Talk:United Nations list of non-self-governing territories/Archive 1

Archive 1

Article name

I've renamed this page to reflect A) the actual name of the list, and B) a more NPOV about their status. Tverbeek 01:39, 30 May 2005 (UTC)

Thank you. That was actually on my list of plans for today.  :-) Tomer ^TALK 17:57, May 30, 2005 (UTC)

Sources needed

Unless several good external books/papers/official statements etc are quoted, the "controversy" is but original research. User:Ejrrjs says What? 22:41, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

http://theroyalgazette.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20050318/MIDOCEAN/103180143&SearchID=73235873091248.

One notable quote from it is:

"As far as the role of the UN in Bermuda's self-determination goes, I can't see where it has any role at all. This is a matter to be settled by the people of Bermuda and the United Kingdom government.

"We're a sophisticated jurisdiction that has already gone through this process as recently as ten years ago without the assistance of the UN."

Yesterday Dr. Gibbons said he had "no wish to get into the ring" with Bishop Lambe, but expressed concerns about the role of the UN committee.

"By definition, the UN Decolonisation Committee has a mandate to take colonies towards Independence," Dr. Gibbons said. "I'm concerned about the issue of balance.

"I have not seen invitations going out to groups that may have a different approach."

Dr. Gibbons also cited concerns about the message that that UN committee's visit would send to the world.

The article is about two divergent views - both by high-ranking political figures - on the on the UN Decolonisation Committee and its activities. Nitjanirasu 00:28, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

A few other articles, again, they mostly focus on the UN Decolonisation Committee itself (and with some of the more relevant quotes posted):

http://www.gibraltarnewsonline.com/2005/10/07/caruana-seeks-calls-for-un-resolution-to-reflect-reality/

In his address Mr Caruana rehearsed the traditional legal and political position he has presented to the Fourth Committee in the past: that it is absurd that Gibraltar is still a colony; that all want this resolved; that the modern realities should be judged by the C24 (UN Special Committee of 24 on Deconolization (C24)) in a visit to the Rock; that self-determination is the principle that applies not territorial integrity and; the overriding principle of democracy.

Mr Caruana asked the democracies represented how many of them could believe that Gibraltar should be decolonised in a manner other than that chosen by its people. In a striking phrase he even appealed to non-democratic regimes saying that this view should not be “anathema only to countries governed in accordance with the principles of democracy. Simple adherence to basic principles of human dignity and common sense would suffice to find that approach to our decolonisation equally contemptible.” ::::To go against this and hand over Gibraltar’s sovereignty was compared by Mr Caruana to slavery. Such “recolonisation” would “constitute a modern form of trafficking in human beings.”

http://www.gibraltarnewsonline.com/2005/10/07/bossano-rounds-on-moratinos-‘keep-your-nose-out’/

“However since you (the UN) do not in our case show the remotest interest in participating in the decolonisation process currently under way we will have to settle for second best,” he said adding that when the negotiations are finalised and a decolonisation referendum is held “we shall hold UK to its word” for delisting.

Mr Bossano compared the UN Fourth Committee(on Decolonisation) to the three wise monkeys – neither seeing, hearing nor speaking.

http://bizoffshore.com/blog/_archives/2005/4/17/590283.html

The remaining members of the Special Committee of 24 are: Antigua & Barbuda, Chile, China, Ivory Coast, Cuba, Ethiopia, Fij, Grenada, India, Indonesia, Iran, Iraq, Mali, Russia, St. Kitts & Nevis, St. Vincent & The Grenadines, Syria, Tunisia, Tanzania and Venezuela.

Imagine that - Bermuda is being advised on how to go independent by the likes of Cuba, Iran, Mali, Russia and Syria!

There are, of course, pro-UN Decolonisation Committee views as well. This would all, perhaps, be more suitable on a "UN Decolonisation Committee" article, but this one seems to be adopted such a role. Nitjanirasu 01:08, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

http://theroyalgazette.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20050719/OPINION/107190147&SearchID=73235877091122

The United Nations Committee on Decolonisation’s report on its visits to Bermuda demonstrated that the group brought very little to the table with regards to the debate.

The committee inaccurately stated that the Island has not been informed about its options outside of outright Independence or remaining as a largely self-governing overseas territory.

In fact, most Bermudians who have paid any attention to the debate at all over the last few years have been aware of the options.

But they are also aware that the United Kingdom has ruled out either having the Island become a “metropolitan” part of the UK or holding “associate” status which would see virtually no change from the current set-up and has never been anything more than a stepping stone to Independence.

The committee also felt Bermudians were uninformed about the possibility of its joining UN-affiliated organisations. Again, this is not exactly true. Bermuda has joined some of these groupings, notably the International Labour Organisation, and is aware that it could join others.

Finally, the committee stated the glaringly obvious when it said that Bermuda has historic racial divisions, which frequently came up at the public meetings the delegates attended.

http://theroyalgazette.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20050708/MIDOCEAN/107080130&SearchID=73235877091122

They also concluded that Bermudians had little knowledge of their political options under international law or of the international organisations the island could join right now.

The report states: "The Governor also expressed the view that the UK does not regard Bermuda as 'non-self-governing'. That point was questioned by several members of the delegation, who pointed to the relevant provisions of the Bermuda Constitution Order, which places significant power in the hands of the UK-appointed Governor, rather than the elected Government.

"The Governor emphasised that his powers, while extant and statutory, are not routinely exercised and, in a number of areas, have been delegated to the elected Government.

"It was the view of the Special Mission that such reserved powers are not consistent with a fully self-governing political status, as defined by international principles."

The Governor also told the Special Mission that the UK would not be offering the political options of free association or integration to the island.

That's all I've grabbed for the night. Nitjanirasu 01:31, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

I just found this amusingly ironic quote: "In 1968, Bermuda was granted internal self-government " from the Committee itself. http://www.un.org/Depts/dpi/decolonization/docs.htm Nitjanirasu 15:44, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

Copied over from the talk pages of User:Nitjanirasu and User:Ejrrjs:

In response to your request for external links to support the "controversy" mentioned in the article, I've dug up a few newspaper articles on the subject. Most of those describe more of a "we want to UN to butt out of our business" approach than people complaining that non-self-governing places aren't being included. They are also mostly aimed directly at the UN Decolonisation Committee than the list itself (though it is occassionally mentioned). And, of course, they aren't universally-held opinions.

In that case, it stands as original research as defined in Wikipedia and should be removed. User:Ejrrjs says What? 00:42, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

How is it original research?

From the Original Research guidelines:

Original research that creates primary sources is not allowed. However, research that consists of collecting and organizing information from existing primary and/or secondary sources is strongly encouraged. In fact, all articles on Wikipedia should be based on information collected from primary and secondary sources. This is not "original research", it is "source-based research", and it is fundamental to writing an encyclopedia. Nitjanirasu 01:04, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

P.S. I would prefer to continue this on the article's talk page itself, so that everything is compiled in one place and it isn't just a debate between us two (especially considering that I never started the "controversy" section) so I've copied all of this over there.

Inclusion of West Bank/Gaza Strip

Brokencords recently added the text:

(West Bank,Gaza strip)occupied territories by Israel.

under the new subtitle, Middle East

I reverted the edit, as I cannot find any sources on this (including on the Committee's webpage). Nitjanirasu 15:39, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

Puerto Rico

Whether or not Puerto Rico is a non-self-governing territory, it is not on the official UN list, which is the subject of this article. I suggest that P.R. be removed, and perhaps an explanation of the controversial nature of the list be added. Thoughts?

I agree. · rodii · 15:12, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

Purpose?

And the purpose of maintaining this list is?... 205.174.22.28 00:06, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

You should ask the UN, it's their list. If you mean the purpose of maintaining this article, it's because the UN list has been deemed notable enough to have an encyclopedia article. It's not some sort of politically-motivated effort on the part of Wikipedia, in case that's what you're thinking. · rodii · 15:12, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

Article XI of the U.N. Charter provides that administering countries have certain responsibilities toward the non-self-governing territories they administer. As indicated in content I just added to the article, the list was originally compiled to allow the U.N. to assess compliance with those responsibilities. In later years, the U.N. has pushed hard for "colonial countries and peoples" to be granted independence, and the list has been used for that purpose. Newyorkbrad 01:35, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

Names of French African territories

I am not certain but there may be an issue here with the names of the pre-Independence French African territories. I believe "French West Africa" and "French Equatorial Africa" included some of the regions listed separately (FWA ultimately became 8 countries and FEA 4). But I do not want to modify unilaterally because the names given (e.g. Ubangi-Shari, Guinea) are correct also. Thoughts?

