Talk:List of rump states

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Mexico[edit]

Mexico after the progressive loss of almost half of its area to United States interests from 1836 to 1848 [1][2] and during the French invasion of the Pastry War in 1838 and early 1839. See also Texas Revolution, Mexican-American War, and the Gadsden Purchase of 1854.

Italian Social Republic[edit]

Italian Social Republic was not the remnant of a once-larger government, it was a puppet state built up by the Nazis, who were an occupying force in Central and Northern Italy when this "state" was created (after the armistice). The Kingdom of Italy was the only legal government in Italy during WWII. Clap 10:16, 25 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Many more entries[edit]

Boy, have I been on a roll in this newly-discovered category to me! I'm a history buff to begin with, and I thought of scores of rump states from all time periods and located in Europe, Asia, Africa, and Latin America! I don't intend to brag about this, but check the history of each country and empire for yourselves. --Heff01 04:02, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Bolivia[edit]

Bolivia merits a little discussion here. The War of the Pacific was a war over natural resources, namely in this case the nitrate deposits of the southern Atacama Desert. Chile instigated this war in March 1879, rapidly seized complete control of the Bolivian province of Litoral, and went on to defeat Peru. Although to some the loss of only a single-digit percentage of a nation's area may not constitute a reduction to a rump state, Litoral was economically critical for Bolivia, and its loss and resulting landlocking had a profound negative impact on the nation's development to this day. Only an increase in the world market price of silver prevented a Bolivian depression. --Heff01 01:40, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Warsaw Pact[edit]

I did not add the nations of the Warsaw Pact during the Cold War to the list, but I feel it merits discussion anyway. A sound argument can be made for the Warsaw Pact nations besides the Soviet Union being rump states, since none were free to leave the Pact, the USSR reserved the right to intervene in their internal affairs, and Hungary and Czechoslovakia suffered Soviet invasions when they attempted to leave the Pact. --Heff01 18:00, 3 August 2006 (UTC) See also: 1956 Hungarian Revolution Soviet invasion of Czechoslovakia[reply]

  • The former Soviet Union should be included at the very least, but yes I agree the Warsaw Pact should be included as well. The Russian Federation is the best modern example of a rump state. Even compared to the Russian empire it could be considered a rump state. I vote to inlcude it. VisaBlack (talk) 15:44, 2 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Dependency is not a defining feature. —Tamfang (talk) 21:54, 18 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Partitions of Poland[edit]

I actually first saw the term "rump state" used in describing Poland after its Second Partition of 1793. Its partitioning powers were its neighboring empires of Russia, Austria, and Prussia. Even though Prussia received the smallest piece in the First Partition of 1772, that accelerated Poland's collapse, since Prussia gained control of Baltic access for 80% of Poland-Lithuania's trade, which it levied extortionate customs duties upon. There is a sound argument for Poland being a rump state prior to 1772, due to the amount of leverage Russian minister to Warsaw Nicholas Repnin had in forcing many concessions from the Polish Sejm (Diet) in drafting its constitution of 1768. He had four vocal opponents of his policy that year arrested and imprisoned in Kaluga, and if that sounds like a blatant violation of Polish national sovereignty, in 1773 he had vocal opponents of his policy exiled to Siberia! Part of the reason Catherine the Great had the convocation of the Repnin Sejm was to obtain a Polish government that would be ineffective at governing itself, hopelessly weak, and controllable. When she saw 20 years later that Poland was reforming itself and had abolished the liberum veto, she was angered and invaded Poland again. Without foreign intervention, Poland was doomed. It had already been betrayed by its longtime ally Austria due to effective Russian and Prussian diplomacy, and the hands of its last remaining ally, France, were tied at home. Heff01 02:04, 23 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Should this be a list?[edit]

