Talk:List of irredentist claims or disputes

Possible inaccuracy in India section of current government irredentism

This was to point out two points in the India section of current government irredentist claims that may be inaccurate - the text regarding Junagadh and Akhand Bharat.

Junagadh is currently a part of India, within the state of Gujarat. The Government of Pakistan, due to the circumstances of Junagadh's integration of India, claimed the territory by publishing a new official map with the aforementioned territory in 2020 (source: https://www.indiatoday.in/india-today-insight/story/why-pakistan-has-claimed-junagadh-in-its-new-political-map-1708515-2020-08-06), having previously not claimed this territory before. Therefore, text regarding the same should be inserted in a new Pakistan section within the current government irredentist claims part, as publishing an official map with irredentist claim implies government support for such claims which weren't supported before.

Secondly, the theory of Akhand Bharat does not have official Indian government backing, and although certain members of the Bharatiya Janata Party have supported this theory, the party has also distanced itself from this theory when a party general secretary talked in favour of this theory back in 2015 (source: https://economictimes.indiatimes.com/news/politics-and-nation/akhand-bharat-ram-madhavs-personal-view-bjp/articleshow/50343895.cms?from=mdr). It would be advisable to place this theory within the historical irredentist claims section for India.

Would appreciate consideration on these points as well as any additional points. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 182.57.184.166 (talk) 06:31, 27 March 2022 (UTC)

Paragraph relating to European holdings in India no longer irrelevant, especially Portugal which recognized Indian control over Goa, Damao and Diu in 1974 following the Carnation Revolution.

The Kashmir issue also involves Pakistan and China making claims over the region as well, thereby requiring a new title. Appreciate consideration and comments on this if any.

(untitled first section)

I would like to put forth an open challenge to anyone to show how "United North America" qualifies as "irredentist" any more than would the European Union. It simply is not appropriate for mention in this article, or at least it is no more appropriate than is the European Union. Dogface 17:34, 9 April 2006 (UTC)

Can you show us where it is listed as an irredentist state?--Zereshk 05:34, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

Can you show how it is any more appropriate as a "see also" under the article "Irredentist State" than would be the European Union?Dogface 17:21, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

What should be linked in a WP article:

"Major connections with the subject of another article that will help readers to understand the current article more fully. This can include people, events and topics that already have an article or that clearly deserve one, as long as the link is relevant to the article in question." [1]

So for your case, for example, by looking at United North America, as a linked article, people can see the differences that exist in concept between the former and the latter, and hence learn more about the current topic.--Zereshk 21:02, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

You have evaded my question, which I expected. How is "United North America" specifically more appropriate than the European Union?Dogface

I actually gave you a direct simple reply. Appearing on a "See also" list doesntnecessarily make UNA an irredentist state.--Zereshk 22:51, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

You would have a lot more credibility if Wikipedia didn't preserve a history of edits. You are the user who [added] "United North America" explicitly as an irredentist state. Therefore, it is reasonable to presume that you want it to remain mentioned in this article to at least provide guilt by association. Dogface 15:46, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

And you are the one who erased it from a "See also" list for no good reason, as if trying to hide something. What are you afraid of?--Zereshk 18:11, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

I'm not trying to "hide" anything. You are the one who intentionally misrepresented "United North America" as an "irredentist state". Since it was quite obviously not one, you had to find some other way to sneak it in. United North America is no more appropriate as a "See Also" than is the European Union. Nevertheless, you magically managed to never put the EU into the article as a "see also". Given that the EU is equally as valid, and far better known, it is reasonable to presume an agenda on your part. Dogface 19:46, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

Fine. We can put EU there, as well as a bunch of other related article links.--Zereshk 20:57, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

From irredentism: Irredentism is an international relations term that involves advocating annexation of territories administered by another state on the grounds of common ethnicity ... United North America certainly fits the bill - the website doesn't include the northern provinces of Nunavut because of different culture, and presumably doesn't include Mexico because of cultural differences as well. The FAQ makes it pretty clear that a merge of the U.S. and Canada is possible due to shared culture and history. That's irredentist. SouthernComfort 21:52, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