Hmmm...yeah...I wondered about that too, when I saw the assertion that FWA was dropped from the list when Dahomey [now Benin] became independent. I'm not sure of the dates, but Dahomey was, by that name even, a part of FWA prior to independence...is it possible that Dahomey was the last area of FWA to gain independence, and that it remained on the list as FWA rather than Dahomey prior to independence? (Either because the list wasn't updated between the time the penultimate sector of FWA gained independence and Dahomey did, or because Dahomey was considered coextensive with FWA in the last stages, perhaps?) I don't have the list in its previous incarnations at my fingertips, but I noticed that one of the former inclusions was Sarawak, but I see nothing about Sabah. Is this an oversight, or was Sabah really never on the list? Tomer^talk 00:00, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

Sabah is listed under "North Borneo." As for the French African territories, I have figured out that the ambiguity originates in the version of the list on the UN's own website decolonization page listing the formerly non-self-governing territories (see: http://www.un.org/Depts/dpi/decolonization/trust2.htm ) in which some of the countries are listed as subheadings under FWA and FEA. Not sure whether we should do cleanup on the list on this page or let it stand. FYI, I believe that with the exception of Guinea (1958) all of FWA and FEA attained independence within a span of a couple of months in 1960. Newyorkbrad 01:35, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

History of the list

Is there any material on the history aspect of this list, for instance, when was it first compiled, and which countries were on the list? — Instantnood 11:58, 20 October 2005 (UTC)

I can't seem to create a permalink, but visit the United Nations website at www.un.org and search for the Decolonization page Newyorkbrad 00:07, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

Thanks so much. — Instantnood 17:52, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

Macau and Hong Kong inconsistency

The main text says that they were removed from the list on request of the PRC in 1972. The "Former entries" list says that they were removed on change of status (as far as I know, they didn't change status until returned to the PRC, which is not 1972) and specifically gives the date of 1997 for Hong Kong, which is the correct date for change of status but inconstent with the main text. Ken Arromdee 18:33, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

They were removed from the list in 1972, and the official designation/euphemism used within the United Nations was "change of status" (when the fact that they were formerly on the list is not omitted from the record altogether). What actually happened is that the People's Republic of China requested their removal and the British acquiesced. The actual change of status, as you point out, came much later. Newyorkbrad 00:01, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

Wallis & Futuna

What about Wallis & Futuna the French territory in the south pacific??? Shouldnt that be included??? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 60.234.197.21 (talk) 08:20, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

In 2003 it went from being a overseas territory (France) (territoire d'outre-mer, or TOM) to being an overseas collectivity (collectivité d'outre-mer, or COM). I think this is analogous to Puerto Rico's transformation into being a commonwealth, which is not quite a state. That is when I believe it had achieved sufficient self-determination to be removed from the list. :)--Thecurran (talk) 22:55, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

Headers

I've noticed several countries listed here have a link to this article in their headers (e.g. "The United Nations Committee on Decolonization includes Anguilla on the United Nations list of Non-Self-Governing Territories[2]."). Given the controversy about places that have been included and / or excluded from the list, is this appropriate? As I understood it, headers were meant for very broad and neutral facts that were largely agreed upon (e.g. "The French Republic or France (French: République française or France) is a country whose metropolitan territory is located in Western Europe, and which is further made up of a collection of overseas islands and territories located in other continents."). Weltall

This is an interesting point with valid arguments. I'd like to see more publication of the list but it is not in the header now. I compared the current version to a reverted one in June and found few differences here http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Anguilla&diff=238177947&oldid=217734142 . As such, it seems the will of editors there has been to keep it out of the header. Until I learn more, I will not change it back. :)--Thecurran (talk) 03:18, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

Republic of Ireland

How is the Republic of Ireland, which obtained independence in 1919 according to this list, on a list created in the 1940s? 62.25.106.209 09:54, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

Because User:Gurrelliaprophet has been vandalizing the page. I have added a warning on his talk page. -- (Shocktm | Talk | contribs.)

Should there be a section on this entry for places, like the northern counties of Ireland or Palestine, that are still under occupation but not on the list? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.148.94.200 (talk) 13:07, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

Should not get into speculating what is or is not to be added to what has already been recognized by the U.N. itself. Unless there was a credible source given to discussions done within the U.N. about this topic, only then could there be a section done on it. That-Vela-Fella 05:30, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

Northern Ireland has its own parliament and federal representation in the UK parliament. As with Talk:United Nations list of Non-Self-Governing Territories#Exclusion_of_Scotland_from_the_list, I think feel Northern Ireland deserves a more senatorial representation in UK government, but it is much more self-governing than territories on the list. Having Irish Diaspora on both sides of my family, preferring neutrality/pacifism, and preferring the Catholic Church over the Church of Ireland, it pains me to say this but Northern Ireland has it better than most of the world and further agitation has little to gain and could cost more bloodshed. With the growth of the EU, I hope to see Northern Ireland become just another part of Europe like the rest of the counties of Ireland. Apart from UK's intransigence from converting to euros, sporting events that separate Northern Ireland from the Republic of Ireland, and lower Gaelic education, Northern Ireland is kind of just a special part of the Republic of Ireland. Its citizens have the right to both Irish and British citizenships and thus can vote to influence both governments. :)-Thecurran (talk) 03:52, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

Northern Ireland has an assembly, but it is basically an example of British divide and rule, and a religiously sectarian state was maintained there for a number of years. People in the rest of the UK are well aware of the violence, but not the inherent religious discrimination, or the fact that the British government has played its part in stoking things up, not just the IRA. It should have never been separated from the rest of Ireland, IMHO.--MacRusgail (talk) 18:21, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

Some thoughts from Scartol

I want to congratulate the editors for this comprehensive list and the info it provides. I've not had much experience working with lists myself, so I'm going to ask WillowW to have a look – she's a sorceress with lists (and other things). Hopefully she can provide more thoughtful feedback than I. Here are some quick thoughts as I go through it.

• A set of criteria for determining whether a territory is to be considered "non-self-governing" was established in General Assembly Resolution 1541 (XV) of 1960. ... Also in 1960, the General Assembly adopted Resolution 1514 (XV), promulgating the "Declaration on the Granting of Independence to Colonial Countries and Peoples" These two sentences are referring to the same resolution, right? Should they be combined? (Also, is that hidden comment needed? Seems very obvious to me.)

• The Criticism section is desperately in need of citations. We need reliable sources demonstrating that these criticisms are common and as described in the article. I recommend at least one citation for each paragraph, and probably more, since most paragraphs contain several different criticisms. I don't think we need citations for each of the items in Independence, since those are in general easy to verify.

• For future reference: Any number less than 10 should be spelled out as a word.

Good luck with this; sorry I couldn't be more helpful. Let me know if you have other questions. Scartol • Tok 18:09, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

I'd like to move this section to Wikipedia:Peer review/United Nations list of Non-Self-Governing Territories/archive1 and plan to do so next week. I've responded with kudos to you on my talk page. :)--Thecurran (talk) 10:08, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

Another inconsistency...

Gibraltar and Ifni vs Ceuta and Melilla --MacRusgail (talk) 18:36, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

Ceuta, Melilla, and Gibraltar are mentioned above in Talk:United Nations list of Non-Self-Governing Territories#Gibraltar. I understand your comments but please remember that this is not a "Wikipedia list" but a "Wikipedia article" on a "UN list", so your comments should be addressed at the UN level before changing the article here. BTW, some of the things you talk about go beyond the scope of democratic representation to the "tyranny of distance" and are things that can only be expected in an economy of scale. These are global problems that hamper self-determination but effect almost every country on this planet to some degree and as such would make such a list nearly pointless. As technology increases though, expectations are sure to rise but please do not forget countries with low population densities or low development indices beforehand. :)--Thecurran (talk) 10:22, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

Image copyright problem with Image:ReunionFlag.gif

The image Image:ReunionFlag.gif is used in this article under a claim of fair use, but it does not have an adequate explanation for why it meets the requirements for such images when used here. In particular, for each page the image is used on, it must have an explanation linking to that page which explains why it needs to be used on that page. Please check

• That there is a non-free use rationale on the image's description page for the use in this article.
• That this article is linked to from the image description page.

This is an automated notice by FairuseBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. --07:20, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

Criticism section

This section seems pretty unclear to me, especially the last paragraph. What exactly is it trying to say? Someone with more knowledge on the subject needs to straighten it out. As for the rest of the section, maybe a couple of subsections might help; maybe one for NZ/Tokelau, one for France and it's territories? Miken32 (talk) 04:45, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

Controversial?

Who does consider it controversial? (other that plain wikipedians, I mean). Ejrrjs | What? 23:15, 18 August 2005 (UTC)

Please review above. Tomer ^TALK 00:24, August 19, 2005 (UTC)

Puerto Rico has no say in international affairs and the laws that are passed there cannot go against or beyond those in the U.S. constitution which they are powerless to change since they have no voting members in Congress.Add that to the fact that it is a territory that is under the plenary powers of congress, so there never was really bilateral pact between the U.S and Puerto Rico

The Resident commissioner of Puerto Rico is a non-voting Puerto Rican delegate in US congress. Puerto Ricans may also vote in presidential primaries but not presidential elections. Puerto Ricans seem to have been split between moving to statehood and maintaining the commonwealth status for decades. As such, Puerto Ricans have their own congress, influence presidential selection, hear sessions of congress, and have been allowed to vote for different levels of self-determination. This seems to be the UN's baseline for self-government. It seems that this status quo will continue until Puerto Ricans swing strongly towards independence or statehood or they find a way to get congress to upgrade the rights of a commonwealth. :)--Thecurran (talk) 03:11, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

PALESTINE- Not List one of the clearest examples of a territory being dominated by another unfairly is not on the list controversial yeah I would say so. Puerto Rico is self governing it has had votes about what to do and if they wanted to split they could another thing is the US has more Puerto Rican then Puerto Rico so the links are huge families go back and forth they are PROUD PEOPLE and you do not need to tell them hey the USA sucks they want to dominate you i've never been to Puerto Rico or talked to Puerto Rican but the USA suck so you should break away because bush sucks .non-voting Puerto Rican delegate in US congress and no federal taxes its almost like they are not a state? They are not self governing in respect to foreign affairs or military because they are not a country. The UN has no non-western countries listed Tibet, Tuva , East Turkistan , Kashmir, the list is not done in an independent manner . —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.67.176.172 (talk) 01:44, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

Taiwan?

