Jump to content

Talk:Dependent territory

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Uninhabited islands and Antarctic claims

[edit]

Uninhabited islands are not dependent territories. To be a dependent territory, the entity needs to function like a country, i.e. it should have three key elements: a defined territory, a permanent population, and a functioning local government. Uninhabited islands only have a defined territory and nothing else, they are not dependent territories. It doesn't matter what their administering states call them, they are merely "overseas territories" directly administered by their central governments.

All Antarctic claims are also uninhabited and therefore they are not dependent territories too.

I propose the removal of the following 24 territories and territorial claims from the list of dependent territories:

Uninhabited islands
  1. Akrotiri and Dhekelia (military bases)
  2. Ashmore and Cartier Islands
  3. Bajo Nuevo Bank
  4. Baker Island
  5. Bouvet Island
  6. British Indian Ocean Territory (Chagos Archipelago)
  7. Clipperton Island
  8. Coral Sea Islands
  9. Heard Island and McDonald Islands
  10. Howland Island
  11. Jarvis Island
  12. Johnston Atoll
  13. Kingman Reef
  14. Midway Atoll
  15. Navassa Island
  16. Serranilla Bank
  17. South Georgia and the South Sandwich Islands
  18. Wake Island
Antarctic claims
  1. Australian Antarctic Territory
  2. British Antarctic Territory
  3. French Southern and Antarctic Lands
  4. Peter I Island
  5. Queen Maud Land
  6. Ross Dependency

2001:8003:9100:2C01:ACFE:7B23:904F:A674 (talk) 04:00, 10 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Where did you get these definitions? Did you just make them up? ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 04:40, 8 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It has been defined by the United Nations. All dependent territories should function like countries. A dependent territory should have a permanent population. Its local people should have the option to break away from their parent state and create their own independent sovereign state via self-determination.
Uninhabited islands cannot become independent sovereign states. Hence, they are not dependent territories.
Source:
https://en.wikisource.org/wiki/United_Nations_General_Assembly_Resolution_1514 120.16.127.229 (talk) 03:33, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Where exactly in that source does it say that? Roger 8 Roger (talk) 03:53, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Basically, the whole source talks about that. The United Nations use the term "non-self-governing territories" instead of dependent territories, dependent areas, or dependencies to describe these country-like political entities, but they are the same thing.
Obviously, uninhabited islands are not dependencies since they don't function like countries, they are just remote external territories located far away from the mainland. They don't "depend" on their mainland administration, they are "administered" by their mainland administration. 120.16.127.229 (talk) 23:55, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
They are not the same thing: you are mistaken. ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 00:04, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
What are the differences? Could you elaborate on details? 120.16.127.229 (talk) 00:14, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Colonies are not dependent territories. They are just different things and you are conflating them. ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 02:21, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Well, all dependent territories have been classified as colonies by the United Nations. There are only two ways to avoid being classified as colonies:
1. Independence (i.e. becoming a sovereign State).
2. Fully incorporated with your parent state (i.e. becoming a normal administrative division). 120.16.48.249 (talk) 02:23, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Is this more made-up stuff on your part? ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 02:33, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Please quote the part that says "all dependent territories should function like countries" or anything even like that and the part about uninhabited islands. ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 04:08, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@user:120.16.127.229, What you are saying is just your interpretation of what the UN writes or thinks. Even if it is obvious, it is still your opinion (primary source) and is therefore not a secondary source, and therefore should not be used a such. I also have doubts about your interpretation anyway. Roger 8 Roger (talk) 00:14, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
And even if that were true, this is not UN-pedia. ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 02:21, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

"Dependencies and other territories" listed at Redirects for discussion

[edit]

The redirect Dependencies and other territories has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Readers of this page are welcome to comment on this redirect at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2024 January 31 § Dependencies and other territories until a consensus is reached. Steel1943 (talk) 21:07, 31 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Possible vandalism

[edit]

Please roll back the latest edits in the article to approximately the state of January 7, 2024. User Koavf changed the header of the tables of the dependent territories of New Zealand, Norway and the United Kingdom. Firstly, the matter has not been completed, and secondly, it has only gotten worse, since it is now unclear which territories are uninhabited and which are claimed.

