Talk:List of territorial disputes/Archive 1

Archive 1

Total Area of Disputed Regions

I think it would be an interesting addition to the list if an approximate land/water area of each disputed region were included. It seems like a lot of work, but maybe someone will be up to the task. Checkguy (talk) 02:04, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

i like this idea it sounds facinating id like to see someone make these statistics shown on this artical.76.244.155.36 (talk) 16:05, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

East Asia Islands

I wish there was more about this, the level of hostility Japan, North & South Korea, Russia and China go to over a few rocks along the Asian shoreline is incredible.dzzycicero

Mongolia: ROC legal says "Article 4 The territory of the Republic of China within its existing national boundaries shall not be altered except by a resolution of the National Assembly." Say Mongolia no more part, then it is not.

This wikipedia say it cite legal documents to claims. show legal document say ROC claim mainland China! remove mainland china! no more claim to it.

Asia

Koreans including Korean government from both North and South. Never recognized Northern part of Baekdoosan as part of China. Korea and China land dispute alos includes " Korean Region" in Kando ( Manchuria) area. Many lands in Kando area that belongs to Korean Peninsula. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bostonasia (talk • contribs) 02:53, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

There's a number of Asian territories (and possibly others) in which the two nations are neither bolded nor italicized. Also, some of the redlinks can be reworded so that they can be made blue links, especially the princely states in India and Pakistan. Becd22

Changbai Mountain straddles the frontier of the PRC and DPRK, so it doesn't really matter what the government nor the people of South Korea think about the matter. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.36.245.254 (talk) 20:21, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

Azad Kashmir

The said state is disputed territory and has been controlled by both Pakistan and India.

vkvora 15:57, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

Cabinda

Cabinda is claimed by both Angola (who controls it) and the DRC. Becd22

Israel/Palestine

1) Do Lebanon and Syria recognize Israel? I was under the impression that most Arab nations didn't.

2) I don't know if it's accurate to say that Israel partially controls the West Bank and Gaza and the PA partially controls it. That strikes me as being like saying that the State of Georgia partially controls its territory, and the United States partially controls it—Georgia manages day-to-day affairs, yes, but it's given all its authority by the U.S. In reality, the U.S. has all the power, and it just lets Georgia use some of it. Likewise, Israel lets the PA run Palestine for the most part, but it reserves the right to come in at any time and do whatever it wants, and it has and will completely ignore the PA when it suits its purposes, and the PA can't do anything about it. Israel is really the only controlling power there. Anyone disagree?

—Simetrical (talk) 07:27, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

• 1) Whether Israel is regonized by state X is irrelevant here, as long as state X does not lay any claim to (part of) its territory. So forget about Lebanon, list Syrian claim on Golan there, not in chief of all of Israel
• 2) Your analogy is cripple: a US state is not a sovereign nation, but in fact a voluntary member of the federal USA (once of the Confederacy); the US can't lay claim to what is already their's. The Cisjordanian Westbank is certainly under Israeli (military) control, but since on 31 July 1988 Jordan abandoned its claims to it, the technical question is whether any state claims it, i.e. whether there is in fact/law a Palestinian state (not just if there should be one, that's a political choice). Since only other neighbour Egypt does not claim the Gaza strip, the same question applies there- answering the question whether the Palestinian National Authority is a state (in either case it is something sui generis) goes beyond the scope of our list, the puzzle defies world diplomacy since generations.

Fastifex 15:46, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

The West Bank and East Jerusalem can be moved from "Disputes between recognized sovereign states and other states" into "Disputes between recognized sovereign states" now that Palestine is officially recognized by the UN. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nogamal (talk • contribs) 13:48, 9 April 2013 (UTC)

No, statehood, as a matter of international law, is determined by facts, not by recognition (which is only political, not legal or factual) -- at least since the Montevideo Convention of 1933. There are four requirements, all of which must be met to legally be a state. The Palestinian Authority meets one of the requirements (the ability to conclude agreements with states), might arguably meet another one (defined population), probably fails a third one (defined territory) because by current international law (the 1949 armistice agreements) the Green Line can never become an international border (this international law could be changed by mutual agreement of all the signatories, but hasn't yet) and there is simply no agreed to border (yet), and utterly and totally fails the fourth requirement (that it be in control of its territory) because the PA has limited control over parts of the West Bank, zero control of other parts of the West Bank, and zero control over Gaza. As a matter of fact and international law, the PA is not a state (though it might someday become a state). M Carling 15:48, 17 October 2013 (UTC)

Canary Islands

Why isn't the Canary Islands included? Morocco still claim them. RAYMI.

Estonian - Russian dispute is over

The territories listed here are not disputed any more. Estonia has ratified the border agreement, which states that the border between the Russian Federation and the Republic of Estonia follows the former 'line of control' or to make it more clear, the Soviet-era border between RSFSR and Estonian SSR. According to this line, Ivangorod and other territories mentioned in the article were part of Russia and the border treaty affirmed that those territories shall remain Russian.Constanz 09:24, 17 December 2005 (UTC)

Should the entries be removed if the dispute no longer exists? I think so, otherwise this list could get really long when olde disputes are added. Shocktm | Talk | Contributions 00:38, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

I would advise, yes. The border treaty has not been ratified by Russia, but it doesn't change the matter, as Estonian side has nolens-volens accepted the loss of territories (the first premier to do that was Andres Tarand in 1994). Constanz 14:36, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

BTW, the same goes for Latvian-Russian dispute which was caused by the same reason (territorial- administrative changes at the beginning of Soviet occupation). As far as I know, Latvia and Russia have signed the treaty and probably ratified it as well Constanz 14:43, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

Rockall

As far as I understand from the Rockall article, the «conflict» -insofar there is a conflict between Denmark, Iceland, Ireland and the UK only revolves around extraction rights linked to the continental shelf.

This does not seem to justify enough inclusion of Rockall in the list, thence my removal of this item. French Tourist 18:33, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

===>Granted The main economic interest is in the shelf (and consquently what can be extracted mineral-wise), but you can only claim the shelf if the (above-sea) territory is under your sovereignty. Rockall itself is, of course, totally useless, but it is a proxy by which these states argue for the shelf. Since Rockall itself is the justification for dispute, it seems appropriate to leave it here. -Justin (koavf), talk 20:57, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

Though I have no special competency in international law, I am not sure your interpretation is correct. Rights of extraction on the continental shelf extend even beyond the Exclusive Economic Zone -which extends itself beyond National Waters proper, and really I don't think they are "territorial" by nature.

Look for instance at French-Canadian conflicts around Saint-Pierre-et-Miquelon (here for instance). Before the arbitration of 1992 there was no dispute about sovereignty over any land, of course, not even about the extension of National Waters. There was a part of interpretation of treaties as concerns EEZ though, and an international arbitration was necessary. Even with this international arbitration, some space remains for doubts about rights over continental shelf : see specifically here and a deal was signed last year between France and Canada to avoid a new conflict.

All this lengthy example to maintain my position : though I am ready to admit in this page conflicts about national waters (as Slovenia vs Croatia) I think disputes about EEZs, and still worse about rights on the shelf should be excluded. A dispute about the shelf is economical, not territorial. French Tourist 22:04, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

I concur with Justin, though, that Rockall should be listed in this article; you're free to add footnotes explaining the specific situation, though. Cheers, —Nightstallion (?) 22:11, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

i agree that french tourist has something worth mentioning. id like to see a list of EEZ disputes in a separete Sub-list on this artical although i disagree with his bold notion that they need to be compltly removed. we just need to have a separate sublist so they can be kept track of beter on this page. 76.244.155.36 (talk) 16:50, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

ROC

Mongolia: ROC legal says "Article 4 The territory of the Republic of China within its existing national boundaries shall not be altered except by a resolution of the National Assembly." Say Mongolia no more part, then it is not.

This wikipedia say it cite legal documents to claims. show legal document say ROC claim mainland China! remove mainland china! no more claim to it.

I believe this in by user:Chen Zen, but was unsigned. I understand you are tring to making about the legal technicalities in the ROC. But you cannot change the article without providing evidence for your position. Kevlar67 09:28, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

I add the fact inspection regarding mainland China. The present time no claim originates in Republic of China government does not make the territorial claims in mainland China. Madman Chiang kai shek is dies and therefore is the claims he rules the mainland. The claims in the mainland should be in the old map, but the constitution does not define Republic of China territory. In 1991 Li condemned like this claims in the mainland.

If this wikipedia claim only because the madman Chiang Kai Shek word on mainland then Hong Kong and Aomen must add on this page. He always condemned treaties like British adopts the Chinese territory in the old treaty. After Second World War, he expected (and Roosevelt tells him) to reclaim Hong Kong after surrender Japanese. This wikipedia needs to cite as proof, Republic of China still requested the mainland, or it must also said, Republic of China claims mainland, Hong Kong and Aomen on madman words.

I have cited a source. Since the adoption of the Constitution of the Republic of China in Mainland China, no constitutional action has been made to renounce claims to the Mainland, so I consider ROC claiming mainland a valid description.--Jusjih

The constitution does not define Republic of China territory! Demonstrates where it defines! In the constitution time, Republic of China has not even controls Taiwan! So you will quotes citation arrangement modern Republic of China to deny it to have the current territory of Taiwan!

---

Until relatively recently official maps published in the Republic of China Mongolia is considered part of the ROC. Over these years no action that fulfills the constitutional requirement has been made to renounce the claim on Mongolia (although the government under Chen and his party have stopped publishing such maps). — Instantnood 20:14, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

Even though the ROC Constitution does not define its territory, earlier Constitution-like documents did claim Mongolia but not Taiwan to be ROC territory, but I cannot find English translations yet. The Additional Articles of the Constitution of the Republic of China does mention Taiwan Province, so I would consider both Taiwan and Mongolia constitutional territories, but this is just my personal opinion, which is not legally binding at all.--Jusjih 04:04, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

There is a debate as to whether the area controlled by the Republic of China is in fact still de jure an occupied territory (Treaty of San Francisco 1952). This would deem it under military occupation by the ROC government acting on behalf of the 'Occupying Power'(United States, per pro the WW2 Allies). Although the US has never claimed the ROC-controlled area formerly, and has expressed that Unification should be the eventual goal this should be noted. RAYMI 30/3/06

This thing may be interesting. Several ROC legislators have petitioned the Judicial Yuan to interpret whether the ROC territory would include Mainland China and Mongolia, but the Judicial Yuan replied in its Interpretation 328 that it is not supposed to interpret this thing. I will post a copy at Wikisource and a citation here soon.--Jusjih 14:02, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

Atacama corridor

The Atacama corridor doesn't really "fit in" with the rest of the disputes. Official Bolivian maps don't show the corridor as part of Bolivia. Bolivia has not officially claimed any piece of land, only claimed its right to a coastline. 200.119.252.28 00:49, 4 June 2006 (UTC) Much as I respect your position I disagree, as if it includes coastline, it will include COAST, i.e land. RAYMI 09/06/06.

Bolivia doesn't claim Chilean territories. Every milimeter of the Chilean-Bolivian Border is recognized by Chile and Bolivia. Bolivia wishes a corridor to the Pacific like Brits when they wish a little home in Costa Brava. There could be a negotiation but not a dispute. --Keysanger (talk) 17:56, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

See Treaty of Peace and Friendship of 1904 between Chile and Bolivia or International Boundary Study, No. 67 – March 15, 1966, Bolivia – Chile Boundary, http://www.law.fsu.edu/library/collection/LimitsinSeas/IBS067.pdf --Keysanger (talk) 15:06, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

New Entries (Raymi)

I have made a few new entries in this section, which may well cause discussions. In no apparant order, here they are: Klel peninsula: obtained info from web. Preah Temple : from CIA World Factbook. confiscated Liechtenstein lands: as above. Bubiyan and Warbah: apparantly claim has reasserted itself through various government ministers. Kolok river mouth: obtained via web. three additional Spanish PDS off North African coast: these are well documented on various sites. Kok Chang Pheuk:documented from Asian news reports. Umm Qasr: from documented chat by Major General Dutton, US Commander Multinational Division SE. 2400 acres of Kosovoan land: from a UN report; note Assembly vote reference. Al Buraymi from www.countrydata.com Dhu-Harab: from www.al-bab.com Tuzla island : well documented on the net, e.g www.foreignpolicy.org.ua Big Ussuni Island: www.services.cnd.org North Bass Island/Isle of St George: www.geocarta.blogspot.com Kolpino Island: www.einst.ee Shatt al-Arab: lots of sources, very well-documented. Should be included for significance. I also hear that there are various silt banks and mud flats that are contested, but I cannot find anything on the web.Yet. Bubare village: ongoing disput unsettled after many years involving the moving of border 'beacons'. Ernst Thalmann: wiki entry has some info (check spelling). De facto dispute. Please comment on these entries politely. RAYMI 09/06/06.