Was Taiwan ever on this list? I have some flimsy evidence that it was, but some confirmation (either way) would be nice. – Kaihsu (talk) 16:53, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

Never was since the UN was founded. That-Vela-Fella (talk) 06:36, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

That-Vela-Fella is correct. When the United Nations was founded, Taiwan was not a separate country from China. From 1949 to 1971, the Republic of China was recognized by the United Nations as representing all of China; since 1971, the People's Republic of China has been recognized and treated as representing all of China (including Taiwan). At no time has this been viewed as a decolonization question, and in any event, it is difficult to see who the putative administering Power would have been. Newyorkbrad (talk) 01:19, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

Goa

Dear Friends,

We all know that that the territory of Goa of the Indian Sub-continent was colonized by Portugal in 1510, and was under rule for 450 years. Goa was declared as a non-self governing territory by the United Nations during the Portuguese rule. This status is given to all colonized territories which were sovereign and independent before the conquest by the colonial powers. Later the Indian Republic Annexed the said territory through Conquest in 1961, the action which was rightly proclaimed as illegal by the UN Security Council as per Chapter I Article 2 of the UN Charter (Ref: http://www.undemocracy.com/S-PV-987.pdf , http://www.undemocracy.com/S-PV-988.pdf ) , S/5030. Subsequently a peace treaty was signed between Portugal and India as regards transfer of Sovereignty of Goa to india.

Goa stands as a sovereign, independent territory of the Indian Sub-Continent, since times immemorial (existed as sovereign thousands of years before Portugal conquest and the Indian Union) and neither Portugal nor India have the right to claim sovereignty over Goa without the participation and self-determination of the indigenous people of Goa. Thus the treaty signed between Portugal and India is legally null and void.

So why has Goa disappeared from the list of non self-governing territories? Kindly look into the matter. --Gaunkars of Goa (talk) 11:37, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not a soapbox, please take this elsewhere. -SpacemanSpiff^{Calvin‡Hobbes} 18:36, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

To give a bit of a softer answer, the list of non-self-governing territories maintained by the United Nations is a specific list that the U.N. maintains. This article is about the actual list as it has existed over the years, not for discussion of issues such as which territories or areas should be on the list, or the obvious fact that there have been inconsistencies in how the criteria for listing have been defined and applied from time to time. The indisputable fact is that Goa, Daman, and Diu has not appeared on the list since 1961. If you like, I can try to check whether there was a specific resolution adopted to remove them from the list, but I think it was handled more quietly, as in the cases of Hong Kong and Macao, or (a less well-known example but one involving another Portuguese territory), São João Baptista de Ajuda. Newyorkbrad (talk) 01:23, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, That is what we have been trying to tell him rather politely from the past few months, without any success. If I remember correctly there was a UN resolution(or request) in 1955(and also 56?) asking Portugal to determine the wishes of the people in its colonies which Portugal ignored. Ill update it as soon as I find it.--Deepak D'Souza 03:17, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia cited in official UN document!

[1] - page7 Alinor (talk) 11:15, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

List Accuracy

Should we make any note on the fact that the on-line version of the list - on the website http://www.un.org/Depts/dpi/decolonization/trust3.htm - contains some false information? For example, the population of Bermuda has been listed as 10% of what it actually is. Nitjanirasu 15:44, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

The official site show that the data is dated so although I find such a remark unnecessary, I understand it could be helpful. :)--Thecurran (talk) 04:58, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

"the data is dated"?!?!?! Bermuda has not had a population of under 7,000 since 1700. That is not dated, that is false information, which is not helpful. :) 216.249.42.214 (talk) 13:01, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

Neutrality Disputed

I have removed the inline tag "Neutrality disputed" in the section headed "Removed under other circumstances",

"Removed under other circumstances Territories that have achieved a status described by the administering countries ("the colonizing power") as internally self-governing — such as Puerto Rico, the Netherlands Antilles, and the Cook Islands — have been removed from the list by vote of the General Assembly, often under pressure of the colonizing power or similar circumstances[neutrality disputed]."

as there is no discussion to indicate why the objection was raised. If there is Discussion presented by the objecting editor, then it can be fairly addressed by the contributing editor or other editors. Once Discussion is provided, feel free to re-add the tag until the issue is resolved. Mercy11 (talk) 12:36, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

UN map & administrating powers

The UN map is wrong or incomplete, because it doesn't shows Spain as a administrating power. According to the UN & to the international laws, Spain is still the administering power in the non-decolonized territory of Western Sahara. I hope this could be solved as soon as posible. Regards.--HCPUNXKID (talk) 10:01, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

You have a point, although in the current publication of the Decolonization Committee, the administering Power for Western Sahara is left blank and there is an explanatory footnote, and Spain is not highlighted as an administering Power. This is a change from prior versions, which did list Spain as the administering Power albeit with the footnote (and previously included Portugal in the somewhat parallel case of East Timor). So I am not sure whether this change should be made at this point, but I think it is pretty clear that we shouldn't list Morocco as the administering Power in the template if it's intended to reflect U.N. usage. Regards, Newyorkbrad (talk) 10:41, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

Namibia

Namibia is listed in the article as having been removed from the List with a status other than independence, because the South African Mandate over South West Africa was revoked in 1967 but Namibia did not attain independence until 1990. In fact, however, Namibia remained on the List of Non-Self-Governing Territories until independence, with the administering Power after 1967 being listed as the United Nations itself, through the United Nations Council for Namibia (although South Africa was still in de facto control). Therefore, I believe Namibia should be moved to the "removed on attainment of independence" section, and unless anyone objects within the next few days, I will make that change. Newyorkbrad (talk) 14:40, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

POV and article as soap-box

Very tempting for people to use this article as a second soap box for their pet political aspirations. I can see reason for both the article and Criticism section, but the Criticism needs to be kept within scope of this article which is not a debate on 'fairness' of UN decisions. The definition of territories is in principle 4 and 5 of UN general assembly resolution 1541, and I believe the ONLY way off the list is by an act of "self-determination" as stated in 1514 and defined in 1541. BUT the UN does not need to be part of any self-determination; if the General Assembly accepts that self-determination has occured then the name should be removed from the list.

The only exception I know of to this principle is the Netherlands New Guinea which was removed after the New York Agreement, seven years later there was the Act of Free Choice but UN resolution 2504 did not claim that this was a referendum or an act of self-determination. Also of interst, is the UN list claiming that East Timor was a colony of Portugal when decolonised. There may be thousands of colonies, but this is a list only of the territories which became subject to section 73e of the UN charter.211.30.196.26 (talk) 02:47, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

countries with obligation to the Special Decolonization Committee?

In the article it is written that initially it "only focused on colonies of the Western World, namely Australia, Belgium, Denmark, France, Italy, Netherlands, New Zealand, Portugal, South Africa, Spain, United Kingdom, and United States" and that of the states that joined the UN afterwards not all fall under its scope. So, does anyone has information about the current list? Alinor (talk) 15:49, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

Well, the current list is the one on the article, and it hasn't expanded beyond those countries. Chipmunkdavis (talk) 14:17, 17 October 2010 (UTC)

Oh, looking at the below discussion I understand that the "some of the states that joined the UN afterwards not all fall under its scope." is meaning that some new UN members were not classified as "non-self-governing territory" - at first I thought that "not under its scope" was meant as "not under its scope as administring powers having to decolonize their territories, such as China vs. Tibet, etc.". Alinor (talk) 07:54, 23 January 2011 (UTC)

Joining the UN after

The article has this information, which I recently edited.

"Of the 111 members who joined the UN between 1960 and 2008, 41 were never included on the list. Of those 41 in 1960, 23 were under the control of another country. Eight (mostly Arab) were ruled by the "Western" countries but 12 were ruled by the Soviet Union (now Russia), one by Ethiopia, one each by Pakistan and India."

My edit was to remove random information about countries that weren't colonies by any definition. I'm for deleting this whole section, it is completely unsourced. Furthermore, while the territories of the Western countries and perhaps the Soviet Union may be considered as valid to this list by some historians, Ethiopia and Pakistan's former territories (Eritrea and Bangladesh I assume) would not make it, they being integral. I don't even know what country was once controlled by India. Chipmunkdavis (talk) 14:17, 17 October 2010 (UTC)

I think the Soviet Union part should also be deleted, as those countries (Armenia, Azerbaijan...) were not colonies, but were integral part of the Soviet Union. Country ruled by India was , I assume, Pakistan.Vanjagenije 17:32, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

I don't think Pakistan was ever part of an independent India, they both achieved independence at the same time. Chipmunkdavis (talk) 23:52, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

Chipmunkdavis is right that Pakistan and India attained independence on the same date in 1947. However, the anomoly here is that India was a charter member of the United Nations in 1945, even though it was not yet an independent state. (The same was done for the Philippines.) So, for two years Pakistan (like Bangladesh) was territorially part of UN Member India even though it was never part of an independent India. How this should be referenced in the article, if at all, I have no idea. Newyorkbrad (talk) 00:21, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

The article says "Of those 41 in 1960, 23 were under the control of another country. Eight (mostly Arab) were ruled by the "Western" countries but 12 were ruled by the Soviet Union (now Russia), one by Ethiopia, one each by Pakistan and India." So Pakistan doesn't qualify for the "one each [ruled] by ... India" as it deals with the status of 41 current U.N. members as of 1960, by when Pakistan had become an independent nation and U.N. member. I think the reference to India is incorrect, since India/British India has not ruled any other region that has joined the U.N. in 1960 or later. -- Paddu (talk) 20:22, 20 November 2010 (UTC)

OK, the reference to India can be sourced to this edit which is erroneous as it doesn't increase the sum, viz. 41 to 42 to include the purported former territory of India. I am going to remove the reference to India.