Through my research over the past six weeks, I've learned and posted how world history is replete with examples of rump states. We're already into the triple digits in the count. I don't know how the Wikipedia editors would feel about the matter, but would such a well-developed page serve better if it were made a list? Heff01 04:55, 23 August 2006 (UTC) Actually, if this were a list, it would have to be trimmed (particularly of "See also" portions) and would not be as informative. Heff01 18:19, 1 September 2006 (UTC) On October 28, 2006, this was made a list with no change in format or contents. Obviously this CAN work as a list. Heff01 03:10, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

German-language link maps[edit]

I have used the Siebenbürger (German-Transylvanian) Online Forum page SibiWeb's maps for the links in the cases of Austria, Hungary, Saxony, Serbia, Venice, Bohemia, and Bulgaria, which are found there as Österreich, Ungarn, Kursachsen, Serbien, Venetien, Böhmen, and Bulgarien, respectively. This website has historical high-resolution maps of Hungary, Romania, and surrounding lands from a large number of times since AD 1000. Heff01 02:39, 7 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Late 20th century deletions[edit]

The late 20th century examples of Lebanon, Afghanistan, Chad, and Iraq were wrongfully removed. Lebanon has repeatedly been invaded by Israel and Syria, Chad was partially occupied during its civil war by Libya, and Iraq and Afghanistan have suffered overall foreign occupations. Since Iraq was forbidden by the United Nations to fly over the majority of its own land area, it's safe to say that it has been a rump state since 1991. I mainly use my home computer to edit this page, but occasionally use another computer to do so. The IP recorded is not consistent, even from the same computer in the same session. I stand by my submissions and have renewed them with my user name. Heff01 14:51, 14 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Actually you made a good point. But to be honest under the guidelines of this Article a invasion by it self does not create a rump state. In order for the invasion to create a rump state a annexed region has to be carved out of the States territory in order to do so. For instance when Israel Invaded Syria and Created the Golan Heights Territory that counts on the list instead of Lebanon. 99.45.130.77 (talk) 04:02, 26 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hardly. You think Israel's invasion - and annex of - the Golan leaves Syria a rump state? C'mon, there's gotta be a common sense cutoff if not a hard numerical percentage, of when a majority of a state is losing only a tiny percentage, the larger remaining intact parent cannot be considered a "rump". Syria losing the Golan is not a Rump State. If the USA lost only Hawaii (or Rhode Island) or even California the remaining intact USA could hardly be considered a rump state. I mean if any country losing even only a smidgen of itself makes it a rump state, then Germany and France are perpetually rump states as the Alsace is continually changing ownership...§ — Preceding unsigned comment added by 150.137.2.91 (talk) 00:20, 14 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Iroquois Confederacy[edit]

There may be literally scores of examples of indigenous rump states in North America from before and during European settlement and colonization if searched for hard enough. While including too many such entries in this article would likely be deemed to occupy unnecessary bandwidth and trivialize the subject, I feel that the Iroquois Confederacy merits inclusion, since it represented a group of six well-known US tribes, covered tens of thousands of square miles, had an intertribal council governed by the Gayanashagowa constitution, and made treaties as a unit with Great Britain and the United States. Heff01 01:36, 21 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Actually Iroquois Confederacy does not count. None of its sovereign territory was ever taken away. Iroquois lasted until the United states was granted independence in 1783. But you do make a good point in Native Americans. I can think of one Native American state that would count. Theres the Powhatan Confederacy of Virgina. This became a rump State in the early 1600s when Jamestown was founded in 1607. but i really would not count Jamestown because the land area of Jamestown was only about 2 city blocks big. But later on in the early 1600s you had a large town being founded and that was Williamsburg and from that point Powhatan Confederacy would have been a rump state until there defeat following a war in the late 17th century. But the Iroquois do not count on this list because there sovereignty did not get Violated until the United States got established. 99.45.130.77 (talk) 04:13, 26 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Denmark[edit]