Do not use Wikipedia as an infallible source. Its definition of "irredentism" leaves out some very important matters, specifically the idea of "restoring" territory that "rightfully" belongs to one country or another. There is no such attitude to "United North America". Dogface 00:25, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

Ah, so now WP is wrong, and you get to define what irredentism means.--Zereshk 12:48, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

Ireland

This is an awkward description: 'The PIRA's claim that British rule in Northern Ireland hinders the prospect of a United Ireland. '

1) The PIRA is not a state. The Republic of Ireland is. Do we know if the Republic claims Northern Ireland? If not, we need to adjust this entry somehow.

2) We don't need to say that having another government control land that your goverment claims will 'hinder the prospect for a United' anything. That's pretty obvious, isn't it? MilesVorkosigan 19:31, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

I changed some names and titles. See if that fits better.--Zereshk 21:02, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

GREATER ITALY

WHER IS THE MENTION OF GRATER ITALY —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.222.95.81 (talk) 21:58, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

Italians wanted Nice, Corsica, Ticino, Istria and Malta other than Dalmatia... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 125.24.186.33 (talk) 07:51, 9 June 2015 (UTC)

Olivenza

I have deleted the last sentence "and it even forbade use of the language" because it's not related to the territorial dispute, and therefor a rupture of neutrality. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.137.171.81 (talk) 11:41, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

Labrador

I reverted 'officially' part of NL as it simply is. The convention on this page is it seems to me, not to say 'region x claims region y that is officially a part of z' Dbrodbeck (talk) 14:37, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

Which snuck back in years later and I just fixed it... Dbrodbeck (talk) 12:20, 25 January 2020 (UTC)

Berwick-upon-Tweed

The Scottish National Party, the largest pro-independence party in the Scottish Parliament do not seem to cite this as official policy, nor is it clear if any other pro-independence parties are in favour of this, however there have been claims by individual members of these parties. This appears to be very minor and a not altogether serious irredentist claim, should this be included on the list? Benson85 (talk) 17:13, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

this sounds like it should go under minor claims because the SNP is a mainstream party.2607:F5F0:110:1:0:0:0:4A (talk) 22:13, 11 November 2020 (UTC)

Romanian irredentism and demographics

South Dobrudja had aн insignificant Romanian population before it became part of Romania; the Romanian population then grew to 20% as a result of settlers from Romania and the Balkans: Dobruja#Southern_Dobruja. Northern Bukovina also didn't have a Romanian majority in the early 20th century: Northern_Bukovina#Historical_population.

See how easy that is when you explain yourself. Take a moment and think how difficult it is for someone who has this page on their watch list for vandal patrol. Have a nice day now. Justin talk 16:54, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

This list is going to get very, very, big...

Just pointing it out xD. --Yalens (talk) 18:39, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

tribal nationalism

This is an honest question. Is there some technical reason why tribal nationalism (like the Sami independence, the Iriquois nationals, independent Nunavut and the greenland equivalent, etc) is not included in these lists? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.255.9.201 (talk) 15:10, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

Because the lists are incomplete (though for some peoples, perhaps not for Sami and Iroquois, "tribal" is an insult, so it would be best not to use). --Yalens (talk) 16:07, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

I think this list should only include claims officially made by countries, not claimes that some individuals or private organizations might advocate. Pinut (talk) 09:24, 22 April 2012 (UTC)

Well if it is something like a tribe wanting to expand their reservation then its internal irredentism, so should be allowed. If a group of Nevadas started demanding parts of California like Truckee, Bridgeport, and Death Valley, then it would be sensible to include. If the Iroquois had a party demanding, like, their lands from 1700, then it should go on the list. Otherwise, IMO, it should be left off, and be added to one of the Lists of active separatist movements. 2607:F5F0:110:1:0:0:0:4A (talk) 22:21, 11 November 2020 (UTC)