The original text about these 41 countries was added in this edit which was finally summarised by Chipmunkdavis's edit. I am going to edit the text to something between these two versions to balance clarity with verbosity. -- Paddu (talk) 21:41, 21 November 2010 (UTC)

Yeah I have a hard time seeing how the dissolution of Czechoslovakia, Yugoslavia, and the Soviet Union are in any way pertinent to this article. Honestly I would say only the examples of Eritrea and Tibet are even worth mentioning. Orange Tuesday (talk) 20:38, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

(Dropping indent) I think the UN list only talks of "non-self-governing territories" which need not all be colonies, just territories that are not governed by themselves independently or in a free association with another independent nation. When Alaska was considered a "non-self-governing territory" by the UN, I doubt anyone called Alaska a U.S. colony. It was just a territory governed not by itself, but by the U.S.

Now coming to the examples of present day UN-member countries that were never in the UN list. One poster says Eritrea was an integral part of Ethiopia but the republics of the former Soviet Union could be considered a non-self-governing territory by some historians. Another says Soviet Union holds no relevance but Eritrea could be considered relevant when dealing with non-self-governing territories.

Can someone explain why the situation totally different between Eritrea, and say, Estonia? In each case someone from the governing nation (USSR/Ethiopia) may believe that the territory (Estonia/Eritrea) was legally incorporated within their nation, while someone from the territory (Estonia/Eritrea) may believe their country was illegally annexed by the governing nation (USSR/Ethiopia). Of course, on a case-by-case basis there will be differences, e.g. whether the territory was included in a federation, or was made into a state/province, the circumstances under which the territory got included as part of the administrative power, etc. but I guess that would be immaterial for those who want to criticise the UN list.

By extending the above logic, how can we deny that there could be views that any of the former Yugoslav republics, or Bangladesh or Tibet should have been included in the UN list as at some point they didn't govern themselves independently?

Thanks! -- Paddu (talk) 21:44, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

The Baltic States are actually probably decent examples. But what about, say, Serbia? I don't know, it just seems like so many examples are being included for no reason. This article doesn't need to include an exhaustive list of every country that became independent without being on the list first, it just needs like one or two examples to illustrate the point that some people consider the list to be incomplete. Specifying that two current UN members were once part of Czechoslovakia is so specific for no real reason. Orange Tuesday (talk) 00:39, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

This list was created in a specific historical context, which was the decolonization movement that sought to grant greater self-determination to the overseas territories of the Western countries following World War II. This the only context in which this list was ever used or in which there was ever a serious movement within the United Nations to inscribe additional territories on the list. It is also worth bearing in mind that the list was initially created by asking the members of the UN to themselves identify whether they had any non-self-governing Territories within the purview of Article 73 of the Charter (although later on, territories of States that joined the UN after its founding, and a couple of others, were added by General Assembly resolution). Whether areas controlled by other countries could be considered "colonial" or "non-self-governing territory" situations might be a sensible discussion for another article, but it has little to do with this list itself. Newyorkbrad (talk) 00:47, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

Well, (as per the article) that the list only focuses on overseas territories of the Western countries and not areas controlled by other countries, is the criticism.

However I feel "colony"/"integral part"/"state"/"province" is irrelevant to the article, which is about all kinds of territories, and that is what I was trying to say with examples. -- Paddu (talk) 08:13, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

According to this edit's summary the Tibetans aren't criticising this list, probably making the entire section of the article superfluous. -- Paddu (talk) 08:40, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

The "administering countries" that fall under the Resolution should be listed somewhere. This list has two sides - "non-self-governing" side and "administering power" side. Both should be listed (somewhere in the article). I don't argue about whether we should write "some complain that ...". Also, the stats about who of the UN members were in the list and who weren't seem relevant too.

Maybe we should move this out of "Criticism" and into the "History" section (of course after removing unreferenced "some complain that ..."). Alinor (talk) 08:16, 23 January 2011 (UTC)

Or the main content can move to "History" and the "some complain that ..." remain in "Criticism" with the references needed tag. Alinor (talk) 08:21, 23 January 2011 (UTC)

Deleted section

Related UN classifications

Besides the above Non-Self-Governing Territories the Occupied Palestinian Territory, one of the Israeli-occupied territories,^[i] is the only other inhabited territory currently recognized by the UN as separate from all member and non-member states.

In 1974 the UN recognized the right to self-determination, national independence and sovereignty for the Palestinian people in Palestine. In addition it decided to establish contacts with the Palestine Liberation Organization on all matters concerning the question of Palestine. The PLO also was given the status of UN observer entity following the UN Conference decision about the observer status of national liberation movements recognized by the Organization of African Unity and/or by the League of Arab States.

Continent/Ocean	Territory name	Administering country	Status	Other claimants	Population	Area / km2	Area / mi2	See also
Asia	Palestinian territories	Israel	Occupied territory	State of Palestine	3,935,249	6,020	2,230	Proposals for a Palestinian state

Of the other recognized national liberation movements South West Africa People's Organization was recognized as representative of the Namibian people and gained UN observer status. At that time the territory of South West Africa was already removed from the list of Non-Self-Governing Territories. In 1990 SWAPO established independent Namibia finishing its process of decolonization.

What do you think

Should we keep the above section in the article? Alinor (talk) 16:58, 23 January 2011 (UTC) It was removed with explanation "relations is SYNTH". I think it is notable enough that this is the only other case of territory in the World recognized by the UN to be outside of all other states/non-self-governing territories and to be eligible for "self-determination", "national independence", "sovereignty" - the same as the list here. Alinor (talk) 17:01, 23 January 2011 (UTC)

The problem is this article is about a certain list, and covers the list. Adding sections about other UN stances is completely undue and rather irrelevant. An article on the UN's position on Palestine could be placed in the See also section though. Chipmunkdavis (talk) 08:44, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

Yes, it's about certain list, but I think OPT is clearly notable as the only other such case. There is no article about UN position - there are articles about Palestine legal status, proposals for Palestine state, SoP/PNA/PLO, etc. - but no article specifically for the UN position (it's mentioned in the other articles).

I think we should somehow mention the similarity of the OPT situation. Maybe only with a note/paragraph (as it was until recently), not with table, and maybe in some of the other sections of the article. Alinor (talk) 09:33, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

Unless there is a source relating the two, it really can't be included. Chipmunkdavis (talk) 09:51, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

There are plenty of occasions where the non-self-governing territories and OPT are discussed together or in the same framework/context - such as "Decolonization Committee", etc. [2], [3], [4]. Alinor (talk) 11:24, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

None of those provides very much of a link between the two issues, except for one opinion that both have been about selfdetermination. The proposal for a Palestinian state would be a useful see also at any rate. Chipmunkdavis (talk) 13:46, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

What do you mean no link. Both are managed by the same UN committee. That is enough a reason to mention it. And, you can see for example the 2009 report about the 16 non-self-governing territories. Half of the Namibia statement deals with OPT. The OPT issue is clearly related to the non-self-governing issue. Of course OPT is not in the "list", because Israel is not one of the "administering countries" - but as we see this doesn't prevent the Decolonization Committee to deal with the OPT issue. Alinor (talk) 14:52, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

Which UN committee? The general assembly? Because the Decolonization committee isn't in charge of Palestine. The OPT issue was related to self-determination yes, but that doesn't justify it on this article. Not every territory that doesn't govern itself is on this article. Chipmunkdavis (talk) 14:56, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

Of course the Decolonization committee is not "in charge" of OPT. But nevertheless it deals with the situation there - you can see this in the links I gave you. I don't say that OPT is on of the "UN listed non-self-governing territories" (it can't be because Israel is not one of the states listed as "administering countries". I say that UN treats it in a similar way. And I think we should mention this somehow. Especially since it's the only such case other than the 16-non-self-governing. Alinor (talk) 06:48, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

The links prove a discussion, nothing more. Anyway, the countries listed can change, as France was put back on after being removed. There is no technical reason Israel could not be added, yet it is not. This list is a political list, and without a source saying "the only other situation where an area is considered non-selfgoverning is Palestine" it will be SYNTH/OR to show it in that light. Chipmunkdavis (talk) 09:41, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

Yes, discussion - and it is relevant that this discussion is in the same forum as the 16-non-self-governing.

"France was put back on after being removed." - New Caledonia was put back (e.g. the 'list of current non-self-governing territories' was changed - and was changed many times before by removing territories from it when they achieve 'self-government'). I don't think that France (or any other of the 'administering' states) was removed (or a new state added) - France just disappeared from the 'list of current non-self-governing territories' when no more French territories were left there - but this wasn't a change to the 'list of administering countries, that are subject to Resolution 1541' (in fact - where is this list? In the Resolution I can't find it).

OPT falls in the scope of UN Charter Article 73 - that's why it's discussed in the Decolonizing Committee. And that's why I think we should mention it here (of course clearly marking it as separate case).