Denmark is literally a shell of its past existence. It went from being the master of the Nordic countries in the early 16th century during the Kalmar Union to losing Norway to Sweden in 1814 to losing Schleswig-Holstein in 1864. This region belong entirely to Denmark until then and almost half of the area of the Jutland peninsula was lost to Denmark in one fell swoop. I altered this last entry for it to reflect the fact that this rump state condition continued to exist after World War I and to this day, since Germany only ceded back northern Schleswig and has maintained the overwhelming majority of S-H to this day. Heff01 00:34, 5 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Iran[edit]

Iran appears several times in this article, as Parthia, the Sassanid Empire, Safavid Persia, and modern Iran. The Anglo-Russian Convention of 1907 included a plan to partition 2/3 of Iran's area between Russia in the north and the British in the southeast. Only a major international outcry, accompanied by threats from Germany and the Ottoman Empire, prevented (or rather delayed) the plan's implementation until World War I. In both World Wars, Russia and Britain made pre-emptive invasions of Iran in order to prevent it from joining the German side and to protect access to Iranian oil. These moves were all rotten, and did it ever occur to the two aggressors that the only reason that Iran even considered an alliance with Germany was to preserve its sovereignty, because the aggressor empires should have left it alone, but didn't? It is little surprise that Iranians have generally hated The West for a century. While the invasion and occupation of Iraq by the United States had the Anglo-Russian interventions against Iran as precedent to justify pre-emptive aggression, at least Britain and Russia did not resort to "regime change" in those cases (although Britain would in Iraq during World War II.) Heff01 02:14, 9 October 2006 (UTC) Of course, Western intervention in Iranian affairs didn't end during the Cold War. The US government opposed the oil nationalization policy of democratically-elected Prime Minister Mohammed Mossadegh so bitterly that it actively back a coup to reinstate Shah Mohammad Reza Pahlavi in 1953. Iranians obtained their revenge in 1979 in the form of the Iran hostage crisis. Heff01 17:04, 9 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Palestine[edit]

I'm removing "Palestine", since no usage of this term fits, even remotely, the definition given in the opening paragraph ("the remnant of a once-larger government, left with limited powers or authority after a disaster, invasion or military occupation). -- uriber 12:03, 13 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Pakistan and Bangladesh[edit]

Actually, that was good thinking about Bangladesh having slightly more people than the rump state of Pakistan in 1972. Bangladesh is an extremely-densely populated nation without the room to accomodate its growth and a super-humid, disease-ridden physical and human climate to boot. Without these handicaps, Bangladesh still could support a larger population than Pakistan. It was these set of biomal circumstances, combined with the Pakistani government's unwillingness to help the Bengali people deal with the aftermath of the 1970 Bhola Cyclone, that have left the people of Bangladesh where they are today. They are a tough, long-suffering nationality. Heff01 19:21, 22 October 2006 (UTC) As much as I hate to say it, losing Bangladesh was likely the best thing that happened to Pakistan. Bangladesh would have progressively proven to be much more of a drag than an asset for the Indus Valley people and was not worth making sacrifices for continued rule just for the sake of power. Heff01 19:31, 22 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I agree totally. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.12.209.70 (talk) 10:19, 30 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Misalignment between ancient Egyptian and Biblical timelines[edit]

There seems to be a pretty noticeable discrepancy between the timelines for Ancient Egypt [3] and Old Testament Israel [4] of approximately half a century. By the time the Israelites made their Exodus, Philistia, Edom, and the Canaanite nations were already independent of Egyptian rule. The Biblical God would not have directed such an exodus if Canaan were still under Egyptian rule. I'm not positive which timeline is more on point. It doesn't look right having the example of Egypt being driven back to the Sinai Peninsula with a later time than Israel under the Judges, but the order must be logically correct. Heff01 14:40, 3 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Finland[edit]

