Talk:Territory

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

This article is or was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Lilyb283.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 04:06, 18 January 2022 (UTC)

Neutrality of "occupied territory" section

This sentence, "An example of an occupied territory is Palestine after the Nakba of 1948 ..." does not meet Wikipedia's standard of neutrality. The UN does not consider Israeli territory pre-1967 to be an occupation. The use of "nakba" to refer to the 1948 Arab-Israeli war may indicate that the author advocates a partisan narrative. I will edit this sentence to replace this example with a less controversial one. Jprg1966 (talk) 06:30, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

Requested move

The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: Moved to Territory (subdivision). Also created redirect to there from Territory (political subdivision). CsDix (talk) 19:30, 5 December 2012 (UTC)

---

Territory (country subdivision) → Territory (political subdivision) – A territory is not necessarily a country subdivision, for example an occupied territory is sometimes a full fledged country that just happens to be occupied at the time (e.g. Japan). Emmette Hernandez Coleman (talk) 21:23, 15 November 2012 (UTC)

• Support as country is ambiguous and the proposers suggestion is more encompassing. Zarcadia (talk) 07:40, 16 November 2012 (UTC)
• Suggestion. Since it could be either country or political (or maybe something else), make it "Territory (subdivision)"? 213.246.91.158 (talk) 08:28, 16 November 2012 (UTC)

That would work as well. Zarcadia (talk) 16:45, 16 November 2012 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

Proposed merges

I propose to merge the short Capital territory and Overseas territory articles here, as they are all aspects of the general proposition. bd2412 T 02:23, 1 January 2015 (UTC)

Good idea. I suggest you go ahead. Apuldram (talk) 15:29, 27 April 2015 (UTC)

Done. I have added a proposal to merge Territory (subdivision) here also. It is another short and long-undeveloped article, and I really can't see any point of distinction between these articles. bd2412 T 15:49, 27 April 2015 (UTC)

Theory of

I removed the following from the page because it is really a separate topic:

Theory of Territory was formerly regarded as the natural jurisdiction of a political unit. Over the past three decades this position has been widely revised in social scientific theory. Robert Sack conceptualised human territoriality as a powerful political strategy and theorised political territory as one such instance of this type of strategy. In the field of International Relations, John Ruggie argued that territoriality was the organizing principle for modern international politics and could be contrasted with medieval heteronomous orders. Following Ruggie, a number of works have sought to explain how territory became the dominant principle of European international relations and/or question his broadly Westphalian chronology of the modern territorial order. Stuart Elden's work on the 'Birth of Territory' is the latest example of an attempt to critically interrogate the historical foundations of 'territory' as a distinctly modern idea

However, this is good material that should be preserved somewhere in Wikipedia where it is relevant. bd2412 T 14:36, 25 June 2015 (UTC)

References

Dubious

Dependent territories may include Federal Dependencies of Venezuela, Carriacou and Petite Martinique, Prince Edward Islands, and Plazas de soberanía. The definition of dependent territory given in the article is not in the source provided. DrKay (talk) 14:22, 28 November 2020 (UTC)

What you said is very wrong. Dependent territories (aka external territories) are political entities which are not integral parts of their parent states. They are similar to sovereign states except their defence and foreign affairs are controlled by their parent states. In the case of the Cook Islands and Niue, they have full treaty-making capacity within the UN System, defence is the only aspect they are still dependent on their parent state. Territories like the Federal Dependencies of Venezuela, Carriacou and Petite Martinique, the Prince Edward Islands, and Plazas de soberanía etc. are domestic territories (aka internal territories). They are governed just like any other general subnational administrative divisions, such as states, provinces, and autonomous regions etc. 120.16.220.60 (talk) 15:23, 28 November 2020 (UTC)

BOTs

Which source says there are 13 British overseas territories? DrKay (talk) 14:51, 28 November 2020 (UTC)

All eight Antarctic claims made by seven different sovereign states haven been frozen by the Antarctic Treaty. The original signatories of this Treaty include all seven claimant states. When WP:NPOV is applied, all these territories shall be described as territorial claims rather than actual territories. Hence, there are 13 BOTs. The article Dependent territory has clearly set an example for this. 120.16.220.60 (talk) 15:37, 28 November 2020 (UTC)

So, no source then? DrKay (talk) 15:39, 28 November 2020 (UTC)

You can ask for sources to be inserted after every sentence written by someone in Wikipedia, but you shouldn't ignore the consistency in information compiled by the community across various articles. Most of the time, you can do a bit of research yourself instead of just asking for sources. In most cases, this consistency has been kept for a reason. 120.16.220.60 (talk) 16:12, 28 November 2020 (UTC)

