User talk:CharlesRobertCountofNesselrode

Calvin Pearl Titus

A tag has been placed on Calvin Pearl Titus, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under the criteria for speedy deletion, because it is a very short article providing little or no context to the reader. Please see Wikipedia:Stub for our minimum information standards for short articles. Also please note that articles must be on notable subjects and should provide references to reliable sources that verify their content.

Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself. If you plan to expand the article, you can request that administrators wait a while for you to add contextual material. To do this, affix the template {{hangon}} to the page and state your intention on the article's talk page. Feel free to leave a note on my talk page if you have any questions about this. Mentality 12:16, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

De Long Islands

They appeared sourced so it looked as if the disputed nature was valid. CambridgeBayWeather (Talk) 00:31, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've added the reference. Back in 2004, referencing was much less common than it is now, but for something available on the internet, a quick search will often turn up a reliable source. Warofdreams talk 23:49, 3 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That's the reference I used. It seems pretty reliable to me; if you're not happy, then feel free to look for a stronger reference. Warofdreams talk 14:01, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Territorial claims

Hi Count Nesselrode - I think we should distinguish several different types of territorial claim to the Arctic and north Pacific islands. Whichever type of claims exist, we should definitely give a full description in the articles; but without confusion of one type for another.

Initial claim by explorers upon landing or discovery.
Claimed and settled / continuously occupied.
Claim through purchase.
Official annexation by government based on above.
Continuing claim by governments not in control of territory.

Some of the Arctic islands appear to have been claimed for the US in sense #1, and Wrangel Island was claimed for a while in sense #2 (but possibly for Canada, not the US). The State Department Watch arguments about #3 are not supported by anyone else that I can find, and are not consistent with the boundary line delineated by the Alaska Purchase itself. I haven't seen any evidence for #4 in any of these cases, and the US government explicitly denies any ongoing claims of type #5. The articles do need more information about which types of historical claims have existed, and when. --Reuben 21:17, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

With the Russian islands: I think that Russia has made #4 quite apparent but that it was faulty in that there was no #1, #2, or #3 to support its #4. I know the U.S. has fulfilled #1. A #1 is better than a faulty #4. In the polar regions, a #1 makes itself a #5 until the #1 is officially given up (according to the international precedent set by Denmark v. Norway 1933). If someone can show me the proof of a Russian #1, #2, or #3, (at any time in history!) then I will relegate my part in the De Long Islands article to a short piece about the years 1881 until ---- that the U.S. owned the islands. I'm assuming of course that the Russians didn't claim the islands before we found them.CharlesRobertCountofNesselrode 23:12, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I agree we should look for documentation of #1, #2, or #3 from Russia. I don't see how an initial claim by an explorer can obligate a government to officially incorporate territory, though; even the Guano Islands Act, which first allowed ship captains to claim guano-bearing atolls for the US, allowed the president to decide whether or not to annex each island. If a government says that it makes no claim to a piece of land, then there is quite simply no claim. If you can show that there is basis for a claim, or that certain authorities (e.g. Alaska Legislative session) think there should be a claim, then that can go in the article. Are you arguing that the first visitor, and only the first visitor, establishes ownership for all time? If so, I think that's mistaken. An initial claim doesn't establish permanent ownership in the absence of continuing effective control and official recognition, as far as I know; and the second or third or Nth to arrive can make an effective claim if they succeed in establishing these things. Of course, all this is subject to Wikipedia:Reliable sources. The US State Department is an authoritative source for territorial claims of the United States, and our own understanding is of secondary importance. --Reuben 17:13, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I can not see how Russia 'has' that territory if there is a valid #1 for the USA and no valid #4 for Russia. I wish I could read the Russian article on this subject. I can answer your last paragraph, but I can't do it until there some resource tells me about the Russian claim. I mean, we don't even know when Russian claims originated!CharlesRobertCountofNesselrode 22:22, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

OK, so we should look for info on the history of Russian claims to the islands. I can help with reading Russian articles (not a native speaker, but I can read well enough). What about the Komandorski Islands? Since they were clearly part of Russia before the Alaska Purchase, the only question should be whether there's a reliable source to support the idea that they were sold. Does that sound reasonable? --Reuben 05:51, 8 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Do you have access to this article? If you're at a university, you should be able to see it online.