Can Finland really be considered a rump state form the Winter War to after the Continuation War? Axeman89 15:35, 20 January 2007 (UTC) After the Winter War but not during the Continuation War. Finland was at its peak during early successes in the latter but resumed its rump state condition once the Soviets gained the upper hand. Heff01 03:44, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Would that be before or after Finland became the only country ever to beat the Soviet Union in a war? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.49.77.67 (talk) 11:08, 14 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This is ridiculous[edit]

i deleted some of the more ridiculous cases from the post-wwii list. this page seems to be a personal project of user Heff01, who wants to list anything that might even remotely be considered a "rump state". i suspect the pre-wwii lists need equal of more pruning. Heff01, *please* keep this page encyclopedic and try to only list clear cases. remember that "rump state" is a subjective term. remember that statements need to be sourced. Benwing 22:15, 22 January 2007 (UTC) This criticism is ridiculous. History is replete with hundreds of examples of rump states. I didn't start the list, but have greatly expanded it. I use map (when possible) or text links whenever any exist online. Heff01 19:29, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Benwing is correct this list needs a great deal more pruning (not to mention some actual citations). (RookZERO 02:22, 23 May 2007 (UTC))[reply]
I had no idea there were so many of these!! Brutannica 00:21, 26 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Russia[edit]

Post-USSR Russia was wrongly deleted. Once the USSR broke up into its 15 constituent "republics," Russia was bereft of almost 25% of its area, almost half of its population, and a sizable share of natural resources. Russia today is on life support as an economic power. Ask any educated Russian whether he thinks that his nation is a rump state. Chances are that he feels the economic pinch enough to nod his head. Heff01 00:49, 18 February 2007 (UTC) That's only true if Russia was still claiming to be the Soviet Union (as opposed to its successor state - which is a different thing entirely). Russia was not bereft of almost 25% of its area, etc. because Russia was a constituent of the Soviet Union and the government of Russia after the dissolution of the USSR was not the remnant government of the Soviet Union and Russia still had the same area before and after the USSR (Ukraine, Belarus and the other republics were not a part of Russia, they were a part of the Soviet Union, just like Russia was). If the Netherlands broke up today, then Holland would not be a rump state since it was a constituent of the Netherlands, just like the other provinces (provided that the government of the Netherlands did not continue to rule Holland and claim that Holland was the Netherlands). The Soviet government completely disbanded itself, Gorbachev did not continue to rule as the Russian president, Yeltsin did (and Yeltsin's government was in power before the fall of the USSR, and since Yeltsin's government had authority over the same area before and after the dissolution, then it cannot be a "rump" state). Whether or not the majority of Russians feel that their country is a rump state, that doesn't constitute proof that Russia fits the definition of a rump state as outlined in the introduction of the article (just as how if the majority of the world's population were to one day feel that America was becoming a dictatorship wouldn't mean that America was a dictatorship).72.27.85.108 16:36, 3 March 2007 (UTC) 72.27.85.108 hit the nail on the head. (RookZERO 02:11, 23 May 2007 (UTC))[reply]

However, those former Soviet Republics were part of the Russian Empire prior to the Communist Revolution. One could, perhaps, say that Russia under the Soviet Union was a rump state, with its former possessions being (nominally) co-equal members of the USSR, but in reality, the Soviet Union was, effectively, Russia. So, I think it does make some sense to refer to modern Russia as a rump state, assuming that a loss of ~25% of territory is enough to count as a rump state (I'm not sure that would be enough) Nik42 18:48, 28 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, I was thinking the same thing as in the original comment, when I first saw this page (which was apparently after Russia was deleted). The root issue here is that the criterion for "rump"-hood does not appear to be well-defined or well-sourced. A rump state, as per the usage I've seen of it, is one of the lingering remnants of a larger state, where "larger" can mean territory, economic power, military power, influence, population or a combination thereof. It is usually used in the context where the larger former state have dissolved and appears to have done so for good, with the remaining state(s) being all that's left. An example (not included in the list) is the Byzantine Empire itself as a rump state of the Roman Empire; particularly in its later stages, and it is referred to as a rump state, in its later stages, even of its former self, in the Encyclopedia of World History (William Langer (Ed.), Houghton Mifflin Harcourt Publishing Company, 5th edition, 1973/11). With an economy smaller than Canada's (going by GDP) and a population barely as large as Japan's or Mexico's - compared to the USSR which was #1 in area and #3 in population, Russia certainly falls in that category by this precedent of usage. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2603:6000:AA4D:C5B8:0:3361:EAF8:97B7 (talk) 23:39, 30 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

origional research and associated crap[edit]