"the only other situation where an area is considered non-selfgoverning is Palestine" - [5]. I know that this is just a map, but do you have any other example than OPT? Alinor (talk) 12:02, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

The discussion was just one of many, I'm sure many forums discuss Palestine. It's not immediately relevant at all.

The list of administering states depends on the areas in the list. No French territories were on the list, so neither was France. The administering countries no longer include South Africa etc, as their areas have been removed.

If you explicitly source these statements there will be a case. So far, I'm not seeing it.

As for the map, I highly doubt you would be able to use that as an RS for this. It's a different colour to the Red areas, and not even labelled. They've probably left it blank for the sake of not saying whether it is occupied or not, a point against its inclusion here. Chipmunkdavis (talk) 15:40, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

Although the United Nations gives quite a lot of attention to the "Question of Palestine" through various organs and processes, the List of Non-Self-Governing Territories and the Decolonization Committee are among the few aspects of the UN that have not been involved. When the Israel/Palestinian issue is mentioned in the Decolonization Committee it is as an analogy, or as another instance of a broader issue that includes both Israel/Palestine as well as "traditional" decolonization. The territories in question are not on the List of Non-Self-Governing Territories, never were on the List of Non-Self-Governing Territories, never will be on the List of Non-Self-Governing Territories, and it has never been suggested that they should be included on the List of Non-Self-Governing Territories. Newyorkbrad (talk) 16:22, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

The current status of Palestine also has very little to do with colonialism. The colonial power left the scene around half a century ago. Not to mention that the Palestinian territories effectively govern themselves, so even if they were under the sovereignty of a colonial power, it's unlikely they'd be included. This is all irrelevant anyway, considering WP:CRYSTAL. Nightw 15:29, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

Newyorkbrad, nobody says that OPT is "on the list of non-self-governing territories".

Night w, nobody says that it "will be" there, so WP:CRYSTAL is irrelevant. And no, Palestinian territories do not "effectively govern themselves". If you compare the degree of self-government you will see that the list includes territories that are much more self-governing than OPT. Also, if you read the regular UN reports of about the 16-non-self-... you will see that the issue is more about their constitutional status inside the "administering country" (related to devolution/decentralization, elections, etc.) and about the process employed to reach this status (e.g. whether it was a process of "self-determination" of the people or administrative decision of the "administering country"). OPT is not even part of Israel - it's just under its occupation. So, having the PNA with limited controlling features over 2.7%-to-27.8% of the area - this doesn't change anything.

Night w, how many years passed after "colonial" power left are irrelevant here - Spain left Western Sahara 35 years ago - just like Portugal left Timor-Leste. But because the status of these territories was not handled in a way that the Decolonization Committee considers a proper "self-determination" - both territories remained on the list (regardless of Morocco/Indonesia taking over most/all of the territory and claiming sovereignty there). Timor-Leste was removed only after a proper process of "self-determination" was concluded there.

Chipmunkdavis, "It's a different colour to the Red areas, and not even labelled." - yes, because even Israel doesn't claim sovereignty over the OPT (only over East Jerusalem and No man's land areas).

"They've probably left it blank for the sake of not saying whether it is occupied or not, a point against its inclusion here." - no, they clearly marked it as "Occupied" - this is what they call the area - see point a) in the list of names too long to fit inside the drawing (below Greenland).

I think that the reason for OPT not be included in the list is either because in some old resolution (that we don't know) there is some explicit "list of administering states" - or because this list doesn't include "temporary" military occupations, but only cases of non-self-government under permanent sovereignty of a state.

But the links I provide above clearly show that the UN treats it similarly, and this should be somehow noted (especially since this is the only (do we know another?) such 'similarly treated' case). I don't propose that we "expand the list" with OPT. We can add a separate "related" section (as shown above) or just make one sentence note (similar to that) and place it somewhere (either below the "current entities" list - or in the history/background section or somewhere else). Alinor (talk) 06:40, 29 January 2011 (UTC)

I'm sorry but I don't really see any relevance. This list is a specific list of territories considered by the UN to have a particular status. Whatever might be said about the Israel/Palestinian situation, it has not, as noted above, been considered by the Decolonization Committee or addressed under Article 73 of the Charter and Resolutions such as 1514 (XV) and 1541 (XV). Even if this issue is worth mentioning in the article in passing as an analogy, the number of references provided regarding it reflected undue weight. Needless to say, the Israel/Palestine issues should (and do) receive full coverage in numerous other articles. Newyorkbrad (talk) 08:09, 29 January 2011 (UTC)

Nobody says that OPT is in the list. I say that it is treated similarly and this should be mentioned in the article. Whether as "separate 'related' section" or as note somewhere (a very brief note indeed - see that) it's another matter. Alinor (talk) 06:01, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

May be just add an external link to the map at [6]? -- Paddu (talk) 04:47, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

That's fine, but I think that a small note (one sentence ) should be added somewhere in the text. For example: "Besides the Non-Self-Governing Territories the Occupied Palestinian Territory, one of the Israeli-occupied territories,^[i] is the only other inhabited territory currently recognized by the UN as separate from all member and non-member states." - maybe at the bottom of the lead or of the "current list" section. Alinor (talk) 08:15, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

No, it's UNDUE SYNTH. Chipmunkdavis (talk) 11:01, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

What is the SYNTH? You see the map - the only gray area is the OPT. All the rest is blue (UN member)/yellow (UN observer)/green (UN non-member non-observer)/red (on the UN list of non-self-governing territories). And having in mind all the other links provided here above (about self-deterimination, non-self-government, decolonization, etc.) - I think here (article about the red areas) is the most appropriate place. Alinor (talk) 14:14, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

Chipmunkdavis, do you still think that there is a problem with restoring the note, as it was here (or as slightly rewritten above) and maybe move it to the history/background or another section? Alinor (talk) 08:12, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

Well I certainly do. This is a plain reflection of a list published elsewhere. It's either on the list or it's not. As for notes, there's no connection between the two subjects. It'd just be WP:OR to create one, and WP:UNDUE to describe it. Nightw 08:32, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

What do you mean "no connection"? See links at my 11:24, 25 January 2011 comment. And see the map [7]. All this warrants a small note - we have such note since October 2010. We can move it to a different section if you think it's place is not below the main list. Alinor (talk) 06:44, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

I've yet to see any real connection made by those links. As for the map, yay, it's a different colour. So? We can't extrapolate anything from that except that Palestine doesn't fit into any of the other categories. Chipmunkdavis (talk) 09:54, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

So it's a map of the world that happens to (incorrectly) identify what the UN considers to be "non-self governing territories". What's the connection to the actual list??? It also includes observer states. Should we mention them here also? And should we mention the "Occupied Palestinian Territory" on the observer states article? And on the member states article?

Given your persistence, I feel I should point out the obvious discrepancies with your references: Firstly, the map doesn't claim what you said it does since the colour grey isn't allocated any specific attribution. Grey could indicate Disneyland for all we know. It also explicitly denies any ability to speak on behalf of the UN:

The designations employed and the presentation of material on this map do not imply the expression of any opinion whatsoever on the part of the Secretariat of the United Nations concerning the legal status of any country, territory, city or any area or of its authorities...

Now, I suggest you read WP:STICK. Nightw 19:03, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

It's not only the map, but also the other links I provided. The map is just an illustration of the same thing.

Member, observer and non-member states are clearly marked as such and have nothing to do with this. Also, I don't say that OPT is "on the list of non-self-governing territories", I say that its situation is treated in similar way by the UN and that it's the only other case that similarly to the territories on the "list of non-self-governing territories" is not independent. We have to mention that somehow and I don't see what's the problem of restoring this small note somewhere in the article. Alinor (talk) 06:21, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

Because no other editor here sees any connection whatsoever, and because there is clearly no consensus for it. Nightw 08:12, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

What about Paddu? But OK, I see there is no "consensus". Maybe I should file a RFC. Alinor (talk) 06:06, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

There is a strong consensus against, but file an RFC if you must. I doubt the result will be any different. Chipmunkdavis (talk) 06:25, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

Here are more sources showing the same relation - [8], [9], [10]. I think that all that warrants the inclusion of a small note along the lines of that in the 08:15, 2 February 2011 comment (a "related" section/table will look better, but if you object we can go for the note-only mentioning). Alinor (talk) 05:53, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

There is no consensus for this material; it is irrelevant to this article, and should not be included. Newyorkbrad (talk) 13:57, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

Have you looked at the sources? And I don't propose to add the table, but just a small note. Alinor (talk) 07:37, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

Have you looked at WP:UNDUE, WP:RELEVANT, WP:HTRIV, or WP:ROC? All of these conflict with what you're trying to add. Nightw 09:53, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

Yes, and I don't agree with you about that. Alinor (talk) 11:20, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

Just to clarify: I had overlooked the disclaimer in the map that Newyorkbrad has quoted above. Given that the map doesn't speak for the UN, I find it unnecessary to add an external link to the map, given that we have a better map in the article. -- Paddu (talk) 21:21, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

On an unrelated note, if "Stalled between seasons: the international legal status of Palestine during the interim period" is the work of (a) notable author(s), and it criticises the UN list, it could serve as a reference for the "Criticism" section, in lieu of the "by whom" tag. I myself unfortunately don't have the time to check this now. -- Paddu (talk) 21:21, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

"Extremely controversial"?