Wrangel Island/ The Geographical Journal, Vol. 62, No. 6. (Dec., 1923), pp. 440-444. [1]

The article describes an official notification from the Russian Ambassador in London in 1916:

"Le Gouvernement IMPERIAL profite de cette occasion pour faire ressortir qu'il considére aussi comme faisant partie intégrante de l'Empire des îles Henriette, Jeannette, Bennett, Herald et Oujedinenia, qui forment avec les îles Nouvelle Sibérie, Wrangel et autres situées près la côte asiatique de l'Empire, une extension vers le nord de la plate forme continentale de la Sibérie.

"Le Gouvernement IMPERIAL n'a pas jugé nécessaire de joindre a la présente notification les îles Novaia Zemlia, Kolgouev, Waigatch et autres de moindres dimensions situées prés la côte européene de l'Empire, étant donné que leur appartenance aux territories de l'Empire se trouve depuis des siècles universellement reconnue."

--Reuben 06:45, 8 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If these are the only references to the Russian #4 and #1 claims, I need you to learn out about the Denmark v. Norway case which says that territory claimed in the polar regions can not fall away from a country based on the principle of abandonment. At the least the De Long Islands article must say that the islands belonged to the United States from 1881 until whenever in the 10's. The claims were made by the authority of Congress.CharlesRobertCountofNesselrode 14:56, 8 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

My interpretation of a World Court precedent, or yours, is original research, and doesn't have any weight here. If you can find an authoritative source that applies the precedent of Denmark vs. Norway to these Arctic islands and draws some conclusions, that's great. From my admittedly quick examination, the decision does not match your characterization of it. But that's neither here nor there, because neither of us is qualified to judge the quality of legal arguments. If the claims to Wrangel Island, etc., were made by the authority of Congress, and recognized by the US government, I have no problem with the articles saying so, with good documentation of course. --Reuben 16:24, 8 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Of course, any kind of official resolutions or notices like the Alaska legislature's resolution are also notable and should be described. Do you know of any other examples like that? As far as I know, the US didn't register any protest when Russia claimed the Arctic islands, but that should be checked. They could be out there somewhere. --Reuben 17:45, 8 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

License tagging for Image:With Palmyra.PNG

Thanks for uploading Image:With Palmyra.PNG. Wikipedia gets thousands of images uploaded every day, and in order to verify that the images can be legally used on Wikipedia, the source and copyright status must be indicated. Images need to have an image tag applied to the image description page indicating the copyright status of the image. This uniform and easy-to-understand method of indicating the license status allows potential re-users of the images to know what they are allowed to do with the images.

For more information on using images, see the following pages:

This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. If you need help on selecting a tag to use, or in adding the tag to the image description, feel free to post a message at Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. 22:11, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

Sneaking in dubious claims about Arctic Islands

If there's not any reliable source to back up a claim in a main article, then please don't put the same claim into peripheral articles, like [2]. It gives the impression that you're trying to sneak questionable things in where nobody will notice. In this case, we have a very authoritative source that says exactly the opposite of what your edit claims. Information about US claims to these islands, current or historical, is entirely appropriate if and only if there's a good source to back it up. Please address that in a straightforward way; there's no need to insinuate things around the edges. --Reuben 22:04, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sigh. I want to assume good faith, but this edit makes it hard to do so. Hiding something on a disambiguation page doesn't make it true. --Reuben 22:06, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Goodness. I keep trying to write a long piece but keep loosing it in an accidental page change. Anyway, when I saw this item, it was my deep impression that the wikipedians were accidentally or purposefully being biased against the US in the disambig page. The 2003 Fact Sheet leaves the question of true claim to the islands open. I would be more precise with my sources and wordings but the fact is that I do not have all the information and I do not wish to cause a minor crisis by my actions on wikipedia. I can not give up the fact that the islands were, if not are, part of the United States until I have these primary source documents written by the explorers and the government of the time contradicted to me based on precise and definite legal opinions which I can trust. Until then, I will not cast away the legacy of these brave men whose only intention in visiting some of these areas was to claim them for the United States' interest. Is there any more substantial information on the Russian claim that exists besides the 1916 class #4 declaration?CharlesRobertCountofNesselrode 02:09, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You have things the wrong way around. If you have a claim that you think belongs in a Wikipedia article, the burden of proof is on you to document it with reliable sources. Proof by repeated assertion doesn't work. I am inclined to open a request for comment; if I do, I'll certainly let you know. (Please note, that's a request for the opinions of other editors, not a request for any administrative action.) --Reuben 16:46, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