I mean, the way i see it is that while Irredentism is a pretty multifasceted phenomena(historical,Etnic,Geographic,linguistic), It is kind of a byproduct of finished nation states, or emergent, split nationalist movements, etc. The Wikipedia category got starightfoward Pan-Nationalist claims, ie finished territories joining each other, but also more straightforward seperatist movements that wants independence from one specific state, rather than adding territory to an existing state or administrative entity, a bit of a clarification on the point already made, either its an internal territorial dispute for a public entity like a tribal territory, a seperatis movement seeking indpendence from the US or Denmark in these cases, which both fit into their own categories, a cross border tribe wanting some territory added to their prefered national state might be closer to fit the bill for example. Akiosi (talk) 11:26, 21 February 2023 (UTC)

Africa

I removed the sentence "*Many in Sudan still claim South Sudan" because Sudan has officially recognised South Sudan. What some people in Sudan may think about this in private is not interesting. Pinut (talk) 09:24, 22 April 2012 (UTC)

But if there are political parties/movements still claiming South Sudan, it does count. --Yalens (talk) 00:41, 13 December 2012 (UTC)

Claims by Ukrainians nationalists

It seems that have been considered claims beyond any reason by Ukrainians nationalists. For instance parts of Poland, Romania and Bielorussia. I would suggest to keep the same rules of the nationalists of other countries and cancel nonsense. Ukrainians cannot claim the moon, or perhaps Northern Italy, given that now there are many Ukrainian nurses. Following this line Italy could claim Serbia (once under Roman rule) and France could claim Slovenia once conquered by Napoleon.--Deguef (talk) 09:33, 3 July 2012 (UTC)

We're not supposed to discuss how rational they are, but whether they exist. --Yalens (talk) 00:41, 13 December 2012 (UTC)

Israel

Why is Israel not considered an irredentist project of its own? The idea of its re-colonization was born in Europe and based on a national unity project. There was no Jewish sovereignty in Palestine for ~2000 years before the birth of Israel. This makes it a perfect candidate for an entry of its own on this page, in spite of the politically correct concessions to 'mutual' irredentism. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2607:F470:12:5:91E2:E5E1:12CA:3816 (talk) 00:04, 13 December 2012 (UTC)

Actually, it doesn't fit the bill. Irridentism is the adding of new territories onto an already existing state, or (more rarely) the merging of various territories all in different states to form a new state (this is both irridentism and separatism, seen in pre-independence Poland and modern Kurdistan). Zionism fits neither description. --Yalens (talk) 00:39, 13 December 2012 (UTC)

OK, understood. But then why are Chechnya and Ingushetia included? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2607:F470:12:5:91E2:E5E1:12CA:3816 (talk) 04:30, 13 December 2012 (UTC)

They have their own issues within Russia: Chechnya feels it should have a part of Dagestan that was historically inhabited by Chechens, Ingushetia similarly wants a part of North Ossetia. Internal irridentism. Not sure what that has to do with Israel though.--Yalens (talk) 15:29, 28 January 2013 (UTC)

Clarification12 disruptive editing

Clarification12 please read the article, it doesn't matter if it's constitutional irredentism. Please revert yourself. Macedonian, a Greek (talk) 09:00, 28 January 2013 (UTC)

What evidence have you provided that the Republic of Macedonia displays irredentism? This opinion is baseless and without any supporting evidence. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Clarification12 (talk • contribs) 09:06, 28 January 2013 (UTC)

I will redirect you to United Macedonia (and Macedonian nationalism). Macedonian, a Greek (talk) 09:11, 28 January 2013 (UTC)

That is not evidence, that is a link to another Wiki article. Where in that article is evidence provide that the government of the Republic of Macedonia seeks a change of borders? Please remove the false claim that the Republic of Macedonia is irredentist. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Clarification12 (talk • contribs) 09:18, 28 January 2013 (UTC)

This article is not about constitutional irredentism, there is such a section in Irredentism#Constitutional irredentism. For more, please, read United Macedonia (and Macedonian nationalism). Macedonian, a Greek (talk) 09:29, 28 January 2013 (UTC)