Can anyone provide citations for where this list is regarded as "extremely controversial" (or even mildly controversial)? Tomer ^TALK July 1, 2005 02:23 (UTC)

France in the 1950's (Algeria), Portugal through the 1970's (various overseas deparments), Morrocco in 2005 (claims & occupies Western Sahara, while lots of Third World nations recognize the would-be Sahrawi Arab Democratic Republic), Britain (Falkland Islands, Gibraltar, other territories). There is some controversy about what is not on the list in certain quarters, like: the United States (some native Hawaians perceive statehood as a way of denying them their independence), Turkey, Iraq, Iran, Syria (Kurdistan), Northern Ireland, the Basque country, Sri Lanka, Northern Cyprus. Many people have seen fit to committ terrorist acts like bombing storefronts or even to fight outright wars, conventional & guerilla (Falkland Islands War, Kurdish insurgency etc.), over territories on the list or perceived as belonging on the list, so I think the issues of inclusion/disinclusion has in fact, risen to the level of "extremely controversial."

Google is rife with matches for "United Nations list of Non-Self-Governing Territories" and "controversy". The top match, is of course - this article!--Jpbrenna 08:41, 13 July 2005 (UTC)

Isn't the "Extremely controversial" moniker an NPOV issue?

What about Puerto Rico? Isn't it on the list?

(1) Why would it be? It's self-governing. (2) did you actually click on the link? Tomer ^TALK 03:31, August 14, 2005 (UTC)

And yet Bermuda is on the list and is self-governed. Nitjanirasu 01:22, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

Puerto Rico was on the original list, but after the vote to assume Commonwealth status in 1952, the United States lobbied for it to be removed, and in 1953 the General Assembly (still then largely under Western domination) agreed Newyorkbrad 00:07, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

Neither Bermuda nor any UK overseas territories show up on the List of United Kingdom Parliament constituencies, so while they may have some autonomy they have no federal representation; not even an observer appears on the list. As such, Bermuda and the UK's other overseas territories are ultimately ruled by a parliament they have no entry into, neither hearing nor speaking. This means Bermuda is not self-governing. :)--Thecurran (talk) 02:55, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

Nor indeed the Isle of Man, Jersey, Guernsey, Alderney and Sark. Sark has a dreadful political system (I've seen it first hand), which looks cute to tourists, but is rotten in many ways (e.g. there is no obligation for reciprocal healthcare, no proper fire service, no emergency helicopters etc(--MacRusgail (talk) 18:18, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

I believe I heard recently that David Cameron's government wants to change this and pave the way for British overseas territories and crown dependencies to gain seats in the House of Commons. Also, we can't really compare US and British territories as they are administrated and run differently (ie: the Westminster system, the appointed governors, etc). Bear in mind that in British overseas territories the governor, not the local government has control over the police & internal security. In Puerto Rico the police are controlled either by the territorial or municipal governments, there is no federal involvement except over the FBI, US Border Patrol, DEA etc. Apples and oranges, both groups are territories but they have nothing else in common other than that Cfagan1987 (talk) 19:29, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

INDEPENDENCE OF BRITISH TOGOLAND

This edit request was originally posed in Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Independence of British Togoland, and I moved it here.  Chzz  ►  15:54, 9 April 2011 (UTC)

{{Request edit}}

DEAR SIR, INDEPENDENCE OF BRITISH TOGOLAND With reference to your publication “Wikipedia” on United Nations List of Non-Self Governing Territories dated 3/6/2008. 1. We have noted a missing link as regards the status of British Togoland from 1957-1961 when you stated it was granted Independence by the British or United Kingdom as part of Ghana. 2. British Togoland was supposed to be in “Union” with the independent Gold Cost in 1957 in accordance with United Nation Resolution “1044(XI) para.1 dated 13th Dec .1956”. 3. Paragraph 3 of this very resolution requested the United Kingdom government to notify the Secretary General as soon as the “Union” was formed or effected. 4. The United Kingdom government indeed did notified the United Nations vide “DOCUMENT T /1301” a letter dated 6TH MARCH, 1957 but by her political design did not actually complied with Resolution “1044(XI) para.1 dated 13th Dec .1956”. The fact is that the United Kingdom government did not take any steps as an Administrative Authority to see to the administration or manifestation of this “Union”, between the British Togoland and the in dependent Gold Cost, of which the United Nations at its 619th plenary meeting expressed approval. 5. We should therefore be very grateful if you would enlighten us on the point raised below; hoping that your research covers them. a.What was the status of British Togoland from 1957 - 1961.Was it still on the list of Non-Self-governing Territories of the United Nations?

b.Where did you have the fact “British Togoland, 1961 on Independence from the United Kingdom as part of Ghana”? 6. The British Togoland never was granted independence by the United Kingdom as part of Ghana. Our intentions regarding National Identity and belief in our INDEPENDENCE and SELF RULE as a Nation was made known and clear to the whole world before and after the uncalled for Plebiscite and its controversial result in 1956. 7. We do acknowledge the obnoxious political situation bequeathed British Togoland/Western Togoland by the United Kingdom with the connivance of the then United Nations. This situation makes it possible for Ghana to enslave the people of British Togoland; the very situation which empowers Ghana to become the first Black African Nation to colonize another Legitimate African Country, the British Togoland /Western Togoland as we see today. 8. We plead with you to call for a closer collaboration, of the International Community, with the Western Togoland Restoration Congress to enable it successfully get out of its struggles to end Ghana’s domination and colonization of British Togoland. 9. Your reaction in the shortest time would be very much appreciated.

Yours faithfully,

G.E.KOKU AVORTRI SECRETARY GENERAL (WESTERN TOGOLAND RESTORATION CONGRESS) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 41.190.89.51 (talk • contribs) 00:07, 9 April 2011

---

• This fact was taken from the official web site of the United Nations (link). In the list of former non-self governing territories, Togoland Trust territory is listed and it's status is given as Joined Gold Coast to form Ghana, and the year is given as 1957. If You think this is not correct, You should address United Nations, not Wikipedia, as we are simply citing the United Nations web site. Vanjagenije (talk) 18:35, 10 April 2011 (UTC)

  I'm closing the edit request pending a response to Vanjagenije's comment above. Monty₈₄₅ 17:41, 3 July 2011 (UTC)

Order of tables

Perhaps I am missing something obvious, but are the tables for territories that attained self-government and territories that attained independence in any particular order? They aren't alphabetical by territory, nor wholly grouped by administering Power, nor in date order, nor geographical—what is the order based on, or is there one? And, should they be rearranged in a more logical manner? Newyorkbrad (talk) 03:42, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

Is Pitcairn still on the list?

I just checked the "Non-Self-Governing Territories (1945-2002)" link in the External Links section and I don't see Pitcarin Islands on the list. Is it actually on the UN's list? As noted in the article it's rather odd for it to be listed given it's simply not viable to make it independent due to its size and lack of population. Maybe the UN agreed the took it off? The fact it isn't visible on the UN list may require the addition of a citation if it's listed elsewhere. 68.146.80.110 (talk) 05:18, 7 October 2011 (UTC)

It is on the current list, the strange 1945-2002 box doesn't include current entries. Chipmunkdavis (talk) 12:18, 7 October 2011 (UTC)

Tokelau

Tokelau is currently described as "self-governing" on this list of non-self-governing countries. The article on Tokelau begins by saying it is "non-self-governing". There may be a sublety or complication here, but this should be clarified. Bwithh 21:33, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

Fixed -Justin (koavf)·T·C·M 21:52, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

Within New Zealand, it's considered self-governing (almost though not quite to the same extent as the Cook Islands and Niue). The United Nations, however, still has it on the list of non-self-governing territories because the Tokelau self-determination referendum, 2006 did not ratify the proposed change of status by the required majority. I think the best solution, which I have implemented subject to comments, is to omit the adjective here and leave any debate for the Tokelau article. Newyorkbrad 02:20, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

According to New Zealand general election, 2005#Results_by_electorate, Tokelau has no federal representation. No internal government is mentioned on Tokelau. Despite a measure of autonomy, this falls short of being self-governing. :)--Thecurran (talk) 05:37, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

"Federal"? New Zealand is not a federation. And Tokelau does have a government of its own, although it's under NZ sovereignty. Aridd (talk) 22:58, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

Tuvalu and Kiribati

There is an error regarding independence dates for Tuvalu and Kiribati--they are reversed in the list. Tuvalu got its independence in 1978 and Kiribati in 1979. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 113.11.240.42 (talk) 00:33, 6 May 2012 (UTC)

You are correct. I've fixed it. Thanks! TDL (talk) 04:48, 6 May 2012 (UTC)

Confusing/POV ?

"According to this criterion of pertaining to the process of decolonisation, criticism from many activists, most notable of which are pro-Tibetan activists, is found groundless."

I can't figure out what this is trying to say. Additionally, it appears that Wikipedia itself may be passing judgement on the activists, rather than reporting on what the UN has determined. -- Tmhand 16:53, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

The "is found groundless" part is no longer in the article. :)--Thecurran (talk) 03:22, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

Thank you, this is the BS that needs cleaning up. It's perfectly okay to present the UN's warped opinions because every side deserves to be heard. But validating their warped opinions as automatically correct is a whole other can of worms entirely. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.75.243.229 (talk) 17:32, 19 March 2013 (UTC)

Other claims added

I added the names of other countries that claim some of the territories (for Gibraltar and the Falklands/Islas Malvinas) - I think it is of merit - if you don't, delete it - please add if there are any other disputed territories....--Pysproblem 16:01, 20 August 2005 (UTC)

Good work. :-) I just wikilinked "Spain" and "Argentina". Tomer ^TALK 23:12, August 21, 2005 (UTC)

Other claims are an important and worthwhile consideration. However when I look at the map I see the Falkland Isles, also referred to Is. Malvinas (which is the Spanish language name used by Argentina) but I see no other alternate or foreign language names provided for the other territories. It reads (as does this topic often) that the Flakland's are on the process of changing which territory they are part of. This is not the case and I personally feel that a country should be recognised by it's current 'pfficial' name... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.99.164.124 (talk) 23:47, 20 July 2013 (UTC)

Significance?