Also, Palmyra Atoll was added to the table of dependent territories of the United States, although the table states before the table that this territory is excluded from the list because “it is classified as an incorporated territory under US law”. The result is a contradiction between the text, table and image at the very beginning of the article.

I apologize in advance for possible mistakes—I live in Russia and do not fully speak English.

Откатите, пожалуйста, последние правки в статье примерно до состояния на 7 января 2024 года. Пользователь Koavf изменил шапку таблиц зависимых территорий Новой Зеландии, Норвегии и Соединённого Королевства. Во-первых, дело не доведено до конца, а во-вторых, стало только хуже, поскольку теперь непонятно, какие территории необитаемы, а какие — заявлены.

Также в таблицу зависимых территорий Соединённых Штатов был добавлен атолл Пальмира, хотя перед таблицей сказано, что данная территория исключена из списка, так как «в законодательстве США она классифицируется как инкорпорированная территория». В итоге получается противоречие между текстом, таблицей и изображением в самом начале статьи.

Заранее извиняюсь за возможные ошибки — я живу в России и не в полной мере владею английским языком. Alexander Berezin 17.12.2002 (talk) 13:09, 6 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

These are required by MOS:TABLECAPTION. Do not remove them, just improve them. See also MOS:COLHEAD. ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 17:21, 7 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Koavf, your edits seem to have created new "Status" titles for NZ and Norway. Where were they from and why were the old ones changed? As for Palmyra that was not in Koavf's edits, and either way I have reverted. CMD (talk) 04:34, 8 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
"Where were they from" ??? and "why were the old ones changed?" MOS:TABLECAPTION. ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 04:39, 8 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Could you explain how MOS:TABLECAPTION requires the changing of "Dependent territory" to "Territory" in some cases and "Dependency" in other cases? CMD (talk) 04:44, 8 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It does not. ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 05:18, 8 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, so is there another reason for why you changed the status titles if not MOS:TABLECAPTION as you indicated in your previous answer? CMD (talk) 05:28, 8 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
What are "status titles"? I still have no clue what you're talking about. There were no captions, there need to be captions, therefore, I added captions. I don't see what the problem is. ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 07:01, 8 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I provided specific examples two messages above. Given there was apparently no reason, I have restored the long-standing version. I do agree with OP that it is unusual for the tables to be inconsistent, so would suggest a future change be made to all tables instead of just 3. CMD (talk) 14:44, 8 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
So to be clear, you know that table captions are required per MOS:DTAB and they are used by the blind, but you removed them and you also know that MOS:COLHEAD says to not insert columns that span the table in the middle like this because they are difficult for blind users to navigate and you inserted them anyway? ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 15:43, 8 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
What I did was ask very openly why the content was changed. I got one answer, then a note that this was not actually the answer, then a dismissal. Those who are blind benefit as do all our readers from accurate and explainable content choices. CMD (talk) 02:55, 9 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I in no way dismissed you: I asked you what you meant. You on the other hand dismissed me just now. The solution to what you perceive to be deficient table captions is not remove them, but improve them. Have you read MOS:DTAB? ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 05:53, 9 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I have openly asked you from the beginning to explain the edits, which were clearly not just adding captions. I have provided specific quotes. I'm in some cases getting 3 word replies to my questions. And yes I have read the MOS. CMD (talk) 09:04, 9 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I have answered all your questions, but I don't know what a "status title" is, hence I asked. I explained that I did two things: I added table captions and removed column headers and gave you citations as to why: MOS:TABLECAPTION and MOS:COLHEAD. Since you have evidently read the entire MOS, I am still waiting on an answer to my yes–no question above. You know that captions are obligatory and you removed them. You know that column headers are disallowed and you added them (back). Why? ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 09:10, 9 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Prior to your question I had already quoted the changes, which were not one of those two things you list now. I ma not sure why this is still being missed, despite my repeated mention of them. I already answered your second question too, here, also apparently missed. CMD (talk) 09:37, 9 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This is neither a yes nor a no: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Dependent_territory&diff=prev&oldid=1217989001. Please do not play games while others are trying to be serious. You can easily answer "Yes, I did that, knowing better because I have read the MOS", but you are just being unserious. ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 09:53, 9 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
"Why?" is not a yes or no question. At any rate, I have as mentioned answered the questions, with an actual answer rather than the made up quote there. There is a very simple path forward, which is explaining the content changes I noted, explaining the content changes Alexander Berezin noted, and explaining the inconsistency within the page Alexander Berezin noted. I can't see how you can claim to be serious when none of these have been done over the past few days. CMD (talk) 10:05, 9 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
"So to be clear, you know that table captions are required per MOS:DTAB and they are used by the blind, but you removed them and you also know that MOS:COLHEAD says to not insert columns that span the table in the middle like this because they are difficult for blind users to navigate and you inserted them anyway?" does not include the word "why". I did not ask you "why", I asked you: "to be clear, you did x, yes or no" and you keep on not answering and then come up with demonstrably untrue nonsense about how I asked "Why..." which never happened. I'll add table captions and remove column headers to all the tables since you seem unwilling or unable to help blind users as the MOS explicitly says is necessary and per your directive to do so above. You could have also done this, but were motivated to write this noise instead. ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 10:10, 9 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You literally asked me "Why?" here. It is two of your messages above. Clearly the previous answers are still being missed, so I do not see this as productive. I have already noted a possible way forward above. CMD (talk) 10:15, 9 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yes and prior to that, I asked another question that you did not answer, which is clearly the one that I am waiting on you to answer and which you won't because you're playing games. Go ahead and answer it. ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 10:17, 9 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Your question prior to that was "Have you read MOS:DTAB?" to which I literally replied "yes". Further direct personal attacks assuming bad faith will be reported. CMD (talk) 10:25, 9 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
lol, I didn't make any personal attacks. Anyway, you've made it clear what your intentions are. You have a nice life and be good and be well. ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 10:32, 9 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Checkmark This section is resolved and can be archived. If you disagree, replace this template with your comment. ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 10:33, 9 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The Azores, the Canary Islands, and Madeira