I didn't put the origional research tag on, but whoever did was right. Most of these assertions are uncited at best and outright wrong at worst. Some of the citations I have checked are dead links, only go to link farms or are wikipedia maps. I am not enough of an expert to be able to verify or refute every item on this list, but the ones that appear clearly wrong and are not cited I'm going to deleted. (RookZERO 02:18, 23 May 2007 (UTC))[reply]

Unless I see one that I missed, I'm through pruning for now. I've left in several that are debatable, as well as several that I really don't know enough about to form a conclusion. (RookZERO 17:17, 23 May 2007 (UTC))[reply]
This entire article comprises original research, since the author of the article cites no particular source in deciding which states throughout history are and are not rump states. Still, it is a very impressive list, and though it is a work of original research, it is well-done research. Too bad, therefore, that it does not belong on Wikipedia, because I intend to save the list for reference. --70.131.120.11 (talk) 09:54, 30 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Liquidated?[edit]

I don't know about anyone else, but in my experience, "liquidated" is mostly a financial term, used to describe the liquidation of somebody's assets. Liquidation, as far as I know, means the exchanging of property for money. That is, property is a solid, while cash is a liquid, and other economic metaphors. Wouldn't disestablished, or dissolved, or conquered be more appropriate word choices? 75.111.50.34 15:12, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Removal of Spurious Additions[edit]

This list is full of rather specious examples. As someone who first expanded the article toward its current ungainly proportions, I'd suggest some of the "rump states" listed here are stretches at best. If anyone has particular issue with any of the ones I've removed, I'd be happy to explain my rationale in more detail. hellenica 19:30, 8 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Former colonial powers[edit]

Unresolved
 – Gordon Ecker (talk) 04:11, 26 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Should former colonial powers be considered rump states? Many of them lost considerable amounts of long-held territory, often due to rebellion. -- Gordon Ecker (talk) 09:36, 23 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No, a colony is not formally a part of the 'mother land'. Only when the colonies had been made into integral parts (provinces) with equal rigths (as was done with the Portuguese colonies, the remaining former colonial power may be considered a rump state after the independence of the overseas territories. Rump Bass (talk) 02:46, 30 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Successor states[edit]

Unresolved
 – Gordon Ecker (talk) 04:11, 26 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Should a successor state be considered a rump state if it is' predecessor held a significantly larger territory, like the Ottoman Empire and the Republic of Turkey or the Soviet Union and the Russian Federation? -- Gordon Ecker (talk) 09:36, 23 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I think so. Rump Bass (talk) 03:35, 30 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

East and West Germany[edit]

I have removed the unsourced references to post-World War II East Germany and West Germany from the list. Neither were even remotely rump states within the meaning of the article. While there were minor and symbolic limitations on the sovereignty of the two Germanies based on such things as the Four-Power Agreement, each was a fully-fledged state with full government authority over its territory, control of its borders and infrastructure, taxation, judicial system, and personal jurisdiction over its citizens. One historical development strongly confirming this fact is that after reunification, the resulting state remained the Federal Republic of Germany - the same legal entity; a new state was not created. In the case of East Germany, its status was no different than that of Poland, Hungary, Czechoslovakia, or Bulgaria, during the era of the Soviet-led Warsaw Pact. Those regimes are not listed here, and neither should East Germany. --MCB (talk) 06:52, 7 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Reunified Germany was the same legal entity as West Germany, the Bundesrepublik Deutschland (Federal Republic of Germany), East Germany was the Deutsche Demokratische Republik (German Democratic Republic). Also, unlike Poland, Hungary, Czechoslovakia or Bulgaria, East Germany lost about 2/3 of its' pre-war territory to West Germany and West Germany lost about 1/3 of its' territory to East Germany. -- Gordon Ecker (talk) 23:28, 27 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Visigothic Iberia[edit]