I followed the link here from the article on the Falklands in the expectation that this article would explain what the list is, but instead it appears merely to present its contents. As this is an encyclopedia, might it be appropriate for someone who knows about this to add a sentence or two explaining the criteria on which the list is compiled and its significance in world politics? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.86.133.45 (talk) 14:09, 13 June 2005 (UTC)

Gibraltar

Surely voters in Gibralar didn't reject being a condominum of Spain and Britian? (from the headding "The Lost"). I assume this is vanalism that needs to be adjusted. It probally refers to the referendym in which voters there rejected shared soverignty. Jordanus maximus 23:16, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

I have fixed the vandalism but I really don't know if that information is necissary. Any input? Jordanus maximus 23:25, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

I don't think detail on a specific referendum belongs here, though of course it belongs in Gibraltar and related articles. Newyorkbrad 23:26, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

Gibraltar is a funny point. I wish there was some international accord to uphold the basic premise of the Monroe Doctrine. Many nations are archipelagic in nature and cross the sea to nearby islands (cf. UK into the Channel Islands, the Outer Hebrides, Northern Ireland, and the Isle of Man, or Indonesia, or Japan). Something seems wrong though about the UK keeping continental territory like Gibraltar in Europe to itself when there are continental countries that span that gap. It also seems wrong that France should keep French Guiana in South America or territory in the non-adjacent Pacific and Indian Oceans like the UK does. It is easier to geographically justify Spain keeping Ceuta and Melilla in Africa but it defies the spirit of decolonization. Those two are the only colonies left in Africa. One might raise qualms about Equatorial Guinea with its capital on a nearby island but it doesn't span such great divides of total wealth, culture, language, religion, and race, despite its low development index.(Comment from 2008-09-15T12:35:58) :)--Thecurran (talk) 10:12, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

There are numerous comparable examples where geographically distant territories are politically united and though many of them at first appearance seem very odd, surely questions of language, heritage and preference are more relevant than simple proximity? If virtually all Gibraltarians speak English and wish to remain part of Britain why must they become part of Spain (just at a time when other distinct parts of Spain such as Catalonia are gaining greater autonomy)? Supposing Gibraltar were a small independent state like Malta; would we not be defending their right to independence? Few would argue that Malta should become part of Italy because it is nearby, or that Alaska should revert to Russia or become Canadian because it is not contiguous with the rest of the USA. Erwfaethlon (talk) 11:46, 11 May 2014 (UTC)

Pitcairn Islands population and area

Article alternately claims the Pitcairn Islands has population 50 or 65, and land area of 47km^2 or 36km^2. No citation is given for any of those numbers.

While the population difference could be rounding or different census dates the differing land area seems difficult to explain away.

The Pitcairn Islands page agrees with the land area of 47^km, but offers population numbers of 45 (2010 census) or 56 (2013 estimate), which do not match either of the numbers given on this page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.148.152.117 (talk) 06:43, 7 November 2014 (UTC)

Washington, DC

Does anyone have any insight as to why Washington, DC isn't on this list? It's an integral part of the US, for sure, but it's not self-governing and its residents are extremely dissatisfied with its status. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.136.204.248 (talk) 01:52, 22 December 2013 (UTC)

I think because its a government district, these are not unheard of in countries. A better question is why Tibet is not on this list, and the answer is that China doesn't want it there. 23.240.131.64 (talk) 13:27, 12 December 2014 (UTC)

Exclusion of Scotland from the list

I was wondering why Scotland has been excluded from the list.

===> Scotland elects MPs to the UK parliament. Ergo, it is self governing.

Scotland is not fully self-Governing, being banned from having an army, finance ministry, defence policy and foreign policy.

The majority of the voters in Scotland voted Yes to self-Government in 1979, but the British Government ignored the result. (But when they voted for it in the 1990's it was duely grantedSouthEastLad 18:43, 27 June 2006 (UTC))

Surely Scotland counts as a non-self-Governing territory?

===>I'll guess The list is for colonies and Scotland, as a home country, is an integral part of the United Kingdom. -Justin (koavf), talk, mail 05:44, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

The article addresses this to some extent: "It is worth noting that territories which have been annexed and incorporated into the legal framework of the controlling state ... are considered by the UN to have been decolonized, since they then no longer constitute "non-self-governing" entities, but rather their populations are assumed to have agreed to merge with their former parent state." Obviously some people might differ on whether this is the correct analysis of Scotland's status, but that's the way the UN sees it, so that's the way this article sees it. If you look at the actual list, you'll note that the territories there, for the most part, lack a complete governmental apparatus and are really run from the colonizing country, something I don't think is true of Scotland (or, arguably, of Bermuda, Guam or New Caledonia, but the UN hath spoken). · rodii · 15:20, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

Late reply: Aye, and "Tibet is an 'integral' part of China". The hypocrisy of this list is extremely revealing. None of Russia or China's MANY colonies are included, nor Quebec, nor the Palestinian territories, nor Kurdistan, nor the Isle of Man, Faroes, Channel Islands, Basque Country, Catalonia, Corsica etc --MacRusgail (talk) 19:53, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

First off, "In My Defens God Me Defend". I love Scotland. I kilted up for my wedding. I have a family full of redheads and a huge influence in my childhood was my Scottish Grandma Sugar who was raised by teetotallers but helped me teethe with whiskey. Nonetheless, there is a vast difference between Scotland and the members of this list. Scotland finally has its own parliament and has for some time had representation in the UK parliament. I am glad that the UK is finally getting rid of its mostly English hereditary members parliament but I wished it would go so far as to have a senatorial style system where that which offends Scotland, Wales, Northern Ireland, and smaller units like Cornwall, the Channel Islands, and the Isle of Man, etc. would not be passed. As unlikely as it sounds, I think it is still possible for motions to pass if they appease England but offend the rest. I like systems where votes are counted both per capita and per first/zeroth-level administrative division. Under ISO, Scotland is on a zeroth level. These other countries do not all have their own parliament/congress or federal representation, so although Scotland's situation has some way to go, it is light years beyond Western Sahara, which was half-conquered over 3 decades ago, or even Indo-European Kurdistan whose territorial integrity is split mostly between Turkic and Afro-Asiatic countries but also Iran and Armenia, Palestine, whose late leader, Yassir Arafat, was put under siege by its occupation power, Tibet, whose federal government persecutes its leader, the Dalai Lama, and has taken away the Tibetans right to choose his successor. I think it would be wrong for the UN to add Scotland, but I do see areas for improvement. :)--Thecurran (talk) 02:30, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

The omission of territories in Europe (other than Gibraltar) is a glaring one, whether they are controlled by the UK, Denmark, France, Spain or Russia. China too. China and Russia are still massive empires. The Channel Islands and Isle of Man are in a very similar position to some of these territories, e.g. Bermuda and Gibraltar. Both places have come to be English speaking within comparatively recent times, and French and Manx have never gone away as official languages. Norman has never gone away as a spoken language in Jersey, Guernsey and Sark.

Scotland's situation has improved in the last ten years, but it is still denied basic say over broadcasting etc.--MacRusgail (talk) 18:13, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

Certainly, the list is extremely hypocritical but it is also technical meaning only a very specific category of territories are included. To the UN, it doesn't if 99% of Gibraltar wants the status quo if they aren't given their own representation and government. Whereas genocide and actual colonialism found in Palestine/Golan Heights, Tibet, and other populations? The UN wrings their hands but says it's an issue of sovereignty. The UN is a place of arbitrary rules, once you understand that it all makes more sense. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.75.243.229 (talk) 17:30, 19 March 2013 (UTC)

See: James VI and I for why Scotland isn't on the list. It's not as if Scotland was conquered of anything, its all because of the Royal line of succession. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.167.69.4 (talk) 07:34, 4 September 2013 (UTC)

We must surely appreciate that there is no way in which we could ever define 'non self-governing territories' which would not be open to criticism because it requires us to identify 'territories' and these are entities which have continually changed through history. There can be few places in the world which have not at some time (usually at many times) been conquered by outside powers and often then incorporated into a larger territory. Examples are legion but might include the kingdom of Mercia, later part of England, and England, later part of the United Kingdom, or the whole of the USA, or most of Russia, or almost every identifiable region of Africa, now fairly arbitrarily divided into sovereign states. Almost all of Humanity could look back to some point in history where their ancestors (real of imagined) suffered some injustice, or made an unwise political decision but we must make careful judgments in deciding where this is still relevant to current events and living peoples. The British parish where I currently happen to live is not allowed to have its own army or to deal independently with foreign affairs but it is not a colony. Scotland entered legally into union with the rest of the UK and though there are plenty of Scots who would prefer a different arrangment she is no more a colony of England than England is of Scotland.