Help. Please.

Any additional information regarding possible entry into this section of the following:- Sevastapol, Gibraltar (isthmus and border area), Prevlaka and disputes lacking placenames between Burkina Faso and Benin, and also the river islands in the Danube between Bulgaria and Romania. Also does any contributors agree with the following additions:- Canary Islands, Bird Island (to include Montserrat) and the question of the Arctic Polar Regions. While this does not cover land, per se, it is of importance. RAYMI 09/06/06

More additions

Changed Ligitan and Sipidan to add de Filipino claim. Deleted and revised Kazakh/Uzbeki entries. (ref www.iwpr.net) Added Maarboun (www.cedarlands.proboards). Also Mosul (www.danielpipes.org). More soon. RAYMI. (Again!)

Yet More (RAYMI)

More entries:- Prevlaka (no final agreement yet), Bosniak enclave near Sastavci, Canary Islands, land near Mejico de la Cruz (www.timesonline.net), Minicoy (Maldivian official stated that island was historically Maldivian), Motaying, Deir Al-Ashayr (www.digital.library.unt.edu). Have quoted OAU 1964 resolution opt out by Morocco for Canaries. Interestingly, Somalia opted out too, hence Constitutional claims for Ogaden area, etc. I am trying to get more research done on tripoint disagreements in Africa, and also whether any current governments/ministers/officials/monarchs etc have made irredentist claims on foriegn soil. I am still contemplating an entry for the Polar regions. RAYMI 13/06/06.

More edits

Made some extra changes this a.m; these involve adding notes/links to Sino-Russian border agreement, as Republic of China do not recognize any agreement involving the People's Republic of China, the Aegean dispute link for Imia/Kardak, and a change to Sakhalin. While Japan adheres to the SFPT, it regards Sakhalin as no man's land. RAYMI. 14/06/06. Added ROC claim to Northern Burma. As this claim dates from at least 1949, I have described the area as Burma, rather than Myanmar. This information was gleaned from the Wiki article on the Republic of China. Which got its' information from ROC maps. RAYMI (AGAIN) 14/06/06.

Yet More Entries

Another shedload of entries. Check out the Vatican one obtained from source maps from German Wikipedia!!!!!! RAYMI againnnnnnn

Guess what? More entries!

New ones:- Tindouf, Hermon, Io/Parang Island, Al-Darreh. Regards, Raymi.......

....and the hits just keep on coming....

More: altered French Guiana dispute, added Kula Kangri, Bure, Rho, Strongill, Ploce and Nymark. Will add something on Algeria/Mali/Niger tripoint (10 km dispute) when I get the chance to put the co-ordinates in! All of above except tripoint disputed area have wikipedia-available information........ RAYMI. ps. Sikkim.

Greater Mongolia

Apparantly, the Republic of China, as part of its' claim to Greater Mongolia, claims certain bits of Russia. Tuva is one, can anyone inform me what other bit, or bits this includes. Ta, Raymi. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 80.68.39.212 (talk • contribs) 07:32, June 23, 2006 (UTC). Done! Buryat Republic. RAYMI. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 80.68.39.212 (talk • contribs) 09:00, June 23, 2006 (UTC).

See Tannu Uriankhai. The Sino-Soviet/Sino-Russian border has always been in dispute, until Jiang Zemin signed a treaty renouncing almost all former claims. — Instantnood 23:02, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

And more.........

4 South American disputes from garnet.acns.fsu.edu. 4 pending disputes (still not agreed dispite Sino-Russian border agreement) from ciaonet.org.Also one from pacificislandtravel.com...unrelated to the Pacific! There are also 'around 40 disputed spots' in the Ferghana dispute. Doing more research. RAYMI. Feedback per-lease.

Source

It would be nice if sources of the information recently added [2] are provided. — Instantnood 21:29, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

Shall try to add more sources in future, but as a start...River Congo via World Factbook, as was Okpara River. Benin/Niger dispute is at the ICJ, but part gleaned from World Factbook too. Zuqar from Wikipedia!! All the Americam continental disputes are via a Paul Cornell edu site. The Armenia/Azerbaijan dispute (more exact than previous), Sikkim enclaves and Fergana Valley are via an EXCELLENT exclave/enclave site www.vinokurov.info. The Ghana Togo one was obtained from several news reports on web.Hibernia Reef forms part of the disputed Indonesia/Australia fishing grounds; info via Wikipedia and Aussie news sources. I also added a Malay/Singaporean dispute which I found on the net. www.singaporewindow.org, I think. I normally get a half hour a day to search AND add stuff via work PC. Hope this helps a bit.Assuring you of my best intentions, Raymi.

Please cite the source(s) when you add anything to the list, and please sign your messages with ~~~~ (four tildes). — Instantnood 17:47, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

No dispute exists between Indonesia and Australia. See Australia–Indonesia_border 114.245.215.95 (talk) 17:47, 9 December 2013 (UTC)

More................................RAYMI

Greetings, utis posse..... latest pickings:- Galabat/Gedaref from www.sudan.net/news; Isla Martin Garcia from www.law.fsu.edu. Also for Arroio Invernada and Sete Quedas. Questions:- does Greece still have a latent/unrenounced territorial claim to the Albanian parts of Northern Epirus? Is the Algerian/Tunisian border still disputed? Is there a dispute over a village on the Guinea/Ivory Coast border? All assistance gratefully received.Ta. RAYMI.

Sikkim, etc.

copied from User talk:80.68.39.212

Why did you list Sikkim as disputed between China and India? China has formally recognized Sikkim as a part of India. There is no dispute. Please check your sources before adding falsehoods. -- ran (talk) 18:04, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

Also, Bolshoy Ussuriisk has been divided between China and Russia in a recent treaty. There is no longer any dispute. Once again please check your sources!! -- ran (talk) 18:05, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

The Sino-Korean border was demarcated way back in 1964!! Baekdu Mountain was divided between China and North Korea -- so where did the dispute come from?!

That's it. I'm going to revert ALL of changes you made. I'm really sorry, because I know you've worked hard on this. But after finding three errors about one single country, I don't think I can regard your contributions as credible. -- ran (talk) 18:12, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

end copy

ok

I've calmed down now. I thought it was a bit harsh. I DON'T have a PC, and access to one is only on my work lunch break or b4 I start, hence delayed reply.... What I will do is to go through my previous additions during the next couple of weeks, and give sources (although some were listed in previous posts of this article). I am also not an editing expert so this will take WEEKS of work. It would be NICE if you could reinsert two previous bits; these are sourced:- the Vatican City/Italy dispute was sourced from a map on German Wikipedia (no, REALLY!!!!!), and was stated so originally. The African tripoint reference included map co-ordinates, and was from a gent called Brownlie's report. This can be found easily by putting "African" and "tripoints" into a search engine such as Google. In reference to Sikkim, I accept what you say. On the CIA's World Factbook, it STILL states that Baekdu is undemarcated. The three Assuri River Islands have not, according to my Source, been handed over, but I ACCEPT what you are saying, and my argument is not definitive. With the best will in the world I had worked hard on these, and it would be a gesture of goodwill if you could reinsert the two aforementioned bits, or at least accept my proposals. Hopefully we can work together, and my frenetic research can be combined with editorial strength. I think my position on this is at least pragmatic.

Hi Raymi,

I've put back the Vatican dispute. As for the Algeria/Mali/Niger tripoint, here are some things that I found:

[3]

Conventions relating to the tracing of borders concluded by Algeria. ...

Convention relating to the demarcation of the State border between the People's Democratic Republic of Algeria and the Republic of Niger signed January 05, 1983

Convention relating to the demarcation of the State border between the People's Democratic Republic of Algeria and the Republic of Mali Signed May 08, 1983

[4]

...However, it also applies to past tensions with Tunisia over the Jafara plain and the Ghadames tripoint; to tensions between Libya and Niger over Toummo oasis; to the recent crisis in relations between Libya and Algeria over the Ghat border region; to the 1963 'war of the sands' between Algeria and Morocco; to the issue of Moroccan recognition of the existence of an independent Mauritanian state; and to the Algerian problems with Niger and Mali until the border demarcation in 1983.

[5]

Mauritania and Algeria made no comment on their common border until 1983, when they announced that delimitation and demarcation had been achieved as part of the process of Mauritania's adhesion to the Algerian inspired Treaty for Concord and Fraternity. Similar announcements were made in conjunction with Niger and Mali in the same year.

[6]

..Demarcation agreements were concluded with Mali and Niger in 1983.

-- ran (talk) 14:09, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

Thank you!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Thank you for the restoration, and for the correction. From tomorrow onward, I will try (work permitting to source all the previous entries, with explanations for a few. one to note for now (without source, as I only have two mins to type this, sorry, at work...) is the Ethiopian/Eritrean border towns were awarded to Eritrea by the ICJ, I believe but Ethiopia does not agree with this. The ICJ were involved in the award of the Preah Temple (excuse spelling), but the access to the area is 'restricted' (World Factbook), and that's since 1962! The Eritrea/Yemen island was a wiki acquisition. I will be having a quick log on to this at 5.25 BST, but otherwise by til tomorrow. Thank you, Ran, once again. RAYMI--80.68.39.212 14:45, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

No technically Badme was awarded to Eritrea by the PCA but Ethiopia still occupies it. Ethiopia claims to recognize the border so I am not sure if this is technically a territorial dispute. Merhawie (talk) 00:05, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

--80.68.39.212 14:49, 4 July 2006 (UTC)== ALSO ==

Shag Rocks is part of the Falkland Islands and South Georgia region, and therefore the same dispute, but is often mentioned separately in context geographically. Hence my entry. I think there is a Wiki entry on this. RAYMI--80.68.39.212 14:49, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

Suggestion:-

Hi. Wonder if we could reinstate the following for starters:-Bure,Tsorona/Zalambessa,Zuqar Island, Shag Rocks, Portland Canal, Hermon, isthmus between Gibraltar and Spain, Isthmus of Perekop, Nymark and the summit of Mont Blanc, were, memory serves, all sourced from Wikipedia. Also can we re-alphabeticise Shebaa Farms and Talpatty/New Moore Island and also Van, Kars and Western Province. These disputes are not in doubt, I just put them in alphabetic order. RAYMI--80.68.39.212 07:44, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

Bubare and Bure

First two:- Bubare www.nationaudio.com/News/EastAfrican/10022003/Regional/Regional27.html Bure en.wikipedia.org --80.68.39.212 11:16, 5 July 2006 (UTC) RAYMI Let me know if these are acceptable to reinstate??

Bubare dispute appears to be resolved: [7]

I'll put the Ethiopia-Eritrea dispute back in.

-- ran (talk) 14:32, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

next three....

Caprivi (Strip):- www.home.worldonline.dk. Also worth a look at "Africa" "tripoint" if the 'link' doesn't work. There is a contention over the border here.... islands in the River Congo:- I got this from the World Factbook; www.cia.gov/publications/factbook. This is a source I used for quite a few disputes. Unlike some bits, I have not got the names of the islands individually. Corisco Bay:- the UN are 'mediating' in the dispute here. A good source is www.ininnews.org. I will make another post in a bit. Thanks for your help. RAYMI--80.68.39.212 14:50, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

Corisco Bay.....and the tangled tale of the Canary Islands

The best site here is:- www.un.org/Depts/dpa/africastory.html I'm quite confident with this. It names the three islands individually as Mbanié, Cocotiers and Congas, which was my change to the original entry.

