User talk:User02062000

List of sovereign states and dependent territories in Oceania
Thanks for your edit in List of sovereign states and dependent territories in Oceania. I have introduced changes to the list's organization that I believe reflect the consensus better. Let me know what you thin. Ladril (talk) 00:34, 21 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Thank you for your change! I think this change is very important, because CI/Niue were incorrectly placed into dependent territories section. User02062000 (talk) 05:07, 21 July 2013 (UTC)

And also I think we can "make" CI/Niue sovereign on such pages as List of sovereign states and dependent territories by continent. CI/Niue are considered non-sovereign there! What you think? User02062000 (talk) 05:27, 21 July 2013 (UTC)
 * That page has a different organizational logic, and getting consensus for a change may be tricker. Let's wait a little bit to see how well this change is accepted. Ladril (talk) 12:45, 21 July 2013 (UTC)

OK. User02062000 (talk) 12:53, 21 July 2013 (UTC)

Hi. Thanks for your edits to List of sovereign states and dependent territories in Oceania. I keep reverting your edits because they are not accurate. Three states in the first section are also associated states: Palau, Micronesia and the Marshall Islands. This is why the talk page discussion resulted in the current consensus. Once again, please do not try to force your changes, but follow process and engage in talk page discussion before substantially changing the labels on the page. Ladril (talk) 19:00, 21 January 2014 (UTC)

Hi. Yeah, it's right. If you won't oppose I'll only change a note that CI/Niue are "sovereign". Of course, they are far more independent than a dependency, but politically they never considered themselves independent and sovereign, aren't they? I'll change this, and also I offer you to think on the sections' names. I thinks names aren't very correct... User02062000 (talk) 15:25, 22 January 2014 (UTC)
 * CI and Niue want to be recognized both as associated states and as sovereign states. They have sought - and achieved - such recognition by states such as India and Japan. This note may also shed some light on the issue: . Ladril (talk) 21:14, 27 January 2014 (UTC)
 * yeah, but they don't consider themselves as sovereign states... But your edit on list of Oceanian countries is really usable! I hope it will be enough for this moment. User02062000 (talk) 15:52, 28 January 2014 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure it can be argued that they "do not consider themselves as sovereign states" when they have expressly accepted this designation from other states. The evidence suggests they play both sides of the fence. Ladril (talk) 16:33, 28 January 2014 (UTC)

They're independent in their affairs, and this ability makes them de facto independent countries. Thus other countries can recognize them to have relations. CI/Niue consider themselves freely associated states, not more. They are independent-like autonomies. User02062000 (talk) 17:53, 28 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Once again, the evidence I have suggests that even that is ambiguous. But designating them as associated states not members of the United Nations seems adequate for encyclopedic purposes, so let's do that. Ladril (talk) 14:46, 29 January 2014 (UTC)
 * I've changes the first section in the list. I hope you'll agree that section includes only sovereign states, but, as you've said there are states in Compact of Free Association in this section. Thus I hadn't renamed the second section.User02062000 (talk) 13:03, 29 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Sorry, but I did not find that change acceptable. We have to avoid leaning too much in either direction of the "CI/Niue are (not) sovereign" pendulum in order to maintain a neutral point of view. Your section title implies the CI and Niue are not sovereign, which as we have seen in years of research and discussion, is not an accurate representation of the facts. Ladril (talk) 14:46, 29 January 2014 (UTC)

They are de facto sovereign, not de jure. I think on this list we must represent states upon de jure point (if not, Palestine shouldn't be included in list of Asian states). What do you think about?User02062000 (talk) 19:16, 29 January 2014 (UTC)
 * That it is impossible to achieve from an encyclopedic viewpoint. What constitutes a de jure state? Being a member of the UN? China is not a de jure state from the perspective of Taiwan and other 22 states. Israel is also not a de jure state according to more than 30 states. But they are both UN members. So who is going to define who is a de jure state and who is not? Ladril (talk) 03:54, 30 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Being a UN member state or observer is the main criteria. A lot of our lists use this criteria, for example List of sovereign states and some others. The consensus is hat "internationally recognized" means "recognized by the UN" (the most of its members and accepted as a state in the UN). User02062000 (talk) 08:08, 31 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Editors discussed this whole UN thing a few years ago. While some felt that the UN was very interlinked with international law, others noted there was no de jure link (ironically). Anything de jure is a POV, as something being de jure hinges on there being a legal viewpoint to base this on. At any rate, Palestine is a UN observer state. CMD (talk) 10:58, 31 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Sorry, but that's not correct. If you review the discussion on the talk page at List of sovereign states, you'll find that the current setup was agreed to exactly to replace a setup based on recognition with one based on UN membership. There is no point in trying to define states as "internationally recognized" or "not recognized" because recognition is in the eye of the beholder. Ladril (talk) 16:13, 31 January 2014 (UTC)

OK, I agree. It's right.User02062000 (talk) 18:34, 31 January 2014 (UTC)

Bacteria
The idea that bacteria represent a Kingdom is outdated. The "traditional" classification scheme is outdated and is being rejected in favor of the three domains of life view proposed by Woese. The kingdom page has problems with it as it is describing outdated ideas. We now think there are several kingdoms. Any discussion of kingdom should happen on the kingdom page, but bacteria are a domain. I think that calling bacteria a kingdom only confuses readers who want to learn about the subject. Additionally, consensus in the sciences is that bacteria are a domain. Theropod (talk) 15:55, 1 March 2014 (UTC)
 * I think it is of course right and three-domain system is the most popular and modern nowadays. But what can you say about the page "Three-domain system"? In 1977 Woese himself proposed not only three domains but also 6 kingdoms amd this system is now used. You'll see that kingdom Archaebacteria is under its domain, kingdom Eubacteria is under domain Bacteria and 4 in Eukarya. User02062000 (talk) 19:01, 1 March 2014 (UTC)
 * The page three-domain system is wrong. Every small-branch in the cladogram at the top of the page represents a kingdom. I will change this page too. Thank you.(talk) Theropod (talk) 15:44, 2 March 2014 (UTC)

It is partially right, nevertheless traditional classification is still very much in use and is represented in many textbooks from many countries. You wanna say that Eukarya domain is divided into 4 (or more) kingdoms, while prokaryotes aren't? Again, I note that the traditional system is used in many authorities and sometimes is preferred instead of modern phylogenetic-based systems like Woese's. My position, there must be not only domains but kingdoms. For example, you can visit the website of Catalogue of Life and see classification system used there. Isn't it right? User02062000 (talk) 17:45, 2 March 2014 (UTC)