Tibet on the other hand was fully self governing for some time before it was quite recently invaded and conquered and it is still ruled with a rod of iron by China; China believes it can justify this historically as a reassertion of control over a Chinese territory, most living Tibetans consider they were victims of an injustice. This is clearly a difficult situation for the UN to address and we should not be surprised that many people are dissatisfied with the inconsistencies when they attempt to create a list of this nature. Erwfaethlon (talk) 11:31, 11 May 2014 (UTC)

Wow, someone really is that dumb! England is more worthy of being on that list than Scotland is. English voters cannot affect the policy in Scotland, Wales or Northern Ireland because all 3 have their own devolved parliaments/assemblies, yet voters in Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland can still vote on English law because England does not have a devolved parliament. For more information, see the West Lothian Question. Ezza1995 (talk) 18:03, 30 December 2014 (UTC)

Let me reiterate a point, which has been discussed beforehand on this page, and which is probably apparent to most of you, but perhaps not to all of you. This is not a list that Wikipedia is creating of places that we believe are (or were) non-self-governing territories, or even that various reliable sources might call non-self-governing territories. This article is about the actual list that the United Nations General Assembly has created of such territories, pursuant originally to Article 73(e) of the Charter. To the extent that reliable sources have criticized the General Assembly's determinations of which places should be on the list, that fact, with due weight, is worth mentioning. Our armchair criticisms of the list on this page, while quite interesting, and certainly demonstrative of drawbacks to the UN's approach, do not really affect the article content. Newyorkbrad (talk) 23:33, 30 December 2014 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on United Nations list of Non-Self-Governing Territories. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20130818005914/http://daccess-dds-ny.un.org:80/doc/RESOLUTION/GEN/NR0/236/88/IMG/NR023688.pdf?OpenElement to http://daccess-dds-ny.un.org/doc/RESOLUTION/GEN/NR0/236/88/IMG/NR023688.pdf?OpenElement

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: 5 June 2024).

• 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.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 21:07, 3 March 2016 (UTC)

Capitalization of article title

Why is the article title capitalized as it is now? If the list is a document with a title, and we're referring to that list by its title, then the article title should be in title case: United Nations List of Non-Self-Governing Territories. But there's nothing that I can see in the article that actually refers to such a list as a document with such a title; thus, the Wikipedia article title should be simply United Nations list of non-self-governing territories, per ordinary Wikipedia style convention for article title (viz., sentence case). Holy (talk) 23:09, 28 March 2017 (UTC)

bermuda guam and us virgin islands

there self governing why are there on there? — Preceding unsigned comment added by I dont have a username for this (talk • contribs) 15:18, 7 August 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on United Nations list of Non-Self-Governing Territories. 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:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20071221175635/http://archives.pireport.org/archive/2004/june/06-02-fea.htm to http://archives.pireport.org/archive/2004/june/06-02-fea.htm
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20131024225840/http://daccess-dds-ny.un.org/doc/RESOLUTION/GEN/NR0/152/88/IMG/NR015288.pdf?OpenElement to http://daccess-dds-ny.un.org/doc/RESOLUTION/GEN/NR0/152/88/IMG/NR015288.pdf?OpenElement

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: 5 June 2024).

• 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) 02:44, 2 January 2018 (UTC)

Why is Siberia mentioned but not Palestine?

Why does this article (List not complete section) mention Siberia, a Russian region with absolutely no struggle for any sort of independence, yet completely omits Palestine, a topic of continuous discussion for decades?--Adûnâi (talk) 08:31, 25 January 2018 (UTC)

Usage of 'purport'

"because areas such as Angola and Mozambique were purported to be an integral part of the Portuguese state" : This usage of "purport" grates, to my ear. Specifically, I don't believe you can "be purported"; the word means "has the meaning", or often "pretends".

I realise that British and American usage differs (although I can't find a good statement of the difference); perhaps that is a good reason for reformulating the sentence omitting this word. MrDemeanour (talk) 13:52, 29 January 2018 (UTC)

I agree that it didn't read particularly well, so I made this copyedit to avoid the term. Obviously anyone is more than welcome to improve what I did. -- Begoon 14:25, 29 January 2018 (UTC)

Western Sahara, Spain

Quote from https://www.un.org/en/decolonization/nonselfgovterritories.shtml#foot1 :

On 26 February 1976, Spain informed the Secretary-General that as of that date it had terminated its presence in the Territory of the Sahara and deemed it necessary to place on record that Spain considered itself thenceforth exempt from any responsibility of any international nature in connection with the administration of the Territory, in view of the cessation of its participation in the temporary administration established for the Territory. In 1990, the General Assembly reaffirmed that the question of Western Sahara was a question of decolonization which remained to be completed by the people of Western Sahara.

Some people may interpret these statements to mean that Spain is still de jure administering power of Western Sahara, but such an interpretation would be WP:SYNTHESIS. Unless there are sources that explicitly say the UN still considers Spain to be the de jure administering power of Western Sahara, we cannot add such a claim to the article. Chrisahn (talk) 20:08, 5 September 2018 (UTC)

Special cases

In this map Spain, Western Sahara and Israel and Palestine are marked in light green. Can anyone please elaborate on why these countries are "special cases"? 219.73.72.210 (talk) 08:43, 28 October 2018 (UTC)

I just saw this. The map has a footnote explaining this wording, but I believe it is “original research” in Wikipedia terms and should not be used. Also, the U.N. does not treat Israel/Palestine as a non-self-governing territories issue so they should not be shaded on this map at all. Newyorkbrad (talk) 14:23, 4 December 2018 (UTC)

I agree that the image is based on original research. I deleted the image from the article. Chrisahn (talk) 22:54, 4 December 2018 (UTC)

Table layout

In this edit, user Broccoli and Coffee unmerged the cells in the "Administering state" and "Domestic legal status" columns. I don't want to criticize that action, I just think the previous version had a much cleaner layout and was more readable. I didn't find any Wikipedia recommendations or regulations for or against merged cells. The table has had merged cells for years, so I'll revert to the previous version. Of course, if others feel unmerged cells are preferable, we can revert my revert. (In that case, we should probably unmerge all columns to be consistent, including "Continent".) Let's talk. Chrisahn (talk) 00:20, 3 December 2018 (UTC)

@Chrisahn: That's fine, it's why I mentioned being bold in the edit summary. But just to explain my initial reasoning: It's not easy to follow the rows when the lines are missing from merged cells, and there are also odd overlaps. Looking at Cayman Islands, for example, it's slightly confusing to see which cell under the Population column corresponds. My thought in unmerging these cells would be to make this type of info easier to read. With everything merged, it looks, to me, unorganized, as there's otherwise no rhyme or reason for the order of columns. To address your point about unmerging the Continent column, I would say that it's actually fine to leave this as is, like the first column in other tables (see an actor's filmography, for example, that merges the cells in the first column (Year) but no other). Hope that makes sense. I certainly won't edit the table here, though, until/unless there's any consensus. Cheers – Broccoli & Coffee ^{(Oh hai)} 00:43, 3 December 2018 (UTC)

@Broccoli and Coffee: Thanks for the response. I see what you mean. I guess it's largely a matter of taste, or a matter of weighing advantages against disadvantages. Or maybe a matter of display settings as well. What screen resolution and Wikipedia skin do you use? Here's what the table looks like for me with the default Vector skin: with resolution 1440x900, with resolution 1024x640. I agree it's a bit harder to follow the rows when cells in some columns are merged, but I also think the table looks less cluttered with merged cells, and relevant information becomes more obvious, e.g. all the territories administered by the UK are in one group.

I tried to find a compromise, e.g. giving the rows alternating background colors (darker and lighter grey), but I didn't find a way to do that without a lot of awkward Wiki syntax. But maybe it can be done somehow. I'm not a MediaWiki expert. It would be great if someone had an idea for a design that keeps the merged cells, but also makes it easy to follow the rows, and is easy to implement.

Let's see what others think. I'll just ping a few users who have edited the article not too long ago. Hope that's OK. @Danlaycock: @Newyorkbrad: @Wee Curry Monster: @Koavf: Chrisahn (talk) 14:05, 4 December 2018 (UTC)

For me, the table with merged cells does the best job of showing who administers which territory, which seems (along with domestic legal status) to be the most salient point for this article. Therefore, I'd lean towards the current (merged cell) layout versus repeating the administrator/legal status separately for each territory in the chart. Also, because the table is sortable, it is possible to force it to show you each line individually by clicking on any of the column headers. Carter (talk) 14:35, 4 December 2018 (UTC)

@Chrisahn: Ok, leaving merged is fine with me. For some reason, I hadn't even realized the table was sortable, which as Tcr25 mentions, does solve some of my concerns. Thanks both for your thoughts. – Broccoli & Coffee ^{(Oh hai)} 17:16, 4 December 2018 (UTC)

Both are intelligible but I think merged cells is a little more aesthetically pleasing. ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 17:23, 4 December 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for inviting me to comment, I too think the merged cells look aesthetically better. And as noted above it is sortable, which addresses the original concern expressed. WCM_email 11:51, 7 December 2018 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

• Flag of Réunion (Local).png

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 20:20, 20 February 2021 (UTC)

Hawaii voting to become a state

"Not really an accurate description of what happened there, is it? Should maybe be changed" Seeing as the Hawaiian monarchy was basically overthrown, a sham election was taken place and the entire country stolen by the USA to just say it voted for statehood is a bit misleading, no? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Idontknowanythingok (talk • contribs) 20:58, 4 February 2022 (UTC)