at debate, especially when I have pointed out that the example doesn;t fulfill the criteria listed in the article itself. That isn't an opinion, bub; its simple, observable fact.

Lastly, it would appear that a consensus has formed. I am disappointed in that result, and am concerned about the long-term effects of that consensus. That said, I will yield to that consensus unless/until new information or definitions make themselves apparent. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 17:54, 10 March 2022 (UTC)

What you're describing there is WP:OR, if others do not see the simple observable fact then its likely to be none of the three. Again, we don't give a damn about whether or not you (or any other non-WP:RS) thinks it fulfills the criteria because it isn't up to us to decide. Please stop wasting our time. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 18:41, 10 March 2022 (UTC)

Thanks for making it easy for me to dismiss your comments, horsey. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 09:24, 11 March 2022 (UTC)

You've been doing that the whole time... And not just with my comments. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 15:38, 11 March 2022 (UTC)

I'm very happy with LEvalyn's proposed wording, which manages to get everything into a sentence in a much more orderly fashion than I did. Furius (talk) 21:36, 9 March 2022 (UTC)

• Thank you, Furius and LEvalyn, for resolving the issue. Everyone else, no more sniping. --Floquenbeam (talk) 22:16, 11 March 2022 (UTC)

Northern Ireland?

Northern Ireland emerged as the first devolved country in the UK, seeking a 'protestant parliament for a protestant people' after the rest of island was lost from the irish war of independence and the irish civil war. The institutions remained nominally unchanged, some replacing Irish for Ulster in there name, but even then there are Northern Irish institutions like League of Ireland. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A00:23C8:5204:F001:F4E5:5DA4:FA61:8D59 (talk) 18:08, 8 May 2022 (UTC)

Should add Ukraine

• After Russia's invasion in 2022, Russian troops occupied most of southern Ukraine (Kherson, Zaporozhye) and expanded the two breakaway republics in eastern Ukraine, and plans to annex these areas, plus annexation of Crimea since 2014, with the aim of conquering as much Ukrainian territory as possible. Russian media says to unite the occupied territories of Ukraine into a new federal district of Russia.

Multiple references mention that Russia is turning Ukraine into a Rump state, they already occupied 30% of Ukraine’s territories, if Mussolini's Italy can be counted, then now Ukraine can also be counted.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 161.8.184.61 (talk) 17:04, 19 June 2022 (UTC)

References

These sources say Russia wants to make Ukraine a rump state, not that it is yet one. CMD (talk) 23:31, 19 June 2022 (UTC)

For Ukraine to be considered a rump state it would have to be widely recognized as one. Nobody recognizes Russia's claims over occupied Ukrainian territory. – Illegitimate Barrister (talk • contribs), 02:40, 22 November 2023 (UTC)