User talk:NikoSilver/Disputed regions - Summary style

This proposal is a result of a lengthy debate at Template talk:Countries of Europe

Related template: User:NikoSilver/Fictionlandia

Comments

 * I don't even know what you're talking about anymore. London is assuredly an integral part of England and England is assuredly an integral part of the United Kingdom--why aren't we calling these things Capital city of the United Kingdom London and Constituent country England?  As for your proposed sidebar, Self-declared Autonomous West Fictionlandia is a pretty ridiculous name, and here's why:
 * 1) The entity calls itself West Fictionlandia. It does not consider itself an autonomous entity.  Quebec is not named Non-independent Province of Quebec.  We name articles what they are here on Wikipedia.  We don't create our own names for things.  That's called Original Research.
 * 2) It's completely unsuitable for disambiguation. If disambiguation were needed (and it's not), it would likely be West Fictionlandia (Fictionlandia).
 * 3) Practically all countries are "self-declared"—Fictionlandia likely declared itself independent from the Union of Soviet Socialist Places in 1990. It's a completely unhelpful term.
 * 4) "Autonomous" is both wrong, and just as problematic as referring to the entity as an unrecognized country. It's wrong because the term is generally used to refer to entities which have been granted autonomy, and it's problematic because you can disagree about its applicability just as much as "unrecognized country".  To Fictionlandia, West Fictionlandia is the "Province of Far-vesten Fictionland"—it's certainly not considered autonomous.  That's Fictionlandian land, and its control rightfully belongs to the government of Fictionlandia! └ OzLawyer / talk ┐ 13:36, 9 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Ha ha! Thanks. I was thinking those seccessionist guys over at West Fictionlandia called their "country" as such (i.e. Autonomus W.F). But OK, we can change the example if you wish. The parallel about London is inapplicable, (should have paralleled it with... West Fictionlandioupolis :-)). About England vs UK, may I refer you to this map, England's intro sentence, and this article.
 * I'm aware of the complex history and divisions of the United Kingdom. However, I'm not sure I see what you're getting at here.  England, Scotland  and Wales are frequently called "countries" or "nations", and this is seen as NPOV.  But England, Scotland and Wales are not recognized by the United Nations as such.  They are internal divisions, in some respects like provinces, some like autonomous regions, and some like simple geographic designations. └ OzLawyer / talk ┐ 17:12, 9 November 2006 (UTC)
 * 'Self-declared' is another issue. I was thinking this word points to the non-recognition by others in a not-so-harsh way. I am open for suggestions to replace it. •N i k o S il v e r•  17:01, 9 November 2006 (UTC)
 * The only possible replacement is the name used by the people of the region in question (as translated into English if applicable). If South Ossetia is the name of the place in English, South Ossetia and South Ossetia alone must be the name of the article. └ OzLawyer / talk ┐ 17:12, 9 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Ummm, yes, that too. I just wanted to add a descriptor to signify unilateral/unrecognized action. See below... •N i k o S il v e r•  21:59, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

Disputed regions
Terrible term as well. "Disputed regions" can mean anything from situations where one guy says "I don't want to be part of Country X" to situations where an entire region is under complete military control of a body unrelated to the government of the country that the region is de jure a part of, and which has established parliamentary elections, competent governmental ministries, a working banking system, and basically everything a recognized country has minus the international recognition. You will have to limit the scope of this attempt to formulate policy to something much more workable. └ OzLawyer / talk ┐ 17:03, 9 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Thanks. I can't help being... Greek. Any proposal in mind? :-) •N i k o S il v e r•  17:04, 9 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Niko, I honestly hate to have to argue this way, but, really, the most apt designation for these places is still unrecognized countries (or states if you prefer—the term is really synonymous in this context). This article uses the term "unrecognized states" (as well as the more playful term "nonstate states" and the more vague "unrecognized entities"). └ <b style="color:blue;">OzLawyer</b> / <i style="color:black;">talk</i> ┐ 17:24, 9 November 2006 (UTC)


 * I really don't feel we're argueing here. Honestly, I find your recommendations very productive. Let's see where we get with this... So, to the point: I don't think that we can call them states if the only people that do that are themselves (the oppressed usually call them pseudostates). I think it would be POV (as pseudostates may be), although I am open for discussion. Now, I liked that playful nonstate states, and if entities is vague, then how about if we put the name of how the people there call it, the NPOV correct term Self-declared and we neither call them states nor pseudostates. That would bring us to e.g. Self-declared entity of West Fictionlandia. Does that clarify what they are supposed to be? •N i k o S il v e r•  21:59, 9 November 2006 (UTC)
 * I still don't find the term "self-declared" of any use, especially if it's not being used, as it isn't in your newly-proposed term, to show that the entity is what it is by its own decision and not by another country or body's decision. That is, West Fictionlandia is an entity--it doesn't need to be self-declared to be so.  It simply is.  I think I'd like these entities to simply be called "de facto countries" (or "states").  This term does not mean we are implying that they are de jure countries, nor does it mean we are giving any legitimacy to the countries other than what they have by virtue of existing.  One problem here is that there's a difference between having a neutral point of view and being politically correct.  We need to be neutral, but we don't need to strive for political correctness (and if political correctness in any way gets in the way of accuracy, we certainly have to reject it).  The UN, for instance, has real political correctness concerns in not using the term "country" or "state" to refer to the entities in question.  I'm sure, however, that an examination of the scholarly literature on the subject will show that the term "country" or "state" is used quite often (and most likely with the qualifier de facto).  This is because these entities really are de facto states.  If I have time, I'm going to try to do some searches for term use. └ <b style="color:blue;">OzLawyer</b> / <i style="color:black;">talk</i> ┐ 23:13, 9 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Thanks for trying to find scholarly definition. Let's just suppose for a sec that we've sorted out how we call them (we'll discuss that later and it needs more data and more users). What about the rest of the proposal? The main issues are:
 * Navigation side-bar in all related mother/daughter articles
 * 'Mother' article to be the de jure country.
 * 'Sub-article(s)' to be the de facto entities
 * What do you say? •N i k o S il v e r•  13:39, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Are you proposing that this replace the country infobox on these articles, or just supplementing it? I have no problem with this infobox you're proposing if it's simply a supplement to the very useful infobox already on these entities' articles. └ <b style="color:blue;">OzLawyer</b> / <i style="color:black;">talk</i> ┐ 15:03, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

It is unrelated to any country-nav-box. It is a totally different issue. Please observe the three bullets and respond, especially about the hierarchy of the articles. •N i k o S il v e r• 15:27, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
 * As I said, if it doesn't replace the country infoboxes, your proposal (as stated above) is fine with me. └ <b style="color:blue;">OzLawyer</b> / <i style="color:black;">talk</i> ┐ 15:35, 13 November 2006 (UTC)