OK, (deep breath). The Canary Islands. Wiki has stuff on the concept of a 'Greater Morocco', and while Morocco is NOT formally persuing Canarian integration/union with itself, it has not renounced the claim it made in the past. In fact Morocco (along with Somalia) do not agree with the OAU's 1964 agreement on post-colonial boundaries, and will not sign any median line agreements with Spain on sea demarcation. Morocco is no longer a member of the OAU, and although there are disputes on the Plazas de Soberania (excuse spelling?) with Spain already, this may be a latent colonial hangover too. One source is www.answers.com/topic/canary-islands. I believe a mention, with a footnote is acceptable.--80.68.39.212 15:04, 5 July 2006 (UTC) RAYMI.

...Wow... you work fast! I can't really look at all of these right now... so is it alright if I got back to this over the next 24 hours? -- ran (talk) 15:15, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

more disputes...

Absolutely. Just like to add one if I may, though (sorry). There is a very in depth article on Wiki reference the disputed status of the isthmus between Gibraltar and Spain. This is, technically, a separate dispute from the Gibraltar dispute!!!!!! There is a link to a map! This is due to the exact wording of the Treaty that assigned Gibraltar to Spain. I have found sources for around 20 of the 108 I contibuted to during June. Have to work quick, as I have no PC at home!!!!!!!!! Many many thanks. RAYMI.--80.68.39.212 15:22, 5 July 2006 (UTC) RAYMI--80.68.39.212 15:50, 5 July 2006 (UTC) RAYMI--80.68.39.212 15:52, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

isthmus Gib/Sp

I have added the above one in Europe. As said previously there is an excellent article on Wiki, which has a link to a map. Don't think this one is in doubt at all. Have managed to work out how to link, which may be easy for you guys, but I've never owned a PC in my life!! RAYMI--80.68.39.212 07:51, 6 July 2006 (UTC)--80.68.39.212 07:52, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

Sources from World Factbook

The following were completely or partially sourced from the above on-line publication (www.cia.gov/cia/publications/factbook) AFRICA islands in the River Congo Lake Nyasa River N'Tem Okpara ASIA Chittagong Hill Tracts Fergana Valley Preah Vihear Temple Shatt Al-Arab (good wiki article, too) EUROPE Former Liechtenstein-owned lands

Hope this helps....RAYMI--80.68.39.212 12:22, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

Wiki sourced articles

The following were all sourced from SOURCED Wikipedia articles Penon de Alhucemas, Shag Rocks, Portland Canal, Kula Kangri, Minicoy Island, isthmus of Perekop, the summit of Mont Blanc, Nymark, note TECHNICAL CLAIM- IF A BRITISH CITIZEN CLAIMS NEW LAND (uti posseditis), by virtue of ALL British land being in pssession of the Crown, then it is British property and cannot under UK law be privately owned unless freehold is granted by the Reigning monarch, or granted by an Act of Parliament per pro The Crown..., Ploce, Rho-the article suggests that it is in the Aegean Grey Zone and Brecqhou. RAYMI--80.68.39.212 12:46, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

Hi Raymi, with regards to the wiki sourced articles, I'm put all of them back in except for:

• Shag Rocks: already a part of the South Georgia dispue
• Minicoy Island: a senior official making remarks is NOT the same as a country pressing official claims. I haven't found anything that suggests a territorial dispute between the Maldives and India.
• Perekop: since it connects Ukrainian territory to Ukrainian territory, I don't see how Russia is claiming it. Certainly the Wikipedia article is quite intriguing, but it doesn't make any kind of positive statement either.
• Nymark: a British citizen wanting to set up a micronation is not the same as the United Kingdom claiming the land. The UK has not made any territorial claim to Nymark.
• Ploce: Bosnia and Herzegovina does not appear to claim Ploce. They may *want* Croatia to grant them certain features of sovereignty, but that is not the same as claiming that they already have legal sovereignty now.
• Brecqhou: What's the dispute? A private company has expressed a desire to make Brecqhou political separate, but that is not the same as another sovereign state making claims on Brecqhou.

-- ran (talk) 02:42, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for all of your hard work... and keep em coming! =) -- ran (talk) 03:56, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

Thanks again.

Thanks again; I will try to do more research about several of the areas, particularly Isthmus of Perekop, there was a linked dispute over Tuzla Island, which has no Wiki reference, which is fairly dormant as we speak between the same two parties. On an entirely different subject, Shatt Al-Arab is another Wiki sourced former entry. This is quite a well-known dispute, and worth your attention. There is an exceptional immaculately-researched Adobe-based site about enclaves and exclaves, which I will reference soon. This has led to disputes over territory particularly between India and Bangladesh, and Azerbaijan and Armenia, and was very useful for me to reference several disputes. I believe that an entry for Chittgong Hill Tracts or Cooch Behar enclave system should be added to List of Territorial Disputes, but I'll reference the site first. Also, reference my previous post on World Factbook. Could we not have Shag Rocks mentioned, i.e, 'see also' during the South Georgia section????? RAYMI--80.68.39.212 07:33, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

More discussion points:-

Apologies for the complete lack of order here; this is my work lunch break, so, best I can do..... Ligitan and Sipidan. There is a claim by the Phillipines here. Both have been put into Sabah by Malaysia. While the Sabah dispute is listed, the ICJ did not accept the Filipino claim as valid. Sakhalin:- also listed. Japan recognises this area as 'no man's land'. While it cannot claim under the San Francisco Peace Treaty, it does not recognize Russian sovereignty. Shebaa Farms: my edit was purely alphabetical. Can we reinstate as before????? Plati and Strongill: both in the disputed Aegean area. The following website has detail on enclaves/exclaves. While many are not disputes at all, it does cover Armenia/Azerbaijan territorial occupations of enclaves/exclaves well. Also, there is a great section on the Fergana Valley and Cooch Behar enclaves/exclaves which cause problems. www.vinokurov.info/enclaves.htm My opinions on the rejected disputes so far:- Shag Rocks:- as before, can we mention this in the South Georgia bit? Minicoy:- I accept your argument as correct. Thank you! Perekop:- I think we both accept more research is needed here. Nymark:- I stand by my original statement in the last post, but accept its non-entry. Ploce:- I think this is a grey area. More research needed. If Bosnia want sovereignty, by whatever means, in this case a lease, I think it should qualify. But see your POV too. Brecqhou:- This was in the 'some control/non-recognition' category, and you will note the (2) RESIDENTS want a sort of UDI here. Guernsey is not exercising effective control, and the Balliwick is a non-sovereign self-governing territory. Many thanks for your help.--80.68.39.212 12:45, 7 July 2006 (UTC)RAYMI

For Ploce, it is not a matter of POV, but a matter of the scope of this list. This list covers only actively maintained territorial disputes, not deals that people want to make in the future. For example, if both A and B say that a place rightfully belongs to them, then that's a dispute, but if A acknowledges that a place belong to B right now and wants to obtain it from B, then that's not a dispute, because A is not claiming that A already legally owns that place.

For Brecqhou, it's the same thing as Ploce. There's a difference between residents wanting something and residents saying that they already legally have it.

-- ran (talk) 22:11, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for Shag Rocks etc..... Am going to put Shebaa Farms in alphabetical order, and TRY to start compiling a complete list of Sourced info. Could take a while. RAYMI.--80.68.39.212 07:40, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

Sea territories?

There's for instance a dispute between Russia and Norway over the Barents Sea. I suppose there are also several similar disputes globally. Perhaps this should be made into an article? If there is one already, I apologize, but suggest that there should be a link to it. Barnebarnet 22:14, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

This is difinatly a actual dispute i heard that it may have been resolved or partially resolved a few years back but it diffinatly needs to be included on the list if i cant find it on the list. i do know it was resolved in the favor of Russia becasue there was a unclaimed sea bed in russia between Novaya zemlya island in russia and svalbard islands in norway the dispute may still be disputed by the international court did give russia the right to drill there. 76.244.155.36 (talk) 02:01, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

Antartica?

There's a few disputes over Anartica. It looks like this is covered in the article "Antartica". I'd like to suggest a link to that article. Barnebarnet 22:15, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

CIA World Factbook

To make the list more authoritative, please use <ref name="CIA"> to cite information from the CIA World Factbook. Otherwise, there are too many unsourced items.--Jusjih 16:35, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

Frozen dispute about Antarctica

Is the use of frozen here serious, or is it supposed to be a joke? If so, could it be changed to something more suitable (e.g. suspended) Joseph Sanderson 15:04, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

italy vatican city dispute

To the good people at Borderpoint (www.groups.yahoo); this dispute was originally sourced by myself from German Wikipedia, and there is a map displayed on there. This is a 3m by 60m dispute! It is apparantly a pathway. I would like to join Borderpoint eventually when I get my own internet account!!!!!! Sad but true! RAYMI! —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 80.68.39.212 (talk) 17:40, 10 January 2007 (UTC).

Wrangel, Herald, DeLong

It appears that the State of Alaska's Court made a judgement stating that these islands should be American. My source is www.touchngo.com. The US previously made an agreement with the USSR in 1990 to alter Pacific and Arctic sea boundaries in favour of Russia. This agreement was never ratified by the Russian Duma. Unlike Sea Lion Rock, Sea Otter Rock and Copper Island, these islands have, according to a reply given to State Department Watch, 'never been American territory'. There is a certain impasse in the agreed status of these islands between Alaska, the US Government and Russia. Feel free to comment. RAYMI 80.68.39.212 16:03, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

There's no impasse, and no claim by the US or Alaska. There's only lobbying by some private individuals. I'm removing this. --Amble (talk) 17:22, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

By the way, you can read the Alaska Supreme Court's decision here, and see what the ruling actually said: the islands are not and have never been part of Alaska. --Amble (talk) 17:38, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

Chumbi and Dobta

These 2 enclaves were Sikkimese, and were in Tibet. The past tense refers to the period up to 1959. The People's Republic of China absorbed Tibet in that year, including these two enclaves. At the time of writing, the PRC have recognized Sikkim as part of India, and India have recognized PRC sovereignty over 'much' of Tibet. I state the word 'much' advisedly, as there are noted territorial matters outstanding between the two nations that include areas which are often referred to as Tibet. However, if Sikkim has been recognized as part of India by the PRC, this may or may not include the two enclaves being recognized as Indian. Sikkim at no time relinquished the areas. To further complicate matters, the ROC, which is not by either nation, claims all of mainland China, which may or may not include the two enclaves. In 1959, neither the ROC or Sikkim recognized each other. The population of these two enclaves in 1959 was less than 1000. RAYMI. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 80.68.39.212 (talk) 14:54, 23 March 2007 (UTC). Sikkim's absorption by India in 1975, was unrecognized by the ROC. 80.68.39.212 14:56, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

Northern Ireland

Shouldnt Northern Ireland be listed here somewhere ? (Gnevin 14:11, 13 April 2007 (UTC))

No. The self styled "Republic of Ireland" has finally seen sense and acknowledged reality that Ulster is BRITISH! YourPTR! 07:54, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

Yes. Northern Ireland has been disputed since its inception. It should be listed with a note on the removal from the Irish constitution of its claim to Northern Ireland as part of the Good Friday/Belfast Agreement. PeterClarke 10:22, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

Hey guys, i have added Northern Ireland. I defiantly deserves to be here.--Villa88 (talk) 02:54, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

Kiribati and Cook Islands vs US entries 25/4/07

I have been trying to research these for a while. The US has ceded many islands and atolls to other countries in the last 30 years (ref www.doi.gov). It appears that they MAY have ceded these (State Department Watch states this), but the treaties in question do not mention these islands specifically. It may be an error with the Treaties, but my understanding is if a island is claimed under the Guano Islands Act (these islands were claimed that way), and the claim not ceded by a TREATY or Executive Order, they remain American. Therefore the status, DE JURE, is unclear.80.68.39.212 15:33, 25 April 2007 (UTC) RAYMI

Do we know what islands were claimed to begin with & still listed as such? A treaty to relinquish a whole group may not always need to be stated individually for every island within that group, unless they were all specified in that manner as such. That-Vela-Fella 21:34, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

Cooper Island

One list entry now reads:

• Cooper Island: Canada and United States of America

Cooper Island currently links to a page about a southern hemisphere island off South Georgia. This may be included in the dispute over that territory between the UK and Argentina, but I do not believe either the US or Canada has any claims in that area.