Constitutional Irrendetism and government supported irredentism are two different things. I have advised that the links that you've referred to are irrelevant. Either provide actual evidence or stop deleting my contributions. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Clarification12 (talk • contribs) 09:44, 28 January 2013 (UTC)

Azawad

Yalens: This is list of irredentist claims. Azawad was an unrecognized entity, which existed for less than a month during a civil war. Attempting to resolve a civil war, whether or not one party is secessionist is not irredentism. Otherwise we would have to treat the United States during the US Civil War, Britain during the Revolutionary War, Biafra during the Biafra War, Katanga during the Congo War, the Don, Kuban, Far Eastern Republics and Mountainous Republic of the Northern Caucasus during the Russian Civil War and countless other cases throughout history as examples of irredentism. Irredentism only applies to reverting the consequences of a previous war. −Quintucket (talk) 01:44, 2 October 2013 (UTC)

Actually, teh idea of Azawad has existed long before the independent state did, referring to an area including parts of not only Mali, but also Niger, Algeria and Libya. The entry on this page should refer to this form of Tuareg irridentist nationalism, which is more akin to what one can see with regard to Kurdistan. --Yalens (talk) 01:59, 2 October 2013 (UTC)

My understanding of irredentism is that it requires a state to make the claims. This is also the definition that we use in the irredentism article. Admittedly, we have some sub-national irredentism movements (for example: Chechnya's claim on part of Dagestan) which I'm fine with. With the Kurdistan example, the only possible case of irredentism is with the Iraqi Kurdish claims on Kirkuk and parts of Nineveh and Diyala provinces. Attempts to separate Iraqi Kurdistan are separatist. Similar attempts in Turkey, Syria, and Iran are separatist or autonomist depending on whether the goal is a state or autonomous region. Azawad, which was under tenuous Tuareg control only briefly was a separatist movement. Had the Tuareg tried annex northern Mali to Niger, that would be an irredentist movement. —Quintucket (talk) 03:12, 2 October 2013 (UTC)

In both the Tuareg and Kurdish cases, there are both separatist AND irridentist elements. The separatist element is breaking away from the countries (Iraq and so on or Mali and so on) currently ruling them. The irridentist element is unifying all the parts that are currently ruled by different country (i.e. Syrian/Turkish/Iranian Kurdistan joining Iraqi Kurdistan, or a parallel theoretical merging in the Tuareg case). --Yalens (talk) 04:09, 2 October 2013 (UTC)

Although I do see what you mean about "requiring a state". In my book, it is the desire that counts, not the potential (i.e. without a state they obviously lack the potential, but that's not what we're measuring as many of these are total fantasies anyways). --Yalens (talk) 04:12, 2 October 2013 (UTC)

Irredentism has a particular meaning. The origin of the concept of irredentism (as opposed to simple expansionism) has its roots in romantic nationalism, but not all nationalism is irredentism. There could be no "Italia irredenta" before the unification of Italy, and there can be no Kurdish or Tuareg irredentism without either a Kurdish or Tuareg center of power. You can have secessionist movements that are also irredentist, as with the Azeris in Iran, but the Kurdish and Tuareg cases are simply ethnic nationalist-inspired secessionist movements at the moment. —Quintucket (talk) 04:53, 2 October 2013 (UTC)

In the case of the Kurds, I would argue that they DO have a center of power- Iraqi (or "South") Kurdistan. So, for you, in both cases, it is just four simultaneous separatist movements and the fact that they eventually intend to unify all the territories into one state means nothing? I would argue that the implementation of irridentism requires a power center, but the idea doesn't. --Yalens (talk) 15:08, 2 October 2013 (UTC)

It doesn't mean nothing to me, but it has nothing to do with irredentism. While I will conceded that internal irredentism (as with the Chechen and Ingush claims in the Caucasus) is a logical extension of irredentism, I'm not sure that it's supported by the sources, and I'm starting to think we should remove those examples. However it is clear that separatism across state lines is not irredentism. Using a non-ethnic example: Cascadia is not irredentist, because neither the Pacific Northwest nor British Columbia is an independent entity, and Cascadian seperatists don't seek to unite it with one country or the other. By contrast, if I started a movement trying to annex British Colombia based on American claims in the Oregon territory, that would be irredentist. Likewise, Kurds and Tuaregs trying to form their own country is separatism; if the Iraqi Kurds tried to annex northeastern Syria to Iraq, that would be irredentist. —Quintucket (talk) 22:56, 2 October 2013 (UTC)

