User:NikoSilver/Disputed regions - Summary style

Online encyclopedias' stances in listing de facto regions. Example: TRNC


 * Britannica doesn't have a separate article (search), but rather includes it as a sub-section in the article for the Republic of Cyprus. i.e. it has the following tree: Cyprus > History > The Republic of Cyprus > Establishment of an independent Turkish state (notice the name of the sub-section and its position under The Republic of Cyprus!)
 * Columbia, doesn't have a separate article for TRNC (search), but includes a small reference within the text of the article for Cyprus.
 * Encarta too. (search) Click the first reference to see that it is a small reference within the Cyprus article.

Also, the United Nations in their list of member and non-member states, do not include such entities at all.

Finally, most of these regions are not recognized by any other country in the world, apart usually from the oppressor/invader/seccessionist country/regime itself.

Therefore, both academic and international consensus suggests that disputed regions should be treated as part of their de jure (i.e. legal) nations. The fact that WP has article size limitations and needs separate mained out articles, doesn't mean that those articles could stand on their own if the respective mother article did not exist.

According to WP:NPOV, these POVs should be given the preminence they deserve proportionally to the academic and international consensus. Also, WP:SS and WP:POVFORK suggests that in splitting an article we shouldn't create forkish material.

This proposal is for a similar structure for all such cases in the likes of the sidebar to the right. Remember: we cannot decide (no matter how many polls we do) things on our own! If there is clear academic and international consensus, then WP cannot throw a poll and decide its own path. The proposed structure is already decided by independent, verifiable and reliable sources, the UN, and the vast majority of all others and no poll whatsoever can twist this (per WP:CON and Voting is evil).

Caution: This proposal does not aim to delete or merge or otherwise affect the existence of these separate articles. It aims only to show them within a broader set of articles, where the mother article is the non-disputed de jure part.