"Visigothic Iberia from AD 526 until its Islamic conquest in 718. [21] See also Umayyad conquest of Hispania." That can be hardly correct because the post-526 state was actually larger than the pre-526, as the Goths were able to conquer the Byzantine province of Ispania and even had established an outpost in Ceuta by the year 600. Unstable and largely unpopular, yes. Rump, no. If it is considered rump the post-Napoleonic Russian Empire should be considered "rump" too, as it faced similar problems.--150.244.23.134 (talk) 14:15, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Fictional rump states[edit]

Unresolved
 – Gordon Ecker (talk) 04:11, 26 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Should we add a section on notable fictional rump states, such as the Star Wars' Imperial Remnant or Battlestar Galactica's Twelve Colonies? -- Gordon Ecker (talk) 23:08, 27 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No. Why should we? Rump Bass (talk) 03:28, 30 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

American Civil War[edit]

Would the Civil War era Union and count as a rump state? It was the same legal entity as the pre-war and post-war USA, and during the war, it lost considerable territory due to the Confederacy's secession. -- Gordon Ecker (talk) 23:45, 27 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I think so, since the CSA de facto was a new state comprised of stetes which had willfully left the Union. Rump Bass (talk) 03:37, 30 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
what constitutes a "remnant" of the former country? The Union was more than 50% of the original land, and the majority of the GNP. Furthermore, the secession was never acknowledged as legal by the U.S. or the world at large, and was revoked after 4 years, so I vote no. Nerfer (talk) 18:50, 14 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Territory loss[edit]

Unresolved
 – Gordon Ecker (talk) 04:11, 26 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Does territory loss count as limited power or authority? The example at the start of the article, the Seleucid Empire, strongly implies that it does, as it only mentions territory loss. -- Gordon Ecker (talk) 23:45, 27 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, this is the most common and obvious form of a rump state - the loss of territory. The rmp state has of course lost the power and authority over the lost territory. Rump Bass (talk) 02:54, 30 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Colonies[edit]

Britain is listed on the list, but what about other large colonial powers like France and the Netherlands? They once occupied a much larger territory. Should former colonies really be considered rump states? Or should the loss of the colony be considered a restoration of the natural borders? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.123.200.31 (talk) 17:47, 8 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I think they should, they keep getting removed by editors who don't seem to want to discuss the inclusion criteria. -- Gordon Ecker (talk) 05:35, 30 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I think the key differentiator here is if the "mainland" still claims to be the legitimate ruler/authority/sovereign of the "separated territories". If a colony gains independence and this is recognized/not objected/undisputed by the former colonial power, then the former colonial power is not a "rump state". So, Britain, France, etc. should not be in the list of current rump states (but maybe in some historical moment they were such). Alinor (talk) 07:33, 27 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
No, a colony is not formally a part of the 'mother land'. Only when the colonies had been made into integral parts (provinces) with equal rigths (as was done with the Portuguese colonies), the remaining former colonial power may be considered a rump state after the independence of the overseas territories. Rump Bass (talk) 02:47, 30 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Cyprus, Palestine, Sahrawi, Moldova, Azerbaijan - missing[edit]

  • Cyprus is without TRNC (secession/military occupation/invasion)
  • Palestine is without Gaza (civil war)
  • Sahrawi Republic is without the Moroccan-held territory (invasion/military occupation)
  • Moldova is without Transinistria (secession/military occupation)
  • Azerbaijan is without Nagorno-Karabakh (secession/military occupation) Alinor (talk) 14:29, 23 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • official Afghanistan (Northern Alliance) during Taleban rule (civil war)