Okay, I'll take your word for Azawad. But is it really so different to annex territories to autonomous-to-the-point-of-near-independence Iraqi Kurdistan? --Yalens (talk) 02:09, 3 October 2013 (UTC)

Iraqi Kurdistan makes a point of not claiming territories in other countries, and I believe that Kurds in Syria, Iran, or Turkey are currently seeking independence (as a precursor to Kurdish unification) or autonomy within their own regions, not unification with an autonomous region of another country. Of course if Iraqi Kurdistan achieves full independence, I would not be surprised if Kurdish nationalists in other countries shift strategy to seek unification with the new Kurdish state, rather than separate independence. As long as it remains part of Iraq however, Kurdish nationalists in Syria, Turkey, and Iran are likely to continue to seek independence or autonomy for their own regions, not union with an autonomous part of another state.

If you in fact know of a Kurdish group outside Iraq seeking union with Iraq, or a Kurdish group in Iraqi Kurdistan seeking to incorporate parts of neighboring countries into a federal Iraq, I'd be interested to see it. Absent such evidence, the only Kurdish efforts that could be considered irredentist are attempts on a sub-national level to incorporate the Kurdish parts of Kirkuk, Nineveh, and Diyala into Iraqi Kurdistan. —Quintucket (talk) 02:36, 3 October 2013 (UTC)

current Russian/Ukrainian situation?

Should this list include the Russian/Ukrainian claims, issues and conflicts? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.7.80.2 (talk) 13:36, 22 August 2014 (UTC)

The above comment from August 2014 deserves a boost. Russia is listed in the Europe section under "Historical" claims, but belongs in the first section "Current governmental irredentist claims". A Carbine Flash (talk) 20:15, 6 March 2022 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on List of irredentist claims or disputes. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20050426064023/http://www.mef.qc.ca:80/question_du_labrador.htm to http://www.mef.qc.ca/question_du_labrador.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

Y An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 09:18, 21 March 2016 (UTC)

An article of little substance, but a whole lot of WP:POV and WP:SYNTH

I think it's time for this article to get a thorough cleaning out. There's a lot of WP:COATRACK happening, but finger-pointing both ways with no reliable sources is essentially a blog or forum, not an encyclopaedic article.

As it has been tagged for multiple issues for years, none of which have been addressed, I think the only sensible way to handle the article is to just remove anything that isn't reliably sourced. This will possibly only leave enough sourced content for to push it past the stub post... but that's better than than fabricated content. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 04:43, 27 April 2016 (UTC)

I agree. Roger 8 Roger (talk) 10:10, 25 October 2019 (UTC)

Falkland Islands

Would it be questionable to mention the Falklands War under the associated bullet point? I think something along the lines of:

"In 1982, Argentina unsuccessfully attempted to militarily annex the Islands."

is unbiased and uncontroversial. AuburnAttack21 (talk) 00:41, 20 January 2017 (UTC)

"Fringe disputes" Bolivia & Romania

I don't get it if this "Historical and fringe disputes" is referring only to the europeans territorial disputes or all disputes listed down but speaking of fringe disputes, could somebody here explain me why is Brazil listed as if Bolivia is actually claiming something from them based on irredentists concepts? just because president Evo Morales expressed his disgust in how Brazil gained Acre(which is a baseless statement btw, as the Treaty of Petrópolis clearly specifies in how Brazil buyed Acre from Bolivia) that doesn't mean he or the bolivian state is claiming that area, the only territorial claim that exist between Bolivia and Brazil are the 80 fluvial islands that lies in the Mamoré river like the Guajará-Mirim island, all of those islands are unassigned to no country but no irredent claim is being made by none of them not even bolivian nationalist groups nor bolivian parties, and speaking about parties, if the Greater Romanian Party wants to reclaim all territories gained in 1918 and recreate Greater Romania i'm pretty sure they are including all of Moldova's territory. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dark Tails Uruguayo (talk • contribs) 04:55, 7 October 2019 (UTC)