It says 14 elsewhere on wikipedia[1][2][3]. DrKay (talk) 15:58, 28 November 2020 (UTC)

Yes, but these are British articles. A proper way is to insert some notes in these articles saying the British Antarctic claim has not been universally recognised by the international community. For other articles, especially those articles concerning global issues and/or containing international stats, WP:NPOV must be applied. 120.16.220.60 (talk) 16:12, 28 November 2020 (UTC)

As required by WP:NPOV, "All encyclopedic content on Wikipedia must be written from a neutral point of view (NPOV), which means representing fairly, proportionately, and, as far as possible, without editorial bias, all the significant views that have been published by reliable sources" [my emphasis]. If thirteen is not a published view, it cannot go in the article, and even if it was, it would have to balanced by the view that there are fourteen. DrKay (talk) 16:18, 28 November 2020 (UTC)

The Antarctic treaty deliberately avoids taking a position on existing territorial claims. It states "Nothing contained in the present Treaty shall be interpreted as a renunciation by any Contracting Party of previously asserted rights of or claims to territorial sovereignty in Antarctica". What it did do is ban new claims. CMD (talk) 16:29, 28 November 2020 (UTC)

The Treaty was written that way in order to avoid any potential conflict escalation among the claimant states. Three of the claimant states have made overlapping claims, which makes any attempt to "rationalize" a claim in a Wikipedia article even more controversial. We should never do that. 120.16.220.60 (talk) 16:56, 28 November 2020 (UTC)

There are competing claims on quite a few BOTs, the Antarctic one is not unique in this regard. We are not rationalising anything here, but as DrKay says simply reflecting the preponderance of reliable sources. CMD (talk) 17:07, 28 November 2020 (UTC)

Those are disputed territories. Antarctic claims are frozen disputed territorial claims, the validity of these sovereignty claims have been largely unrecognized by the international community. 120.16.220.60 (talk) 17:20, 28 November 2020 (UTC)

This is an article published by the Australian government:

WHO OWNS ANTARCTICA?

Quote:

"People from all over the world undertake research in Antarctica, but Antarctica is not owned by any one nation.

Antarctica is governed internationally through the Antarctic Treaty system."

Even though Australia is the country which made the biggest Antarctic claim, the Australian government still admits that Antarctica is an international territory not owned by any one nation. Futhermore, both Australia and NZ's Antarctic territories were gifted by the British government. If the British government were serious about their Antarctic claim, they surely wouldn't gift 42% of Antarctica to Australia. Wouldn't they? 120.16.220.60 (talk) 19:08, 28 November 2020 (UTC)

Revert of power resources claim

In the reverted edit of 16 February 2020, "territory" was defined to be an area from which power resources were extracted, quoted from "Space is Power: The Seven Rules of Territory". This is really a specific case of the observation that all resources of an occupied territory may be subject to expropriation by the occupying sovereign country. I think this is already implied, but if we need a source, it should be one that is general and not specific to extraction of power resources. Fabrickator (talk) 19:34, 28 May 2023 (UTC)

Fabrickator I don't have access to that source right now for verification. Like you, for me the confusing word I would most like to double check is "power" as everything else would had read correctly without that word there. However, sometimes editors --in their quest to avoid plagiarism-- unintentionally rephrase information in a manner that stops being a reflection of the original text. For example, in your own rephrasing here you changed the (16 February 2020) original editor's entry from "from which a state may extract power resources" to "from which power resources were extracted", unintentionally leading the reader (me, in this case) to believe that was a former use of the term Territory, that is, a use that is now obsolete, yet the editor's original reading states it in a way that "Territory" is interpreted as a term currently used to refer to an area from which a state can extract [power] resources now, today. Mercy11 (talk) 05:35, 29 May 2023 (UTC)

Mercy11 To be clear, there's no doubt that the source refers to power (presumably referring to a store of energy). This is really the thesis of the book, as suggested by the book's title, i.e. a country that acquires a territory, i.e. space, will benefit from the energy that can be extracted from it, but this is implied by the more general fact that an occupying country is able to extract resources of whatever type. For purposes of establishing the definition, the more general term would be more appropriate. As the Wikipedia article was written, "power" would become part of the definition of territory, thus where I take exception. Fabrickator (talk) 08:04, 29 May 2023 (UTC)

I am not saying it doesn't refer to that. I am saying I don't have the source to review it for myself. You are going by the book's title, but I am not; like my dear old grandmother used to say "You can't judge a book by its cover"! Regards, Mercy11 (talk) 23:31, 31 May 2023 (UTC)