The boldface indicates that Canada has control over this island, so I looked in the Geographical Names Data Base to see if there is another Cooper Island.

The CGNDB has six entries for islands named "Cooper Island", one "Île Cooper", and one "Coopers Island". Of the eight latitude and longitude positions given, four are coastal positions off Newfoundland and Labrador, and three others are inland positions (i.e. they would be lake or river islands), one each in Manitoba, Ontario, and Quebec. Of these the only one anywhere vaguely near the US border is the Ontario one, which is between Sudbury and Lake Nipissing, certainly not disputed territory. The remaining position given is 48°52'N 125°21'W. which is off the west coast of Vancouver Island, BC. This is about 40 miles from mainland Washington State and also seems unlikely to be claimed by the US.

What is going on with this entry?

Could it be a mistake for "Copper Island"? There is a Copper Island listed elsewhere on the page as disputed between the US and Russia, not Canada. Wikipedia's Copper Island page is about a place that's actually part of mainland Michigan, and while it does extend into Lake Superior, it's clearly on the US side of the border with Canada. The CGNDB shows 21 instances of "Copper Island" in Canada, plus one "Îles à Copper" and one "Copper Islands"; I'm not going to check that many locations to see if any one is plausibly what was meant.

207.176.159.90 00:07, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

My information was sourced off the State Department Watch website; it appears that it is off Southern Alaska. After all my work on this section I am running out!!!!! Help!!! Raymi!!!80.68.39.212 07:52, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

Banaba Island: Kiribati and Fiji

I know Banaban refugees have moved to Fiji but I was not aware that there was any dispute about Banaba. I have read that Banaba wants to become sovereign, but nothing about Fiji claiming it.-Indolences 17:00, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

Yeah I was gonna start a section asking why that was listed as well. If nobody has any objections, I'll remove it. The Banaban council lives in Fiji (on Rabi Island), and there have been movements within the Banaban community--proposing either independence or for Banaba to become part of Fiji. But the Fijian government recognises the Kiribati claim and doesn't dispute it. Night w (talk) 09:19, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

Ems/Eems-Dollart/Dollard

If the Ems-Dollart-dispute between Germany and the Netherlands refers to the one which was settled in the Ems-Dollart treaty of 1960 (and the addendum of 1962) it should be moved to former territorial disputes IMHO. See also the discussion at Commons:Image talk:Territorial disputes Europe.svg. I added a note in paranthesis and modified the map. Bamse 00:25, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

South Tyrol

I would also mention South Tyrol as territorial dispute, because Italy got the full administration there in 1919 illegaly. And still today, 55% of the inhabitants of South Tyrol want to be reunificated with Austria, and Austria tries it now by a law, which declares that it has the full duty to defend the inhabitants of this province in case of non-keeping of the '46 Contract of Paris. Next year there will be a referendum on self-determination. Don't you think, it's worth mentioning? 07-18-2007--HannesM

I don't see a challenge from Austria since they also settled any disputes with Italy in 1992. See pages 114/115 & 134 for the 1955 entry.[8] It just looks more like an internal situation & as far as the referendum mentioned, that was actually rejected (unless a new proposal was just done now). That-Vela-Fella 22:17, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

Add South Tyrol, because there is big interest indeed to leave italy and there has been a poll which clearly say that austrians as well as people from south tyrol want each other to form a common nation together http://diepresse.com/home/politik/innenpolitik/4647891/Studie_Sudtirol-zu-Osterreich. 89 % of austrians want it. The referendums of politicians are irrelevant since they don't represent the opinion of our people. Politicians act like there was no interest, but there is, there is indeed. I can say because I researched about it quite a lot and I'm austrian as well. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.115.152.50 (talk) 11:45, 9 August 2015 (UTC)

Quatern Island hoax WP article

I deleted Quatern Is. (Bangladesh-India) from the list. The Quatern Is. article has been marked for speedy deletion from WP. This was a hoax article placed in 2004 by students studying Quaternary Science at the Univ. of Edinburgh from an anon. IP address at that school. There is no Quatern Is. There is no island at all in the (too-deep) waters 25 miles off of the Bangladesh-India coast or, in fact, anywhere near this location (10-100 miles) off the coast. The original hoax article laughingly placed the island in the "Pacific Ocean", "contested between India and Pakistan" (this is nowhere near the Pacific), "off SE India" (nowhere near Pakistan), as a haven for geese in the summer (Geese occur mostly or entirely only in winter in this area) with a bogus wildlife research center present. Subsequent anon. IP addresses added non-existant-Shell oil drilling and a hoax ecotourism plan. Other than WP mirror site hits (up to 200+ by now!), there is no occurence of a Quatern Is. in any internet site nor any published atlas, map, or book. It simply does not exist. I removed the link to this page from WP's List of Disputed Territories. (Well-meaning WP editors have tried to make sense of this hoax article since 2004, making well-intentioned guesses at fixing the most obvious errors. In the fall of 2004, a Quaternary Science workshop was organized at the Univ. of Edinburgh, providing the motivation for this hoax "Quatern Is." .... http://rock.geosociety.org/qgg/Newsletter%20Spring%2004.pdf) }} .....DLinth, professional geographer/cartographer for past 30 years. DLinth 19:46, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

Interesting response: Congratulations on spotting my fake article! However, some of the reasons you cited in the AFD discussion are incorrect. I was actually a history student, and it was an attempt to show how rapidly 'facts' and alternative histories can be created and propagated via Wikipedia. Puerile maybe, but it worked as a proof for 3 years! ----82.26.182.37 20:48, 24 August 2007 (UTC) (won't use my username as I am otherwise reputable with a huge number of good edits :) )DLinth 16:46, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

Europe. County of Olivença / Olivenza : Spain and Portugal —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.241.133.254 (talk) 10:17, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

Check Links

Can someone check all of the links in this article. Simply browsing through, I've seen

• Moa needs to be Moa River
• Okpara needs to be Okpara River
• Congas needs to be Congas Islands

I've changed these. They are all red links. I suppose there are more and I really don't have the time to.

Also, can Image:Territorial disputes Europe.svg have Bosnia and Herzegovina higighted? See: Sastavci. Sseballos (talk) 03:11, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

Website

See this website: [9] for information. S♦s♦e♦b♦a♦l♦l♦o♦s ^{(Talk to Me)} 00:04, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

Gavdos

The map is wrong.Gavdos is not disputed anyhow.People live there i mean how could it be disputed;By the sea birds of Mediterranean;We must distinguish facts from wishful thinking otherwise Istanbul is disputed Trabzon is disputed etc etc Eagle of Pontus (talk) 09:33, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

The map needs to be updated then.That-Vela-Fella (talk) 19:36, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

It's about three years later,that Eagle of Pontus marked that there is NO dispute about Gavdos.Although the map is still uncorrected.Inform me please how i can correct a file.Otherwise please do it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Pnsx (talk • contribs) 14:50, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

Full control?

Seems like the statement in some areas (unless they were previously divided) marked as "Bold indicates one claimant's full control" would look confusing to some as to which nation is in actual control of the disputed land. This needs to be cleaned up (verified) & sourced wherever possible.That-Vela-Fella (talk) 19:36, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

chinese ultra-nationalists

seems like they're editing this page constantly, like scientologists. why no one is doing something against their vandalism? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 116.34.17.108 (talk) 13:02, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

i agree it seems rather odd that tawain still has active claims in central asia. 76.244.155.36 (talk) 16:22, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

Conejo Island

Here it says its claimed by Honduras, but in the article it says its claimed by El Salvador. Can anyone explain this?--Villa88 (talk) 02:55, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

Both claim it. Fixed here and in Conejo Island DLinth (talk) 18:09, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

New Discussion

A discussion has been started at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Countries/Lists of countries which could affect the inclusion criteria and title of this and other lists of countries. Editors are invited to participate. Pfainuk talk 11:53, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

bold text

what exactly does the bold text mean when all parties are in bold text. IMMEDIATE RESPONSE PLEASE thanks Griffinofwales (talk) 01:08, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

"Bold indicates one claimant's full control; italics, one or more claimants' partial control", according to the top of the page. I think you're probably asking something different, but I've read your question thrice, and that's the only answer I can think of. — neuro^{(talk)(review)} 17:43, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

I see no logic as to more than one claimant being in BOLD, unless there is some very rare case whereas there is an agreement made to have co-joint occupation until a ruling is done in the near future. I'm sure some entries were either done by accident or vandalized and should be corrected. That-Vela-Fella (talk) 19:33, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

Five years later, this issue is not resolved. There are still many entries where more than one claimant is in bold, but without explanation. Can someone please clean these up? --Lasunncty (talk) 00:03, 18 June 2014 (UTC)

Bougainville REMOVAL

Hi. I'm proposing the removal of Bougainville from the list. I don't know why it was there in the first place... The Solomon Islands have never laid a claim to Bougainville (neither the province nor the island itself). There have been secessionist movements in which Bougainville declared itself the Republic of North Solomons (purely a geographic name), but these events had nothing to do with the sovereign state of Solomon Islands. Maybe someone got confused... I'm taking it off. If anyone has any objections, I think at least a citation would be good to back up your claims. Night w (talk) 09:19, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

Removal of Clipperton, Revillagigedo, and Cal. Channel Islands

I have removed Clipperton Island, Revillagigedo Islands, and Channel Islands of California from the list, as there is no evidence of an actual dispute in any of these cases. If you believe that there is an ongoing dispute and can provide reliable sources to demonstrate this, please add the sources and text to the main article on that location first. Regarding the Channel Islands: there was an attempt by some private activists in the US to assert a claim on behalf of Mexico; but there's no sign that this claim had any backing by the Mexican government. --Amble (talk) 02:04, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

Mongolia

I don't think Mongolia belongs on this list. Or at least the inclusion looks a lot like OR. The dispute is not frozen, but over since 2002. That Taiwan's constitution mentions Mongolia does not automatically mean Taiwan has any territorial claims: articles 26, 64, 91 also mention Chinese citizens residing abroad. Obviously Taiwan does not claim every place that Chinese citizens live in. There are also constitutions in other countries that mention areas said countries do not claim: for example the German constitution mentions the area within the 1937 borders (this includes places like Breslau, Stettin, Königsberg) in art. 116. But Germany most certainly does not claim anything east of Oder/Neisse anymore.

Apart from that, I also think the reference to the 2005 yearbook is a bit misleading. My impression is that this page lists Mongolia as an independent country. In any case, newer yearbooks are now available. Yaan (talk) 17:40, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

Ceuta, Melilla, Chafarinas, Perejil, and other "plazas de soberania"

Ceuta, Melilla, Chafarinas, Perejil, and other "plazas de soberania". These should all be included, but I am not sure how, or whether they should come under Africa, where they are, or under Europe as spain claims them to be integral parts of their territory. These territories are claimed by Morocco. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.120.243.78 (talk) 18:46, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

They are already listed, under Africa. Are there other plazas de soberania that are currently missing? If so, your help in filling in additional disputed areas would be very welcome. --Amble (talk) 19:01, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

Tsushima

I believe that under their constution, North Korea claim this island.

This would be under the 'Korean peninsula and adjacent islands' part, and noting that there is no diplomatic recognition between North Korea and Japan. Tsushima is nearer the Korean peninsula than Japan. Please note this is a discussion point in terms of the rights and wrongs, I just think it should be included.