Major culling

This article has gone way off track and needs to be started again from a much earlier point. There is still a lot to thin out, especially all those flags if anyone has the energy and time. I have left in cited detail but even those entries are questionable. Roger 8 Roger (talk) 11:11, 25 October 2019 (UTC)

Major changes to this article

See the comment two sections above. I agree that the best way to deal with this article is to remove most of the detail and start again. I have begun doing that, leaving behind anything that is referenced. However, even those claims may need removal if they prove to be territorial claims not based on irredentism. Once the culling is done a rearrangement of the structure might be helpful too. I think we should remember that this is intended to be only a list of claims and not an article in detail about any one claim. Only summary detail should be provided with a link to the claim's main wiki article, if there is one. The detail about Russia is IMO too detailed, even if correct and even if cited. Roger 8 Roger (talk) 01:16, 26 October 2019 (UTC)

Notes seem to be very bare bones

I feel like the notes in the Africa, Asia, South and Central America and Europe sections are sparse. The notes could be a good place to give brief explanations for some of the claims (e.g. why does Afghanistan claim parts of Pakistan?). Even notes like "Country A has claims to this part of Country B" would be useful for readers. 106.69.178.122 (talk) 09:24, 13 December 2019 (UTC)

This article mentions Russians irredentism on Estonia but not Estonia's irredentism on Russia. Biased much?

This language is clearly irredentist.

“Nothing needs to be done. We certainly don’t need to ratify it. If we signed a new border treaty and surrendered those territories (Ivangorod and the Pechorsky District, which were meant to go to Estonia according to the 1920 Treaty of Tartu), it would have huge legal consequences."

Source: https://uawire.org/estonia-will-not-ratify-border-treaty-with-russia

--208.72.125.2 (talk) 15:00, 10 January 2020 (UTC)

USA

Hey, I don't know if this counts, but there's a fringe group in the USA (http://expansionistparty.tripod.com/), and they have a website, but I don't know if it deserves to count as a minor claim, because this could just be some random guy claiming Canada, the UK, Australia and New Zealand. 2607:F5F0:110:1:0:0:0:4A (talk) 22:11, 11 November 2020 (UTC)

Claimed by who? / Suggestions for criteria for inclusion

This article would improve if it was structured a bit more like List of active separatist movements in Europe. In particular there are a lot of claims without any information on who make the claim. I would suggest the following criteria for claims making the lists:

• Actor/claimant
  • To make the list for 'Official or major disputes' - The government of a country currently claim the territory
  • To make the list for 'Unofficial or minor disputes in Europe' - A party with representation at national, regional or local level
• The claim must be current
• The territory must have a (real or imagined) past that is different from its current status.

Examples:

• Actor/claimant - It is hard to tell without sources, but many of the listings under 'Unofficial or minor disputes in Europe' seems very obscure. It is not helpful for the reader to list everything anyone has ever suggested should belong to another country. The should be some cut-off mark to clarify how politically important the claim is.
• The claim must be current - Most Scandinavian items on the list seems to just reflect areas that at some point belonged to another country and not relate to anything current.
• The territory must have a (real or imagined) past that is different from its current status - If that is not the case it is just a border dispute. Rockall is listed quite frequently, but no actor claims that their state or people have ruled over Rockall or anything such - it is just a border dispute (for the seabed rather than the < 1000 m2 land)

For the claimant I would suggest adding a column to the 'unofficial or minor disputes' where the claimant(s) is/are listed. I would also suggest that the first table for each continent is just called 'official disputes' to make it more clear. (I will make those changes if no-one objects) Gunnar Larsson (talk) 21:31, 6 August 2021 (UTC)