[edit]

I just want to point out that the Azores, the Canary Islands, and Madeira have been classified as dependent territories by Collins World Atlas. 203.174.173.6 (talk) 05:51, 25 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It's not an authority. Legally, under both domestic and international law, the territories have been incorporated into Spain and Portugal respectively. TFD (talk) 04:40, 6 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I can't see any differences between them and the likes of Christmas Island, the Cocos (Keeling) Islands, and Norfolk island. 120.16.66.177 (talk) 09:45, 7 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Well, I can see the difference clearly. The Canary Islands are an autonomous region of Spain, and the Asores and Madeiras are autonomous regions of Portugal, while Christmas, Cocos and Norfolk are external dependent territories of Australia. AuH2ORepublican (talk) 03:04, 9 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I can't see any differences between them and Tasmania. TFD (talk) 04:26, 9 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I think the problem is more the inclusion of Christmas Island, the Cocos (Keeling) Islands, and Norfolk island. They don't meet any of the listed criteria for entities similar to dependent territories and are included on the ad hoc basis the that Australia acquired them after its establishment - a criterion which, if applied neutrally and consistently, would make for a very long article indeed, and which must be discarded immediately as the actual basis. The real reason they are included is of course that they are commonly included in similar lists. Kominscarm (talk) 11:35, 12 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
They're included here because "debate remains as to whether the external territories are integral parts of Australia", which is likely related to why they're on similar lists. If the debate was settled they'd be in the first list. The list excludes entities that appear on similar lists, although they are mentioned in prose (eg. French Guiana, Palmyra Atoll, Jan Mayen). CMD (talk) 11:58, 12 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
There is no evidence they have been incorporated into Australia. In recent years, Australia has placed refugees on these islands, under the premise that because they were not part of Australia, the Convention Relating to the Status of Refugees did not apply.
Incorporation into a state means that its laws apply in full, which apparently is not the case here, at least in the opinion of the Australian government. TFD (talk) 13:16, 12 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
COMMENT No evidence? I will show you the evidence. Below is a link from the Australian Government explaining the legal status of its external territories:
https://www.aph.gov.au/parliamentary_business/committees/house_of_representatives_committees?url=ncet/communication/report/chapter2.pdf
According to the source, Australia has full sovereign powers over all of the External Territories and those territories are all Australian territory in the same sense as any part of the Australian mainland. However, Norfolk Island is a self-governing territory like the mainland territories of the Northern Territory and the Australian Capital Territory, while all of the other External Territories are non self-governing.
Norfolk, Christmas, Cocos, Ashmore, Cartier and the Coral Sea Islands are all administered by the Department of Transport and Regional Services. The Australian Antarctic Territory and Heard and McDonald Islands are administered by the Department of the Environment and Heritage.
In other words, all seven external territories are considered integral parts of Australia. They are administered by either of the two above-mentioned deparments under the Australian federal government. 58.152.63.206 (talk) 05:12, 16 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
At one time, the UK had full sovereign powers over all of Australia and it was British property in the same sense as any part of the UK. That does not mean that Australia was ever part of the UK.
Can you name any dependent territories where another state does not have full sovereign powers over it? That is after all the definition of a dependency.
Note the source says that these territories are legally referred to as "External Territories", i.e., not part of Australia. And the discussion is about what Australian laws apply to these territories, which would not be an issue say with the Northern Territory or Tasmania. TFD (talk) 07:10, 17 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
But the source doesn't say the "External Territories" are not part of Australia either. It says: "the Norfolk Island is a self-governing territory like the mainland territories of the Northern Territory and the Australian Capital Territory, while all of the other External Territories are non self-governing."
I think that statement clearly states that Norfolk Island has the same political status as the Northern Territory and the Australian Capital Territory while the other External Territories are administered directly by the Australian Federal Government. Christmas Island and the Cocos (Keeling) Islands each has a local government (Shire of Christmas Island and Shire of Cocos (Keeling) Islands), but they have no special rights compared to other shires on mainland Australia while the other External Territories are uninhabited islands. All of them are considered integral parts of Australia. 1.159.150.219 (talk) 12:33, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
What is the difference between integral and non-integral territories of Australia? What would be different if these territories were non-integral? TFD (talk) 17:31, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Non-integral territories are territories administered separately and independently from their national government. Some examples include Aruba, Bermuda, Greenland, Hong Kong, New Caledonia, Puerto Rico, and Tokelau. Another way to distinguish them is whether these territories have been viewed as separate entities from their parent state by the international community. Some key indicators include separate membership within an international political organisation or having its own national sports teams in international competitions. For example, Greenland is a member of the Nordic Council, New Caledonia is a member of the Pacific Islands Forum, Hong Kong has its own national football team, and Puerto Rico has its own national basketball team. On the other hand, Christmas Island, the Cocos (Keeling) Islands, and Norfolk Island have none of these privileges. 2001:8003:9100:2C01:BD:FEFB:7CF:88AE (talk) 04:24, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I have not seen that definition before and ask for a source. Scotland has its own teams, Quebec has limited international personality, while Puerto Rico is administered de facto in the same way as any U.S. state.
Dependency is just the modern politically correct term applied to territories that were once considered colonies. There is a huge range of degrees of self-government, but sovereignty always remains with the administering state. For example, the UK imposed direct rule on the Turks and Caicos in 2009. TFD (talk) 08:34, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Norfolk Island participates at the Commonwealth Games and Pacific Games separately from Australia. I T B F 📢 14:42, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Formal request

[edit]

As per the discussions above, I would like to request the following 31 entities to be removed from our article as they do not meet the definition of a dependent territory:

Associated states
  1. Cook Islands
  2. Niue
Integral part of a sovereign state
  1. Åland
  2. Christmas Island
  3. Cocos (Keeling) Islands
  4. Norfolk Island
  5. Svalbard
Military bases
  1. Akrotiri and Dhekelia
  2. British Indian Ocean Territory (Chagos Archipelago)
  3. Wake Island
Uninhabited islands
  1. Ashmore and Cartier Islands
  2. Baker Island
  3. Bouvet Island
  4. Clipperton Island
  5. Coral Sea Islands
  6. Heard Island and McDonald Islands
  7. Howland Island
  8. Jarvis Island
  9. Johnston Atoll
  10. Kingman Reef
  11. Midway Atoll
  12. South Georgia and the South Sandwich Islands
Territorial claims
  1. Bajo Nuevo Bank
  2. Navassa Island
  3. Serranilla Bank
Antarctic claims
  1. Australian Antarctic Territory
  2. British Antarctic Territory
  3. French Southern and Antarctic Lands
  4. Peter I Island
  5. Queen Maud Land
  6. Ross Dependency

2001:8003:9100:2C01:BD:FEFB:7CF:88AE (talk) 05:10, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

While they may not meet your definition of dependencies, they meet definitions in reliable sources and more importantly are described as dependencies in reliable sources. TFD (talk) 08:35, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Entities with no unique autonomy

[edit]

I guess these entities should be included in this list, and I will explain why.

1. ISO 3166-2 code

According to the International Organization for Standardization (ISO), codes assigned to countries play a fundamental role in different contexts, both in international trade and global communication. ISO creates international standards to ensure standardization. Having unique and consistent codes for countries facilitates communication between companies, governments and organizations around the world, eliminating ambiguity and errors that could occur with the use of different country names or abbreviations. For example, for databases and IT systems, representing countries by alphanumeric codes is much more efficient and less error-prone than by full names. Additionally, country codes help organize and categorize data in a more practical and structured way.

2. Country calling code

Each country or territory has a unique numeric code (for example, metropolitan France is +33, and French Guiana, which is a French overseas department is +594). This code is necessary for international calls to be correctly routed and directed to the destination country, because without calling codes, it would be impossible to distinguish between telephone numbers from different countries. A number may be the same in several countries (for example, 1234567890 may be a valid number in France and elsewhere), but the international dialing code ensures that the call goes to the correct country.

3. Country code top-level domain

Country code top-level domains (TLDs), such as ".no" for Norway or ".sj" for Svalbard and Jan Mayen, are important for several reasons, especially when it comes to distinguishing between countries and territories and their respective identities on the internet. For example, the country code TLD helps identify the geographic origin of a website or online resource. For example, a domain like "example.co.nl" indicates that the site is associated with the Netherlands, while "example.bq" suggests a connection with BES islands. This helps users and search engines understand the location of a service or business. In addition, many users prefer to interact with local content. For example, French Guiana may trust more a website with a ".gf" domain because he expects the content to be in French and relevant to French Guiana. Country code TLDs help you create an immediate connection with your local audience.

Resuming, although these entities have no unique autonomy, they signed these treaties, which are considered international, then at the same time, it is possible to consider that these entities are considered dependent territories even without autonomy. 2804:14C:4386:8267:F9EF:107A:97C6:AA6A (talk) 16:37, 22 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Entities with non-recognized unique autonomy

[edit]

I propose the inclusion of these entities, such as Kurdistan of Iraq; Wa State of Myanmar; Gaza Strip of Palestine; Galmudug and Puntland of Somalia; Rojava of Syria; and Zanzibar of Tanzania. The reason for including these entities is because they in fact have a greater degree of autonomy, with its self-governments, juridictions and regulations although this is not as recognized internationally. For example, Wa State has its own political system, administrative divisions, army and constitution (Wa State Basic Law). Then, it's possible that these entities should be considered as dependent territories. 2804:14C:4386:8267:F9EF:107A:97C6:AA6A (talk) 19:07, 22 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Dependent_territory&oldid=1258985699"