Raymi. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.68.39.212 (talk) 13:04, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

I don't see it here. Could you provide a source? --Amble (talk) 18:50, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

I recall both koreas cliaming this island, but idk if they still do anymore...--184.77.10.72 (talk) 07:05, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

Treatment of Israel Palestine

Breein - We have to figure out a better way to deal with IP on this page. I think two things have to change. 1) As I noted the disputed territory should be reffered to as Israel Palestine. I think as major factions on both sides lay claim to the entire area, simply saying "Israel" is not accurate. 2) I think we should remove Gaze, the West Bank, and East Jeuruselum and simply include them under the comments section for Israel Palestine. I'll fix 1) now, let me know what you think about 2). NickCT (talk) 15:12, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

It should not be referred to as Israel Palestine, just as the Wikipedia article on Israel is not referred to as Israel Palestine. Factions on both sides may lay claim to the entire area, but the international community recognizes the area in question as Israel. Simply saying Israel is in fact accurate. Saying Palestine on the other hand would be incorrect. And in terms of your 2nd point, I don't agree. We cover Israel proper with Israel, and the other areas are covered elsewhere. Breein1007 (talk) 09:36, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia shouldn't take sides over territorial disputes. Take for instance Kashmir. If we reffered to Kashmir as either India or Pakistan, it would essentially be stating that the region actually belonged to one or the other. Sure thier are bits of Kashmir that the world recognizes as "Indian Controlled" Kashmir or "Paskistani Controlled" Kashmir, but in the context of this article Wikipedia should not that the entire region under some generic name (i.e. one not involving "India" or "Pakistan") is in contention. Given your history on I/P issues Brein, I think we should seek comment from other editors. NickCT (talk) 03:09, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

My history has nothing to do with it, and you have no right to discount my input because I am involved in editing articles of this topic. Kashmir is not a parallel example. We are talking about Israel, a country that is fully recognized by the entire world except for some Arab nations. Breein1007 (talk) 08:31, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

Now that the UN recognises Palestine as a state is it time to revisit this ? At the moment the article includes the claim of Israel (or some Israelis) to Palestine (aka the West Bank and East Jerusalem) but not the claim of some Palestinians to Israel. This seems unbalanced as though the former is a legitimate claim but the latter isn't. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.234.82.114 (talk) 08:51, 16 October 2013 (UTC)

Sakhalin

Territorial dispute? What territorial dispute? There's only one claimant, and no country disagrees with that claim. No way it belongs on this list. Chipmunkdavis (talk) 16:46, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

maybe it's an historical one, not a present day one. I know China claims it as part of Manchuria...--184.77.10.72 (talk) 07:07, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

historicDLinth (talk) 17:29, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

Sakhalin is now in a separate sub-list called Resolved disputes. but keep in mind not all of sakhalin oblast is resolved Japan still claims some of the Kuril islands. 76.244.155.36 (talk) 17:22, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

Guantanamo Bay

There is no territorial dispute here. Both countries recognize Guantanamo as a part of Cuba. The USA lays no claim to the territory. Chipmunkdavis (talk) 16:47, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

I'd recheck that if I were you...--184.77.10.72 (talk) 07:07, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

Not a dispute over territory / sovereignty (the topic of this WP list.) The US has never claimed sovereignty, nor claimed it as territory, but rather just claimed that its lease over the land continues. Much like Baikonur (which is not and should not be on this list either!) DLinth (talk) 17:32, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

Historic Cliams, snice been settled

shouldn't those be inculded and as many as possible? Like say the Qatar/Barain dispute settled in the ICJ, and Clipperton Island? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 184.77.10.72 (talk) 21:07, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

atm, i have it as a section, but this has so much potensal, i might redo it as its own page for wikipedia, with a reference link instead.--184.77.10.72 (talk) 22:58, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

End Polish-Czech border dispute

Sorry, but Poland-Czech border dispute was ended long time ago. It's writting on polish site - http://pl.wikipedia.org/wiki/Polsko-czechos%C5%82owackie_konflikty_graniczne I'm remove it's from article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.204.199.245 (talk) 09:34, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

I'll use it in the historical disbute section/page.--184.77.10.72 (talk) 05:55, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

The Indigenous peoples of North America

As First Nation peoples who had inhabited North America prior to European colonists occupying their land, they too must be on the list of those who are under occupation. There are still disputes over identity, land and sovereignty between First Nation peoples and North America. They have only partial sovereignty over their land for U.S. and Canadian laws more often than not supersede Native laws. Moreover, First Nations people do not have freedom of movement, as they are confined to particular boundaries that were imposed upon them. Many First Nation peoples believe that this is their land and actively participate in having this land returned to them.

24.23.243.142 (talk) 18:05, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

what non-sense this is ridiculus. this disscussion has no place here this is a list of territorial disputes between reconized countries. besides where would you put all the "First Nation peoples " some tribe groups became extinct such as the powhattan confederacy and some nations did not exsit a the time of contact such as the Iroqois. its un reasonable for us to counsider all native americans of both north and south america the same peoples simply becasue there of the same race. besides think about the hawain islands all most all the natives are extinct nearly none are full blooded . besides the hawaiin islands arnt even populated by ameri-indians instead pacific islanders. pre-contact people are not the same thing as sovergn states. 76.244.155.36 (talk) 16:16, 16 July 2012 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.253.133.121 (talk)

Poland-Denmark

I called to Ministry of Foreign Affairs (Poland) for Polish-Denmark sea boundary conflict. As it turned out it's nonsense. Many years ago Poland regulate all difficult boundaries. With Denmark too. So, I removed it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.204.199.245 (talk) 08:42, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

Use of neutral language: "Occupiers"

I don't think using the term "Occupiers" is neutral nor encyclopedic. "Claimants" is sufficient. Tachfin (talk) 16:50, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

needs more Resolved Disputes

id like to see more resolved disputes like the dispute between serbia and bulgaria in 1885 known as the Bregovo Dispute. land started out as serbia but now its part of bulgaria. there has to be other resolved border disputes that are not being included. this resolved disputes sub-list is incomplete. Old serbia and old bulgaria diserve inclusion in the debate becasue the intervining Yugoslavia nation state never re-ignigted the dispute and besides old bulgaria is the direct ansestor country of modern bulgaria. i noticed that on the US canada disputes that it also has historical nations such as British north america and Colonial United states. if one entry is aloud to include to historical nations in the early modern period thencertainly Serbia and bulgaria in the late 1880's in the middle modern period is not a strech of imagination. buth where do we draw the line on historical resolved disputes we drawl it with countries in the distant past that have left behind no direct national decendents. and if they have such as anceint egypt then they are excluded becasue of too many intervening nation states occupying in the intervening years so i welcome a more though list of historical resolved debates but the catch is that the resolved boundary has to form a contemporary boundary in todays world. 76.244.155.36 (talk) 00:36, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

I don't know whether it can be described as a "solved" dispute, because still it's neuralgic area and may be a source of new conflicts soon, but speaking about disputes between Bulgaria and Serbia (and in this count Greece, Romania, Turkey, in more present times Albania, too), one definitely should mention the geographic region Macedonia. Practically, all the troubles on the Balkans in the early 20th century is because of it. Even countries as Romania and Turkey, which don't have borders with it, are concerned with the conflict around Macedonia, so probably it should be included, most correctly, in its own cathegory - "de facto unsolvable disputes". — Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.172.126.221 (talk) 21:28, 24 August 2012 (UTC)

i see that someone has added a new resolved dispute and its over bouvet island in antartic waters. great work i knew that there had to be more resolved disputes .its not solved its resolved as in resolution. which means the same thing as settled. 69.221.166.202 (talk) 07:52, 19 September 2012 (UTC)

Border conflicts versus territorial disputes

List of border conflicts between two or more countries includes only those fought because of border disputes, but does not says what distinguishes a border dispute from a territorial dispute. The list of border conflicts is a very much shorter article than this one, and write now neither links to the other. The lists also conflict - is this an instance of a Wikipedia border conflict, or territorial dispute? --Pawyilee (talk) 06:01, 25 August 2012 (UTC)

That appears to be a list of military incidents arising from disputes, rather than the disputes themselves. CMD (talk) 19:11, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

Right. Should've figured that out myself.--Pawyilee (talk) 06:56, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

Orphaned references in List of territorial disputes

I check pages listed in Category:Pages with incorrect ref formatting to try to fix reference errors. One of the things I do is look for content for orphaned references in wikilinked articles. I have found content for some of List of territorial disputes's orphans, the problem is that I found more than one version. I can't determine which (if any) is correct for this article, so I am asking for a sentient editor to look it over and copy the correct ref content into this article.

Reference named "AO":

• From Durand Line: Government & Politics: Overview Of Current Political Situation In Afghanistan"(3) The Durand Line is an unofficial porous border between Afghanistan and Pakistan. In 1893, the British and the Afghan Amir (Abdur Rahman Khan) agreed to set up the Durand line (named after the foreign Secretary of the Indian government, Sir Mortimer Durand) to divide Afghanistan and what was then British India.
• From Afghanistan: "Article Sixteen of the 2004 [[Constitution of Afghanistan]]". 2004. Retrieved June 13, 2012. From among the languages of Pashto, Dari, Uzbeki, Turkmani, Baluchi, Pashai, Nuristani, Pamiri (alsana), Arab and other languages spoken in the country, Pashto and Dari are the official languages of the state. {{cite web}}: URL–wikilink conflict (help)

Reference named "A":

• From Savage Islands: UNESCO World Heritage Sites entry for “Ilhas Selvagens” (Selvagens Islands)
• From Durand Line: Durand Line

Reference named "Dawn":

• From Durand Line: Dawn News, Fazl urges Afghanistan to recognise Durand Line
• From Federally Administered Tribal Areas: Khan, Ismail (2007). "Plan ready to curb militancy in Fata, settled areas". Newsweek international edition. Dawn.com. Archived from the original on 2007-07-11. Retrieved 2007-06-27.

I apologize if any of the above are effectively identical; I am just a simple computer program, so I can't determine whether minor differences are significant or not. AnomieBOT⚡ 04:01, 5 February 2013 (UTC)

Size and population

Would it be possible to add the size and population of the listed territories?

Todd E. Mashlan, a/BSG — Preceding unsigned comment added by 112.65.188.145 (talk) 14:08, 8 February 2013 (UTC)

Hard to do. In most cases, the extent and thus size is also disputed. And in almost all cases, both claimants lump the disputed area's size and population in with their adjacent first order census level district, making determination of population nearly impossible. DLinth (talk) 19:21, 18 July 2013 (UTC)

To add: India-Myanmar dispute

There's a newly active border dispute going on between India and Myanmar: [10][11] — Preceding unsigned comment added by GeoEvan (talk • contribs) 19:06, 27 August 2013 (UTC)

Ems-Dollart dispute resolved?

I came across this. If true, the dispute is also mentioned in the articles for Ems and for Dollart (elsewhere too?). I hope someone better in English will do any needed article update. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.209.170.175 (talk) 05:28, 28 October 2014 (UTC)

Spratley Islands

In the table the comment next to the Spratley Islands dispute says "All controlled by PRC and ROC.", while at least the Philippines and Vietnam (and possibly Malaysia) have islands under effective control/military occupation.

Claims of Republic of China

Could, please, someone give reliable sources about actual claims of Republic of China? A few years ago a position of RoC became much gentle - so, we have a reason to say, that, for example, there is no actual claims of RoC, for example, to Russia and Mongolia. Dinamik (talk) 08:18, 8 May 2015 (UTC)

It might be reasonable to say that...and yet, the debate within the ROC government over Mongolia is not yet completely settled. GeoEvan (talk) 05:40, 14 May 2015 (UTC)

This talk page shows that ROC entries on this list have been contentious for a decade. GeoEvan links to a source for ROC's claim on Mongolia, and it should be cited next to Mongolia's and the PRC's entries on this list. The problem with the rest of the 23 (by my count) territories supposedly claimed by the ROC is that they seem to be based only on some Wikipedia contributor's interpretation of the ROC constitution. This is why Wikipedia prohibits original research based on primary sources. I think this page should retain entries that can be supported by secondary sources which show that the areas are currently in dispute, but any entries that can't be supported by such sources should be removed. Benjamin Hurst (talk) 18:39, 1 October 2015 (UTC)

Macedonia disputed

How can it be said that "Macedonia" is a disputed territory claimed by itself (the Republic), Albania, Bulgaria and Greece? That is both vague and wrong.