@Gunnar Larsson I sort of agree with what you are saying. Please see the talk page on the main article Irredentism where this problem, and here [2] was raised by me. (Have a look through if I am not providing a clear link here). My view is that we should have the debate on what to do on the main page rather than this list page. The main page is effectively a list anyway, so the problem of having two articles saying the same thing also needs to be sorted. I had rearranged the headings on the main page to better reflect my opinion of reality and simplicity, which correspond reasonably well with your views here. Since then not much has happened on the main page, but now might be a good time to resurrect the debate. Roger 8 Roger (talk) 02:41, 7 August 2021 (UTC)

Layout of article

I think there is too much information in this article at the moment. The previous format with tables was supposed to be easily readable at a glance. This is a list article, not a thesis. It is supposed to summarise irredentist claims/disputes very briefly. As it stands, there is too much information in this article, and the "list" element seems to have been totally removed recently. • I also preferred the system whereby irredentist claims/disputes were indicated by flags, rather than by maps. This emphasises the diplomatic nature of these claims/disputes, whereas maps (especially ethnic maps) tend to dehumanise people. • It is also important to differentiate between different severities of irredentist claims/disputes. For example, the dispute that Albania has with Serbia over Kosovo (which itself is also an independent actor, albeit heavily sided with Albania) is much more high profile than the dispute between Albania and North Macedonia over ethnic-Albanian areas within North Macedonia. A distinction must be made in a situation like this. • Again, this article is supposed to be something of a shorthand reference to redirect readers to more detailed articles. It's not supposed to be a main article in and of itself. Jargo Nautilus (talk) 10:58, 30 October 2021 (UTC)

There used to be two lists (one at the main article and one here). What I did a while ago was to move the one at the main article here, as that list was of much higher factual quality than the one that was here (which had a lot of rather odd and poorly sourced list items) and having two lists for the same thing is far from optimal. The advantage with having more text is that it is easier to condense it rather than the other way around. Gunnar Larsson (talk) 13:39, 31 October 2021 (UTC)

Should the Republic of the Floridas information under the Venezuela section be moved to historical?

It should probably also be better sourced, but it appears that this dispute hasn't been an issue for over 180 years, so it should probably be moved to the historical claims section. Thoughts? Cat-fivetc ---- 19:00, 31 January 2022 (UTC)

Would make sense, it is a bit of a stretch to consider the early 1800s as "current" :-D Maybe it should even be removed altogether? Without knowing overly much about the Spanish American wars of independence it does not seem to fit "a land that the movement's members consider to be a "lost" (or "unredeemed") territory from their nation's past." very well. Gunnar Larsson (talk) 22:22, 31 January 2022 (UTC)

Is Sri Lanka irredentist?

Sri Lanka does not claim the territory of any other country. Sri Lanka's territorial and maritime borders are recognised by all United Nations member states and observer states. Irredentism is claiming territories of foreign countries.

Sri Lanka is an island nation. It has been united for most of its history. The Democratic Socialist Republic of Sri Lanka is thr sole legitimate government of Sri Lanka. There is no other state within the territory of Sri Lanka. This is accepted by the United Nations.

Saying that Sri Lanka is irredentist is completely falsehood. 112.134.223.86 (talk) 18:17, 13 March 2022 (UTC)

You seem to lack reading comprehension. The entry in the article says that Sri Lanka is a country that is divided between two main ethnic groups; the Sinhalese (who are generally Buddhists) and the Tamils (who are generally Hindus). These two ethnic groups are not evenly dispersed throughout the country, with the north-east of the country hosting a high concentration of Tamils. According to the entry, some Sinhalese hold animosity towards the Tamils, whom they view as invaders (on the basis of some Sinhalese Buddhist temple ruins located nearby to contemporary Hindu temples). If Sinhalese people inside of Sri Lanka were to attempt to "retake" areas inside of Sri Lanka that are currently occupied by Tamil people inside of Sri Lanka, then that would still be classified as a form of irredentism even though it is all occurring inside of Sri Lanka. This is irredentism on the subdivision/subcommunity level, rather than on the state-to-state level. Irredentism is still irredentism even if it's on a lower level than state-to-state. Irredentism between different villages can even be a thing. Jargo Nautilus (talk) 20:48, 14 November 2022 (UTC)