I propose that we split the "since WWII" section in two: "since WII historical" (named appropriately) and "current rump states" Alinor (talk) 20:39, 23 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Palestine is a disputed state and the gaza strip may or may not be considered a rump state
  • Sahrawi Republic is also not a recognised state and has never held the part which is ruled by Morocco, so it's not a rump state.
  • Transnistria is such a small part of Moldavia that I wouldn't count the remainding Moldavia as a rump state. Transnistria is also not recognised.
  • Nagorno-Karabach is such a small part of Azerbazjan that I wouldn't count the remaining Azerbadzjan as a rump state. The Armenian conquest is also not recognised.
  • Shifting frontiers during a civil war is of its nature very temporary and can hardly be considered the making up of a rump state. An exception could be when the break-away part de facto appears as another independent state (like the CSA in the American Civil War, making the USA a rump state) and not as a rival government within the existing state. This was not the case in Afghanistan.
  • Cyprus is the only example of yours which I think has some merit, because the situation there has been unshifted for so long that it is de facto permanent.
Rump Bass (talk) 03:12, 30 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Very bold edit - trimming down[edit]

Hi!

I'm going to remove many of the states in the list - since I believe they do not fit the definition in the article. The definition at this moment is "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". I submit it toy you that the key operative word here is "remnant". A state which lost a province (like Moldova) but continues to function and whose geopolitical agenda is larger than the recovery (or pining for) the lost province is not a rump state!

Taiwan fits perfectly in this category, could you provide more info, why removing Taiwan? Taiwan is officially called Republic of China, who controlled the whole China until 1949. As now, Taiwan still use old Chinese Constitution, old Chinese Passport, and old Chinese national anthem. It has never official claimed to be a different state either. 128.177.165.78 (talk) 01:38, 9 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
A content needs to be supported by reliable sources so that it can be included in a Wikipedia article. --Matt Smith (talk) 02:26, 9 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Also, I think we need to differentiate between long and short periods of rumpness but that's a question for another time. (Example: both South and North Korea were rumps at particular short moments. Do they belong in the same category as long-time rumps as Taiwan?) 85.64.2.164 (talk) 07:42, 19 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This is me, forgot to log in, sorry! Bazuz (talk) 07:43, 19 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with Bazuz. States which only lost a small part of its territory don't fit the definition. For example, the British Empire, after Irish independence, still controlled a large share of Earth surface and population and can't be seen as a rump state according to the definition.--Pere prlpz (talk) 17:11, 3 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Libyan Arab Jamahiriya[edit]

Can Libya under Muammar Gaddafi between the battle of Tripoli and his death be considered a rump state? 189.123.2.223 (talk) 18:07, 11 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Not really. It was a temporary situation during a civil war. The state was the same, with the same borders., but there was fight over the power within it. I think a rump situation means that the new, smaller state is, or at least should appear to be, somewhat permanent. Rump Bass (talk) 02:51, 30 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Sudan[edit]

Isn't Sudan a rump sate now due to the indepdence of South Sudan? 70.179.36.58 (talk) 08:30, 9 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Shifting frontiers during a war[edit]

When a country loses territory during a war, I think this cannot really be counted as creating a rump state, unless the territorial loss is made more or less permanent with the outcome of the war. So I would like to delete the whole section called "During World War II". Rump Bass (talk) 03:31, 30 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Mongol Empire[edit]

Include Mongol Empire, please. --87.21.89.143 (talk) 22:04, 28 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Is the Syrian Arab Republic a Rump State?[edit]

I was wondering if the Syrian Arab Republic inder Bashar al-Assad could be considered a rump state. Obviously the war is still occurring, but many others have claimed that it is: http://www.reuters.com/article/2015/06/30/us-mideast-crisis-syria-israel-idUSKCN0PA0UQ20150630

And look at the control map: The Syrian Government controls less than half of what it did before the war: https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/6/61/Syria_and_Iraq_2014-onward_War_map.png

Additionally, the Iraqi government could be considered a rump state due to the Islamic State's occupation of most of Anbar province and parts of Salahuddin and Nineveh provinces. Pbfreespace3 (talk) 19:34, 4 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Whole lotta original research going on[edit]