• To what do we refer as Macedonia? Republic of Macedonia? or Macedonia (region)?
• If we refer to the latter, then the lands at most represent irredentist claims by proponents of a greater Macedonian state, that is not the same as the Macedonian government claiming territorial integrity of Blagoevgrad and Thessaloniki.
• If we refer to the former, then it should be noted that the Republic itself observes its own borders with no disputes.
• Greece accepted its northern border with present-day Macedonia as far back as 1913 when it took the cities of Florina and Edessa from the Ottoman Empire. This is because the agreement was with its Balkan League ally Serbia who in turn took the cities of Bitola (Bitolj) and Gevgelija (Đevđelija).
• Bulgaria had wanted more from the Macedonian region but the Second Balkan War against Greece and Serbia resulted in Bulgaria receiving the Pirin region. Apart from during World War II and since that time, Bulgaria has never made claims over Republic of Macedonia. It recognised its independence from Yugoslavia immediately.
• Albania when proclaimed sought to contain territory within Macedonia, namely the towns which constituted the Vilayet of Kosovo. When its recognition was achieved, it accepted its borders as they are today, and since World War II, no Albanian government has claimed Macedonia even in part as it did in 1912.

I think the caption needs to be removed. --Oranges Juicy (talk) 22:30, 26 June 2015 (UTC)

Map Unclear

The map isn't very clear because it's gray on gray--make the borders and so on a different color. Can someone fix it?--Hitsuji Kinno (talk) 17:03, 11 July 2015 (UTC)

Islamic State

I see that there is no mention of the IS, or any of the other regions claimed by groups like these. Is this on purpose or just not yet added because of lack of precise data? 178.116.73.144 (talk) 06:39, 8 August 2015 (UTC)

Hans Island

A half square mile of uninhabited rock in the strait separating Canada from Greenland which is Danish ruled. It's in a frozen wasteland but it's been disagreed on by the two countries for years. Every once in awhile the Canadian military will remove the Danish flag that their military planted and vice versa. Along with leaving a bottle of each country's best known brand of liquor. Probably either one of the friendliest or downright funniest territorial disputes there is.

But the main reason Canada won't budge on it is they feel if they can't even hold on to this useless rock then how can they defend right of the Northwest Passage through their northern waterd which they claim are internal boundaries but many other countries are national.Zz pot (talk) 19:26, 26 August 2015 (UTC)

Kashmir dispute

Kashmir dispute was removed by UN in 2010.[12] Later on it was also reported that there were attempts made for readding this into the list of disputed lands.[13] Thus it is clear that it was removed by UN already, and still remains out of the list of disputed regions. D4iNa4 (talk) 03:10, 10 November 2015 (UTC)

@FreeatlastChitchat: Rollback abuse is not allowed[14], you quoted a rumor[15] from 2010 and removed two reliable sources without reading them. One from 2012[16] and other one from 2013 [17] which is must read. None of these few would have taken place if UN hadn't removed Kashmir from the dispute list. D4iNa4 (talk) 09:34, 10 November 2015 (UTC)

@D4iNa4:ALL SOURCES agree on the fact that Kashmir issue was "merely omitted in a speech", which happens all the time in the real world by the way. Then the rumor mill started and some dubious sources claimed that it had been dropped from the list altogether. But UN said that even if it had been omitted by mistake this year, they will run it the next. Your source CLEARLY states that once Pakistan reminded them the UN put back Kashmir in the agenda. It is right there smack dab in the middle of the page. Source misrepresentation much? I think I should just explain this to you word by word so you can understand what happened.

1. On November 15, 2010 the UK envoy to the UN, Mark Lyall Grant, said that “some long-running situations, including in the Middle East, Cyprus and Western Sahara remain unresolved, as do issues where the Council has become engaged in recent years, including Nepal and Guinea Bissau.” And then added“Huge challenges remain in Sudan, Somalia and the DRC,”. This was during the annual debate on UNSC reforms. So of course everyone was up in their arms that "OMG THEY DID NOT MENTION KASHMIR HOW DARE THEY". The media picked up the story and ran with it.
2. On 16-17 November 2010 Pakistan protested and was assured that the "omission was inadvertent". The Pakistani envoy later said “we understand this was an inadvertent omission, as Jammu and Kashmir is one of the oldest disputes on agenda of the Security Council.” The UN then said they will run it on the agenda the next year, and the problem was solved.
3. Pakistan and India continued bickering about it in the UN and lo and behold we see that that only a week ago Pakistan And India were again engaged in debate about it on the floor of UN.

Regards FreeatlastChitchat (talk) 03:27, 11 November 2015 (UTC)

Yes it is clear from the first link that they had removed, second sentence was only mentioning the report that you have been quoting. Other than that, the report from 2013 states that UN actually removed the region from disputed list. There is no misunderstanding about it.

What we can do is, remove the UN related statements as whole, until some other editors brings this up. Is that clear? D4iNa4 (talk) 05:11, 11 November 2015 (UTC)

Furthermore @FreeatlastChitchat:, furthermore you need to look at these links [18], [19], [20], [21], two of them are from this year and mentions that Kashmir agenda is no more on the list. Pinging @Human3015, Kautilya3, and Hitch Hicking Across Sahara: too. D4iNa4 (talk) 05:18, 11 November 2015 (UTC)

No, it isn't clear. Source misrepresentation on your part is clear however lol. I fail to understand Why we should remove the UN statements. Any rationale for that? And the sources which you have given do not support your view either. One of them , which you have listed twice (I don't know why) states that the issue has been off the agenda for the last thirty years lol, so clearly it is not reliable, rather it is "laughable". Another one is the statement of JKCHR, a dubious group at best, and not of the UN. Any statements from the UN which say that they have removed Kashmir from the list of disputes? Regards FreeatlastChitchat (talk) 07:03, 11 November 2015 (UTC)

Probably cause you don't understand what has been written there, you are cherry picking from the sources even though all of them states that Kashmir has been deleted on UNSC agenda. You hadn't read[22]? I listed three different links. Anyways, Kashmir was actually deleted from UNSC agenda in 1996, and since then it has not been considered by the UN.[23][[24]][25][26] And continuously ignored by the UN, because they don't recognize it. Some non-notable individuals rumored that it is not deleted by UN, but in actual it was already deleted back in 1996 as also recognized by Nawaz Sharif.[27] D4iNa4 (talk) 07:53, 11 November 2015 (UTC)

@D4iNa4: hmmmm. You know I don't like calling other people complete fools, but you should not link shitty propaganda books in a situation like this, same goes for shitty statements by dime a dozen NGO's. You should go straight to the source, try to find something from the UN instead of reading propaganda. So, giving you the benefit of the doubt, I will explain it to you again. I will BOLD and CAP some parts, they are for SPECIAL ATTENTION. So here goes.

1. On November 15, 2010 the UK envoy to the UN, Mark Lyall Grant OMITS A PARAGRAPH while giving a speech during the annual debate on UNSC reforms. The media, MOSTLY INDIAN picked up the story and ran with it.
2. On 16 November 2010 Pakistan protested and was assured that the "THE OMMISION WAS IN ADVERTANT".
3. Same day a UN spokesperson said that “They missed in that addendum a paragraph explaining that the full list appears in Add.9 of March 2010, which list continues to include the agenda item under which the council has taken up Kashmir which, by a decision of the council, remains on the list for this year.” SEE THIS IS A DIRECT QUOTE FROM A UN GUY WHO KNOWS MORE ABOUT UN THAN YOU AND ME. Here is an Indian paper running the same story.
4. India’s former permanent representative at the UN, Chinmaya R Gharekhan wrote in his column. "The dispute regarding the state of Jammu and Kashmir exists. We ourselves unwisely took it to the United Nations, where it REMAINS AN ITEM ON THE AGENDA OF THE SECURITY COUNCIL."
5. Pakistan and India continued bickering about it in the UN

I hope this can be enough of this bickering. You now have the UN IT self saying that the item is on the agenda and India accepting that it is on the agenda. Regards FreeatlastChitchat (talk) 08:36, 11 November 2015 (UTC)

Since which day we are going to refer reliable sources as propaganda? Each of those sources are reliable and independent. This link is unreliable, because it is written below that the writer's "Views are personal". These two links[28][29] are from Farhan Haq who was already known for misrepresenting Kashmir-related UN remarks on Kashmir.[30][31] Thus it is not reliable and should be taken as contradiction. There is no evidence that Kashmir is on UNSC agenda when it was already deleted in 1996.[32][33][34] You are largely relying on Farhan Haq and a politician.[35] None of them even talks anything about UN's removal of Kashmir on UNSC agenda since 1996. There are hundreds of WP:RS that supports Kashmir's removal since 1996, but no reliable sources for either denying it or claiming that it is still on the list. D4iNa4 (talk) 09:53, 11 November 2015 (UTC)

So a UNITED NATIONS SPOKESPERSON is not a reliable source about UNITED NATIONS? Are you high or something like that? I mean I do not want to call this attitude brainless but it kinda is. Bottom Line, A UN spokesman is THE MOST RELIABLE SOURCE on the UN stance, if he says its on agenda, it damn well is on the agenda, simple as that. You can try Mediation or whatever you want, but you will be laughed out of there when you claim that even UN is misrepresenting UN, lol. Regards FreeatlastChitchat (talk) 14:35, 11 November 2015 (UTC)

But this spokesperson fails WP:RS, he was already noted for misrepresenting UN statements[36][37] about Kashmir even before the rumors that you are treating as legitimate. How can we believe on any statements from such a individual who don't even mention anything that happened in 1996? Even after knowing that later reports confirmed that UNSC Agenda got no Kashmir. Since according to UN itself and other 100s of reliable sources it is confirmed that Kashmir was removed from UNSC agenda in 1996,[38] I am not getting what you are actually looking for. You have to prove if Kashmir was ever added back and when. D4iNa4 (talk) 17:49, 11 November 2015 (UTC)

Perhaps the best thing to do under the circumstances would be to cite the best reliable sources that says that the UNSC removed it from the agenda, and also cite the denial from the UN Spokesperson. Unless we have an announcement from the UN saying that it was removed, we won't know the truth. - Kautilya3 (talk) 17:58, 11 November 2015 (UTC)

Notwithstanding what the UNSC does, Kashmir will remain "disputed" until India and Kashmir settle the issue. - Kautilya3 (talk) 17:59, 11 November 2015 (UTC)

I agree with Kautilya3. The list is a list of disputed territories and not a list of UN sanctioned disputed territories. Also, if we want to remove the UN says it is disputed part, we need a reliable source that clearly states that "the United Nations no longer considers Kashmir a disputed territory' - i.e., a categorical statement of removal. Omission from a speech is scarcely enough (and interpreting the omission to mean something is OR to boot). --regentspark (comment) 18:11, 11 November 2015 (UTC)

• I know some editors wanted my comment here and pinged me, but personally I don't want to spend my time on such issues, as per my understanding of the Kashmir issue, it doesn't matters Kashmir issue is on UN agenda or not because in any case Jammu and Kashmir will remain in India and Azad Kashmir will remain in Pakistan. This discussion is as useless as Pakistan's repeated appeals in UN regarding this issue. Just to clear this issue, Read UN head's statement, 2014 he is ready to resolve Kashmir issue "only if asked". For UN intervention in this issue there should be consent of both India and Pakistan. Pakistan is always ready but as we know India don't want foreign intervention in its "internal matter". So if it is on UNSC's main agenda then consent of involved nations is not necessary but here case is different, if India never agrees on UN intervention then UN will never mediate this issue. Same kind of statement was given by Ban Ki Moon in 2010 also.--Human3015^TALK  18:23, 11 November 2015 (UTC)

Merge Proposal

The following discussion is an archived record of a request for comment. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

There is consensus against the merge. The majority opinion is while there may be some overlap the topics of the pages are different. AlbinoFerret 21:08, 22 December 2015 (UTC)

---

I propose that the article List of military occupations be merged into this article. Certainly the second half of the article, List of military occupations#Current military occupations should be merged into here. In fact, that section is a list of current territorial disputes, all of which are already included here, which some editor or other, in an effort to promote his or her own point of view regarding the dispute, has deemed a "military occupation." While the list purports to be based on some objective criteria of what constitutes a military occupation (as opposed, for example, an annexation or border adjustment), every one of the entries in the list is the subject of dispute. "Territorial dispute" is a much more neutral and much more accurate description of the political and military situations of these entries.