@Jargo Nautilus The land of Sri Lanka belongs to all Sri Lankans and it is indivisible. Why should you try to "retake" something when it belongs to you already? The Sri Lanka (talk) 09:05, 26 December 2023 (UTC)

From the article Irredentism: "Irredentism is a desire by one state to annex a territory of another state." - that's clearly not what's going on in Sri Lanka. I can't find any sources or articles that describe the settlement policy as "irredentism" or "irredentist". In fact, the only mention of irredentism I could find with regards to Sri Lanka is Tamil irredentism, i.e. the Tamils forming their own independent state, potentially with territory in both India and Sri Lanka. I've removed the section again, and I don't think it should be restored without sourcing that explicitly refers to irredentism. Kdroo (talk) 21:56, 16 January 2024 (UTC)

Merger discussion

Merger discussion 92.0.152.112 (talk) 22:25, 13 November 2022 (UTC)

Are you going to provide a reason/rationale for your merge proposal? As of yet, I can't see such a thing. Jargo Nautilus (talk) 20:31, 14 November 2022 (UTC)

• Oppose - The two topics are similar, but they are not exactly the same. Firstly, "irredentist claims" can refer to unofficial claims. For example, the Republic of Ireland doesn't force the rest of the world to describe Northern Ireland as "inalienable Irish territory since ancient times", but the government and people of the ROI do genuinely want to reunify with Northern Ireland, generally speaking. Secondly, not all territorial disputes are irredentist claims per se. For example, maritime disputes typically aren't described as irredentist claims (because which country can say that they historically ruled over the ocean?). In another example, all of the territorial disputes in Antarctica (mainly involving Argentina versus Chile versus the United Kingdom) cannot be described as irredentist because nobody even lives on that continent or has ever historically lived there (except for some scientists). | EDIT: The other way around, all official irredentist claims are territorial disputes (i.e. one is a subset of the other). It's just that some irredentist claims are unofficial. Jargo Nautilus (talk) 20:37, 14 November 2022 (UTC)
• Comment - Looking through parts of this talk page and the history of the main article, I can tell that it's a battleground. There are multiple instances of users completely blanking out sections with sourced material, simply because it doesn't align with their personal beliefs. There is generally a lot of vandalism (or what would appear to be vandalism but maybe isn't) occurring at this page. Notably, one of the arguments that I've seen in the edit summaries of these cases of vandalism is that "a claim is not official, hence it should be removed". If this article were to only discuss official claims, then it would become a lot closer to the article about territorial disputes in its scope. However, as it stands, I think this article currently is supposed to cover both official and unofficial disputes (and hence, at the moment, it is not a valid reason to remove an irredentist dispute from this article if that dispute is unofficial, although it might be valid if the scope is changed). Jargo Nautilus (talk) 20:58, 14 November 2022 (UTC)
• Oppose: the term "territorial dispute" is much wider then the term "irredentism": not every territorial dispute is a form of irredentism. Phlsph7 (talk) 17:36, 2 December 2022 (UTC)

Kazakhstan

In Kazakhstan, nationalist circles often voice demands for the return of Orenburg (formerly the capital of the Kazakh (then Kyrgyz) ASSR in 1920) and the southern part of the Omsk Oblast and the Astrakhan Oblast.https://vz.ru/politics/2017/9/14/887052.html Thingsomyipisntvisable2 (talk) 17:43, 9 April 2024 (UTC)

Images

I have removed a fair amount of maps from the article. As it was, the amount of them meant that maps in many cases were placed far away the text they were meant to support. In some cases (when an item was covered by several maps) I have just removed them, but in most cases the links are still in the wiki text, just commented away (using <!-- image -->). The maps I removed were typically for list items that had just one line of text or so (meaning that the map took up much more space than the text). Gunnar Larsson (talk) 20:46, 26 May 2024 (UTC)