I've tagged at least one section as not being well-referenced enough. I am going to wait a week (hoping that explicit references are forthcoming) before removing any unreferenced items from the list. We as editors do not get to make the determination of what qualifies as a rump state; we use reliable sources for that. The clock is ticking, - Jack Sebastian (talk) 22:04, 1 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I can see that I have to offer notice again. When I revert, I will direct people to the talk page. Without specific and explicit referncing from Reliable Sources, we cannot include any entry. This means that anyone seeking to defend any entry as a rump state needs to provide supporting references to do so. Otherwise, they are going to start disappearing. And they will not return until a reference is provided. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 11:51, 3 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

== The Southern Cherokee Nation and The Red Fire People, a Recognized International Independent Neutral Nation and State. Not a BIA surrendered member under U.S. Title 25 Indian Law, but rather an independent recognized sovereign enclave. == CORRECTION: Many sources supporting and recognized by several international states as a state. Search: www.scnrfpgov.com Seach: https://sites.google.com/site/southerncherokeenationredfire/international-independent-recognized-sovereign-nation-and-state See Attachments Per This Webpage Link. There are many other sources as well, just ask 706-973-7508

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on List of rump states. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

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

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • 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.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 10:27, 11 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on List of rump states. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • 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.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 06:23, 23 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Merge with Rump state[edit]

Why is this a separate article? Let's just merge this with rump state. Richard75 (talk) 19:32, 21 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

?[edit]

I read a discussion further up the talk page on why Russia was removed from this list as "Russia is not claiming to be the Soviet Union". So, why is Turkey listed when they don't claim to be the Ottoman Empire? Also, why isn't the Republic of China included on this list? It certainly meets the definition of a rump state. ミーラー強斗武 (StG88ぬ会話) 23:40, 22 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The Republic of China has been included in the 20th century section. I had just modified the phrasing to make it noticeable. --Matt Smith (talk) 01:18, 23 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

When is a rump state not a rump state? When reliable sources don't call it such[edit]

I've removed all of the 20th century instances of supposed rump states because in no instance did a reliable source call it that. We cannot simply point to a map and call it such; as editors, we are not citable as sources. Before I go through the rest of the article's sources more carefully, I want to make sure that every other contributor here understand that if we don't have a RS indisputably calling such and such a rump state, we cannot include it. Its that simple. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 06:13, 4 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I guess i wasn't clear before. If you make an entry, make very sure that the source explicitly refers to it as a rump state, because we as editors are not allowed to make that determination. I've just spent a bit of time removing entrants without proper sourced claims, and I'll bet it was a lot less time than someone who added the entry with an inadequate source. I'd urge whoever is active in this article to make sure the source qualifies the entry as a rump state, or it will just get removed, wasting their time. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 23:17, 14 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 6 external links on List of rump states. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • 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.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 05:16, 20 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Maps as sources - I'll wait a week[edit]

I've removed a significant number of entries that use a map (by itself) as a source. A map requires us (as editors) to evaluate whether or not it is a rump state; since our opinions as to whether something classifies as a runp state cannot be used (as per WP:OR), the examples cannot remain in tha article. Find reliable sources that explicitly call these entries such, and we're golden. A map isn't going to cut it. I will wait one week, and then cull any map-only entry I find. We cite sources, not synthesize them. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 23:20, 2 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Ukraine[edit]

Clearly a rump state now - whatever is left if it, that is 2A00:23C8:28E:1C01:3C09:B935:232E:BF15 (talk) 16:29, 31 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Unless you possess a crystal ball, we should probably wait until the dust settles on that conflict. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 21:38, 31 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Al-Andalus[edit]

I mean, it was the Umayyad state that existed for several decades after the Umayyad Caliphate fell. Everyone could consider it to be the leftovers of The Umayyads long lost empire. Cheezpuffsinator (talk) 22:44, 14 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Nicea and Eripus[edit]

Those were rump states after the Latin Empire was formed. Prove me wrong. Cheezpuffsinator (talk) 23:32, 14 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:List_of_rump_states&oldid=1203683299"