There is no justification for having two lists so similar in content, especially when one of them is of such questionable neutrality. --Ravpapa (talk) 16:34, 22 November 2015 (UTC)

• Merge If only to avoid the semantic ambiguity that's arisen between occupation & occupation. TREKphiler ^{any time you're ready, Uhura} 18:19, 22 November 2015 (UTC)

• Do not merge — The vast majority of the article does not contain territorial disputes. Was Germany's occupation of Poland a territorial dispute? Clearly not. If editors perceive there are problems with the list, they can be addressed in a variety of ways other than scrapping it altogether and merging it here. – Zntrip 19:14, 22 November 2015 (UTC)

• Do not merge Territorial disputes can overlap with territorial disputes. This is a given possibility and not a given fact.-Serialjoepsycho- (talk) 20:21, 22 November 2015 (UTC)

• Do not merge I fail to see the redundancy, they are different things, per Zntrip. Peacemaker67 (crack... thump) 21:30, 22 November 2015 (UTC)

• Do not merge The articles cover different things, like Peacemaker said, they are different things. - SantiLak (talk) 22:37, 22 November 2015 (UTC)
• Merge a list of occupations is one and the same as territorial disputes and any overlap can more easily be fixed than by having two lists on an encyclopedia. Sir Joseph ^(talk) 00:08, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

• Do not merge These are obviously totally different concepts. Many of the disputes involve no military forces, and lots are actually between countries who have a good relationship with one another. Nick-D (talk) 07:59, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Gibraltar

Gibraltar is not subject to a territorial dispute. Nobody disputes Britian's legal title to it. Spain wants it handed over to them, but do not dispute the fact that it was ceded to Britain. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.120.237.139 (talk) 16:49, 15 December 2015 (UTC)

There is a territorial dispute, but the wording you removed was inaccurate in implication.

The relevant clause of the Treaty of Utrecht is:

The Catholic King [of Spain] does hereby, for himself, his heirs and successors, yield to the Crown of Great Britain the full and entire propriety of the town and castle of Gibraltar, together with the port, fortifications, and forts thereunto belonging; and he gives up the said propriety to be held and enjoyed absolutely with all manner of right for ever, without any exception or impediment whatsoever.

Spain emphasises the section "the town and castle of Gibraltar, together with the port, fortifications, and forts thereunto belonging". They argue that the ceded territory only consists the town, castle, port, fortifications and forts associated with Gibraltar in 1713 and thus argues that Britain has no right to e.g. airspace and territorial waters (concepts that did not yet exist in 1713). It disputes British control over the isthmus between the Rock of Gibraltar and La Linéa as not being part of the cession described.

Britain emphasises the section "to be held and enjoyed absolutely with all manner of right for ever, without any exception or impediment whatsoever". They argue that they have the same rights as they would have in any other British territory, including e.g. airspace and territorial waters. They also argue that they have a right to the isthmus under the doctrine of prescription (i.e. if Spain had a problem with it they should have said something at the time).

The wording removed was "Spain claims territory under the Treaty of Utrecht conditions". This is wrong - both positions rely on Utrecht. It's a matter of differing interpretations of Utrecht. I have reinstated Gibraltar with a wording that better describes this. Kahastok talk 17:37, 15 December 2015 (UTC)

• Spain wants it back? So it is a territorial dispute. 120.16.231.111 (talk) 01:12, 30 March 2023 (UTC)

Internal Spanish dispute

Disputes within a state by internal entities---> Spain: Basque Country against Castille and León for Treviño enclave.

http://america(.)pink/trevino-enclave-dispute_4518191.html

— Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.231.85.98 (talk • contribs) 19:09, 29 May 2016‎

New columns

I'm adding a column over whether natural resources and one over whether strategic locations are involved. May be interesting. Based on the articles, of course. Bataaf van Oranje (Prinsgezinde) (talk) 13:33, 3 June 2016 (UTC)

PRC and RoC

Some points about this dispute:

- The dispute about Hong Kong should be in the "Disputes between UN-recognized states and others", not in the "Disputes between recognized sovereign states"

- The same for Macclesfield Bank

- The same for Taiwan (who appears duplicated, in both lists)

- There is really need of a reference to "Heixiazi / Bolshoy Ussuriysky Island"? This is not covered by the dispute about "Mainland China, Hainan, and other islands controlled by the PRC"? The same could be applied, btw, to the disputes about Hong Kong and Macclesfield Bank (basically, PRC and RoC dispute all territories controlled by the other - they are two rival governments reclaiming more or less the same territory)--MiguelMadeira (talk) 13:53, 27 July 2016 (UTC)

Nagorno-Karabakh

Nagorno-Karabakh is disputed by Armenia and Azerbaijan (in any way, if it is the case, it should be in the "Disputes between recognized sovereign states"? Or it is a dispute between Azerbaijan and the self-proclaimed Nagorno-Karabakh?--MiguelMadeira (talk) 13:59, 27 July 2016 (UTC)

There's another US-Mexico border dispute.

Mexico said that Texas's southern border was the Nuces River, while the US claimed that it was the Rio Grande. See Mexican%E2%80%93American_War#Origins_of_the_war — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.235.102.246 (talk) 17:07, 30 November 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on List of territorial disputes. 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/20070927030140/http://www.mae.es/NR/rdonlyres/E53D6D9A-03FF-49C9-9174-F96473692B2A/0/J.pdf to http://www.mae.es/NR/rdonlyres/E53D6D9A-03FF-49C9-9174-F96473692B2A/0/J.pdf
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20131017233031/http://cominganarchy.com/2005/12/23/enclaves-iii-the-fergana-valley/ to http://cominganarchy.com/2005/12/23/enclaves-iii-the-fergana-valley/
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140514090446/http://people.ucalgary.ca:80/~amcewen/Azov-Kerch.pdf to http://people.ucalgary.ca/~amcewen/Azov-Kerch.pdf

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.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 11:53, 1 December 2016 (UTC)

Maps

Is there a way this page could have maps or a map of disputed territories? I think this would be really helpful.

Thanks!

-TenorTwelve (talk) 06:05, 24 January 2017 (UTC)

Sir Abu Nu’ayr island

Sir Abu Nu’ayr island disputed by Iran and UAE. see it : https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Disputed_territories_in_the_Persian_Gulf — Preceding unsigned comment added by Callofworld (talk • contribs) 11:44, 4 March 2017 (UTC)

China-Nepal disputes

There were a brief dispute between China and Nepal in the late 1950s. The disputed areas were scattered throughout their border and were relatively minor by international standard.

The exact number of territorial disputes has never been ascertained, but as many as 20 sectors may have been involved. The most serious disputes were located at Rasu (north of Katmandu), Kimathanka in the east, Nara Pass, Tingribode near Mustang, Mount Everest, and the Nelu River. Most of these disputes were settled in favor of Nepal, although several favored China.

[39] --Voidvector (talk) 08:13, 9 March 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on List of territorial disputes. 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/20071113145252/http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_hb3120/is_200407/ai_n7779206 to http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_hb3120/is_200407/ai_n7779206
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140308072638/http://guineenews.org/2014/03/le-conflit-frontalier-entre-la-guinee-et-la-cote-divoire-autour-de-kpeaba-refait-surface/ to http://guineenews.org/2014/03/le-conflit-frontalier-entre-la-guinee-et-la-cote-divoire-autour-de-kpeaba-refait-surface/
• Added {{dead link}} tag to http://www.hinduonnet.com/fline/fl1817/18170730.htm

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) 19:12, 23 May 2017 (UTC)

Kashmir

Users have been removing Kashmir and replacing it with Azad Kashmir. The dispute appears to cover much more than Azad Kashmir, as detailed in Kashmir conflict which is linked. These changes would seem to violate NPOV, unless I'm mistaken? —Guanaco 20:23, 25 May 2017 (UTC)

I'm mistaken. A number of territories are listed individually, each part of the same overall conflict. Would it be better to merge them all, and leave who controls and claims what to Kashmir conflict and the lands' respective articles? —Guanaco 20:36, 25 May 2017 (UTC)

Mount Baekdu and Gando

Wasn't Baekdu dispute resolved per the 1962 agreement?! In article is stated this way. And also about Gando: ,,Today, none of the governments involved [...] make the claim that Gando is Korean territory". So I think that we should remove those two entries. We have two contradictory statements. --Daduxing (talk) 07:38, 24 July 2017 (UTC)

Cleanup

This page needs a cleanup
(1)There is no distinction made between disputes; neclarities; or borders that were never formally agreed or delimited.
(2)When we are talking about territorial disputes we should emphasize the government's position and not the opinion of some groups or private persons.
(3)Paektu and Jiandao - As per 1962 border agreement between China and North Korea there are no disputes. Also we have a centuries old border agreement (1712) between Qing and Joseon states. We don't have a claim from South Korean government either. If there was ever a dispute in this case, this should be mentioned on the historical disputes or removed.
I’m removing Paektu and Jiandao from the list. If someone wants to add them back, please, provide a reference from a governmental source, not the opinion of some nationalistic groups or as I saw on this page from Reddit site, from a subreddit/subtopic named MapPorn --Daduxing (talk) 09:54, 26 July 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on List of territorial disputes. 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/20140509061238/http://www.greenparty.org.tw/index.php/actions/databae/1997/766-1997-06-26 to http://www.greenparty.org.tw/index.php/actions/databae/1997/766-1997-06-26

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) 18:18, 17 September 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on List of territorial disputes. 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/20140305042448/http://newskenya.co.ke/news/latest/africareview/sierra-leone-government-takes-media-to-disputed-border-with-guinea/1dlnb.119643 to http://newskenya.co.ke/news/latest/africareview/sierra-leone-government-takes-media-to-disputed-border-with-guinea/1dlnb.119643
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140202143900/http://www.icj-cij.org/docket/files/137/17928.pdf to http://www.icj-cij.org/docket/files/137/17928.pdf

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) 00:03, 3 January 2018 (UTC)

Claims that Taiwan seeks to control various regions bordering China

There are many dubious claims on this page that Taiwan seeks to control various regions bordering China.

These are based on the Republic of China constitution's description of ROC territories, which may have been true at the time it was written. (The US constitution says there are 13 states, but no one claims that has anything to do with the present.)

The ROC constitution was never even intended to be the constitution for Taiwan, but the Taiwanese people can't change it, which China would consider a formal declaration of independence and justification for an attack the island.

No one in Taiwan even dreams of retaking the mainland anymore, let alone regions bordering China.

Maybe these could go in a list of historical disputes, but not a list of current ones.

2604:2000:F183:37F0:70F0:86A7:13AF:C038 (talk) 20:51, 27 February 2018 (UTC)

I agree that it's reasonable to question whether these count as "territorial disputes", but it's not quite as a simple as you make it out to be, and some of your statements are incorrect. First, the Taiwanese people can make changes to the constitution - it was last amended in 2005. Second, it is an exaggeration to say that "No one in Taiwan even dreams of retaking the mainland anymore"; my understanding is that there are indeed those who still dream of this, though most of them are very old now. Certainly there are still elements within the KMT - possibly even most of the party leadership - who consider the ROC, in principle, to be the rightful government of all of China, in which case the territories in question could plausibly be an issue. GeoEvan (talk) 09:26, 1 March 2018 (UTC)

Ok, there are a few crazy individuals in Taiwan who want to take over mainland China. I have no doubt there are individuals in the US who want to take over Canada, but I wouldn't call that a "territorial dispute." And if there is a political party that is not in power, which makes claims on other countries, I wouldn't call that a "territorial dispute" either.

As for changes to the ROC constitution, the only changes relevant to this issue would be changes to descriptions of ROC territories, and there is zero doubt that the PRC would regard such changes as a formal declaration of independence, for which they have threatened violent retaliation.

2604:2000:F183:37F0:70F0:86A7:13AF:C038 (talk) 20:47, 5 March 2018 (UTC)

Sure. I wouldn't be surprised if there are a quite a lot civil servants in the current administration who still feel the ROC includes the Mainland (not necessarily the same thing as expecting to actually take it back), but I agree that that's maybe not enough of a reason to classify it as a "territorial dispute" in the strict sense. I do think it's useful for these territorial claim inconsistencies to be mentioned though. Hopefully we can find some kind of compromise solution, rather than just blanking them from the article. Moving them to Historical Disputes, with a substantial note about the situation, might be appropriate. Curious if anyone else has anything to say about this? I think it may have been discussed previously, but can't remember. GeoEvan (talk) 02:55, 15 March 2018 (UTC)

International Disputes

• International Disputes
• The World Factbook Field Listing :: Disputes - international — Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.96.37.1 (talk) 19:48, 19 March 2018 (UTC)

Remove bold notion

Bold notion doesn't help and can't be verified by sources. Description should clearly state the current status of disputed territory. Let's remove bold notion altogether. --Vanuan (talk) 23:21, 26 November 2018 (UTC)

If we want to structure information on current status of territories, I propose the following columns:

• country of physical control or influence (in the case of UN unrecognized entities it's useful to state which country sends humanitarian help, etc)
• country of UN recognition (which country it should belong to, can be "undecided")
• third party countries (whether there are UN recognized countries which don't comply with UN decision)

--Vanuan (talk) 23:31, 26 November 2018 (UTC)

Rockall

Any specific reason why Rockall is not mentioned here? I would add it but perhaps it does not meet the criteria. --Gerrit ^CUTEDH 07:57, 17 April 2019 (UTC)

Rockall itself is not really disputed, but the maritime dispute it generates may be worth including. CMD (talk) 14:02, 17 April 2019 (UTC)

Territorial disputes of India

Just for the record, India's government just stated categorically that it has no border disputes with Afghanistan, Bhutan, Maldives, or Sri Lanka. It also stated that it has no border "dispute" with Myanmar, though the two countries' shared border is not yet fully demarcated. I have added a note regarding the Kabaw border disagreement with Myanmar in the table. GeoEvan (talk) 22:14, 27 June 2019 (UTC)

References

Georgian conflict

Georgia has 2 disputed territories: 1. Abkhazia 2. South Ossetia — Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.74.2.194 (talk) 23:12, 11 October 2019 (UTC)

the section on Noktundo is incorrect

The dispute should be between South Korea and Russia, not between North Korea and Russia.

--208.72.125.2 (talk) 21:38, 22 January 2020 (UTC)

Contested deletion

This page should not be speedily deleted because... A "Country" is "a nation with its own government, occupying a particular territory." As per wikipedia: "A country may be an independent sovereign state or part of a larger state, as a non-sovereign or formerly sovereign political division, a physical territory with a government, or a geographic region associated with sets of previously independent or differently associated people with distinct political characteristics."

East Sister covers all of these. Micronations typically do not have a population, are entirely digital, have no permanent residents, and certainly do not enforce border security. By contrast, East Sister has a population, is not a digital entity, has permanent residents, and maintains an armed perimeter to enforce border protection around the main island. There is no "legal" way of becoming a country prior to a group of people's ability to enforce their claim over their territory. -- Whodoeswhatnow (talk) 23:32, 16 April 2020 (UTC)

Secondary source? --Numberguy6 (talk) 01:06, 17 April 2020 (UTC)

To expand on Numberguy6's comment, is there any evidence of your residency? If you have occupied a nature reserve since 2016, you would have generated press coverage in Windsor Star or from CBC Windsor, etc. -- Zanimum (talk) 17:13, 19 April 2020 (UTC)

@Whodoeswhatnow: -- Zanimum (talk) 17:15, 19 April 2020 (UTC)

Capitol Hill Autonomous Zone

Is this really a sovereign state? I think that it is actually an armed insurgency. I think that this can't qualify as a state due to its lack of government, as well as its lack of capacity to enter into relations with other states. --Numberguy6 (talk) 04:18, 10 June 2020 (UTC)

Saudi-UAE dispute

I think this is a settled dispute. I have seen official UAE maps that do not include the disputed areas. Can someone look into this and check it out to confirm? HERMIT100 (talk) 20:39, 10 January 2021 (UTC)

A Farmer Moved a 200-Year-Old Stone, and the French-Belgian Border

this is amusing. -- RoySmith (talk) 18:44, 5 May 2021 (UTC)

Kagera Salient, Tanzania

Could someone please add the former dispute surrounding the Kagera Salient in Tanzania? This was claimed - and briefly annexed - by Uganda during 1978 and 1979. I am unable to edit for some reason. Many thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.0.244.219 (talk) 14:13, 23 October 2021 (UTC)

Gibraltar

User Venezia Friulano wishes us to claim that Spain disputes British sovereignty over Gibraltar in its entirety. This is not accurate.

They base this claim on this Spanish government document. I'd invite you to read the source, and find anywhere where it says that Spain contests the existence of British sovereignty in Gibraltar. (To be clear, this does not include the isthmus between Gibraltar and Spain, which is disputed.)

On the other hand it does explicitly an unambiguously say that Gibraltar is "a territory under British sovereignty". I see no reason why we should not believe it when it says this.

Spain's argument is as follows:

1. Spain argues that as the Treaty of Utrecht refers to "the city and the castle of Gibraltar, together with its port, defences and fortresses that belong to it", Britain has no rights outside these areas. This means that Spain argues that Britain has no rights to, for example:
   • The isthmus between the city and castle of Gibraltar and the Spanish town of La Linéa, an area that includes Gibraltar's airport
   • Territorial waters around Gibraltar, outside the port
   • Airspace over Gibraltar
2. Spain argues that the British have an obligation under international law to negotiate a return of Gibraltar to Spanish sovereignty.

Britain does not accept any of these arguments. We sum this up as Dispute over the interpretation of the Treaty of Utrecht and the location of the border., which is accurate based on Venezia Friulano's own source. Kahastok talk 17:23, 3 December 2021 (UTC)

Territory disputed between Canada and the United States

Any reason this section exists, rather than being merged into the North American section? BilledMammal (talk) 02:08, 5 January 2022 (UTC)

I think it's just to provide a simpler table given the number of rows, although I don't know why it wouldn't at the very least be a subsection. CMD (talk) 18:24, 5 January 2022 (UTC)

Russia and Ukraine

Should we add territories occupied by Russia during the Russo-Ukraine war? Ex. Cherobynol, etc.--Cakepops4everr (talk) 15:09, 25 February 2022 (UTC) Cakepops4everr

They are not at the moment disputed between the states in this sense. CMD (talk) 16:55, 25 February 2022 (UTC)

There are now paragraphs for this territories, summarized enough. Владимир Казаринов (talk) 05:00, 3 October 2022 (UTC)

Sarych headland

Does is have scene to put in a separate line since the territory is fully a part of Crimea? No note added, is it a distinct case? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Владимир Казаринов (talk • contribs) 04:56, 25 September 2022 (UTC)

No, this dispute is not distinct from Crimea as a whole. I have removed it from the list. It can be thought of as a precursor to the dispute over Crimea. It is useful to know for historical purposes, but at the present time, it is irrelevant, and it probably won't ever be relevant ever again. It also wasn't ever "resolved", so it doesn't belong in the historical segment of this list (despite what I just said above). Jargo Nautilus (talk) 10:11, 22 October 2022 (UTC)

Tuzla Island

Same thing: since the location is in a near-Crimea area and disputed circumstances are really similar, could it be united with Crimea case? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Владимир Казаринов (talk • contribs) 04:57, 3 October 2022 (UTC)

Again, it would be a stretch to argue that this is distinct. It is basically just a precursor to the larger dispute over Crimea as a whole. I have removed it from the list as well. Jargo Nautilus (talk) 10:12, 22 October 2022 (UTC)

Should Israel-Palestine dispute be moved to the section involving non UN states?

Since Palestine is only an Observer state of the UN and not ana actual UN member it shouldn't be in that section unless observer status also counts for this. 47.233.19.106 (talk) 04:22, 8 March 2022 (UTC) Also noticed that the Western Sahara dispute is found in both the Africa section and the non-UN section. 47.233.19.106 (talk) 04:24, 8 March 2022 (UTC)

The Palestinian Territories are internationally recognised as a disputed territory, even though the State of Palestine itself only has partial recognition. The situation is largely the same regarding the status of Western Sahara vs the Sahrawi Arab Democratic Republic. Jargo Nautilus (talk) 10:06, 22 October 2022 (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 Russian occupied Kharkiv Oblast.svg

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 19:08, 29 August 2022 (UTC)

Merger discussion

Proposed Merger with List of irredentist claims or Teritorial disputes 92.0.152.112 (talk) 22:17, 13 November 2022 (UTC)

Oppose Irredentist claims are made by quasi-states or governments-in-exile while territorial disputes involved sovereign states or de facto states. They shouldn't be mixed up. 2001:8003:913E:5D01:F033:ABFB:89B3:FDA2 (talk) 03:44, 29 November 2022 (UTC)

Closing, given the uncontested objection with no support. Klbrain (talk) 16:35, 11 June 2023 (UTC)

Toledo War

Former US State Border Dispute over the city of Toledo between Michigan and Ohio 72.241.159.8 (talk) 20:37, 12 December 2022 (UTC)

Junagadh

@Cryw 9 - In this source, which is used in the file of the map on the main Pakistan Wikipedia article, the territory of Junagadh is highlighted. The border colours used show green on the inside, and yellow on the outside. Green indicates Pakistani territory, yellow indicates Indian territory. [40] Jargo Nautilus (talk) 00:16, 20 December 2022 (UTC)

Bear in mind that if you are to remove the dispute from this article, then you must also remove it from the Pakistan article. This article relies on the same sources that the main article relies upon. The status quo of the main article has been to display this as a territorial dispute in the main map for several months now. Jargo Nautilus (talk) 00:18, 20 December 2022 (UTC)

Unfortunately I don't know how to edit SVG's, and the Pakistan map is an SVG so I don't know how to edit such. If someone can they are free to do so however. Cryw 9 (talk) 01:00, 20 December 2022 (UTC)

Couldn't you simply revert the map to an older version? Why would you have to change that image directly? Jargo Nautilus (talk) 09:37, 20 December 2022 (UTC)

I'm also not sure why you think the map is not a reliable source. The Diplomat [41], a reputable media source (I think), has stated that "the new map also marked other small and slightly more distant parts of India as Pakistan’s territory". To me, that's clear enough that some sort of territorial dispute is taking place, even if its not very serious (personally, I doubt that Pakistan would actually attempt to seize Junagadh). That source was in the article, but you removed it, which presumably means that you regard it as unreliable. Bear in mind that the Diplomat source itself cites Pakistan's maps. Jargo Nautilus (talk) 09:43, 20 December 2022 (UTC)

The map is reliable as to the position taken by the Pakistani government, as the map is the official border survey map of the Pakistani government. There is thus in fact no source that could be more reliable as to what Pakistan's claims are, since it is an official government source.XavierGreen (talk) 15:32, 31 January 2023 (UTC)

Argentine–Chile border

Isn't a part of the Argentine–Chile border on the Southern Patagonia Ice Field still undefined, or did they finally demarcate it? Should it be added to the SA part of the list?

Technicality nitpicker (talk) 14:27, 26 December 2022 (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:

• Emblem of West Bengal.svg

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 07:40, 18 May 2023 (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:

• Emblem of Andhra Pradesh.svg

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 11:39, 2 June 2023 (UTC)