According to the US State Department, "None of the islands above have ever been claimed by the United States." That's an authoritative source, and it's unambiguous. By contrast, you have provided zero evidence for your claims, other than repeated assertion. --Reuben 16:49, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

So your impression is that there is no other part of the Russian claim than the 1916 declaration? There is a great deal of evidence for the American claim which so throughly contradicts the Fact Sheet that no claim was ever made (which can not possibly be true in some cases) that it is quite laughable to say that Wrangel Island and the others were never part of the United States. America has the right of discovery, official claim, and occupation (if not effective occupation) fully secured, I can absolutely assure you. Is there anyone out there who knows the Russian case throughly? Do you know of some way to submit this question to a Russian group so that they might try to prove me wrong? I have dates, claims made by proper authorities, and evidence of occupation and illegal usurpation of American control.CharlesRobertCountofNesselrode 22:35, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If you have the evidence, add the references to the articles! That's what I've been asking you to do all along. You're the one making the claim, so the burden is on you to back it up. If you want something to go in Wikipedia, it's your job to substantiate it, not anybody else's job to disprove it. --Reuben 23:37, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Again, is there anywhere I can speak to Russian claim-backing individuals?CharlesRobertCountofNesselrode 00:07, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Cut and paste

Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. It appears that recently you carried out a copy and paste page move. Please do not move articles by copying and pasting them because it splits the article's history, which is needed for attribution and is helpful in many other ways. If there is an article that you cannot move yourself using the move link at the top of the page, follow the instructions at Wikipedia:Requested moves. Also, if there are any other articles that you copied and pasted, even if it was a long time ago, please list them at Wikipedia:Cut and paste move repair holding pen. Thank you. —METS501 (talk) 03:02, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Also, for now, just don't edit any of those articles while I fix it all up. —METS501 (talk) 03:03, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for Wrangell Islands help

So sorry. I just didn't know where to begin.CharlesRobertCountofNesselrode 03:10, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That's OK :-) It should be all fixed up now. If you ever need help with something, feel free to ask me directly or at the help desk. —METS501 (talk) 03:18, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Info

Hello Charles Robert,

the reason why I put in the bibliographic data of Skaggs 1994 is the Guano Act claim from 1889. To be valid, the claimant (i.e. Capt. Andrew A. Rosehill) had to file a bond within a certain span of time. As this did not happen (presumably for financial reasons) the claim was invalid. So for the Japanese in 1898 Marcus Island was a 'terra nullius'. Most of contemporaneous Western reference works were not aware of that, so e.g. W. T. Brigham's 'Index to the islands of the Pacific Ocean' (Memoirs of the B. P. Bishop Museum, Vol. 1, No. 2) from 1900, and several others are listing the island erroneously as an American possession. Best regards, B. Welsch

Henrietta Island

Hi, I just want to explain myself a bit in recent (small) changes to Henrietta Island. I'd like to see these articles expanded quite a bit, and in particular, any documents showing evidence of / explicit advancement of a US claim would be great. It's hard to avoid adding some interpretation when writing the text, especially in the verbal glue that holds the article together. I think the safest thing is to make sure the text stays as close as possible to what's explicitly stated in reliable sources. Some of your edits have brought things I wrote closer to following the sources, and I have no problem with that. Feel free to check my recent edits if you like. I'm trying to make sure that my edits follow that principle. (Adding sections is almost an exception, as it's easiest to add text first and correct it later). I think you can see that I've added material that could form the basis for US claims, Also, do you think infoboxes should be added to the other Arctic Islands articles? I'm mildly in favor of them. I think they are a net benefit, but it's certainly possible to write good articles without them, and I'm open to that approach too. Oh yes, and the Arctic Islands articles really need sections on "Physical Description" or something like that. Do any of the materials you mentioned having access too include geological surveys? --Reuben 01:24, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

First, I just want to say that it has been an absolute pleasure to work with you on these insular questions. I am not some right-wing crazy pushing some loony agenda on Wikipedia: there is a dead contradiction between 19th century (and early 20th century) government documents (one of which you found on the Naval site) and that "Fact Sheet". I am a patriotic citizen of the United States and I want to see the zone of territorial sovereignty we legitimately hold defended. There is a great deal of confusion about these islands in my mind and while I have sources (generally all pointing in my favor before excepting the Fact Sheet and the unapproved Russian boundary agreement of 1990 which did not affect the status of the islands anyway), I would rather that I keep them to myself until I get in contact with others who know a great deal about the subject so that nothing illegitimate is posted for the millions (or anybody who would be strange enough to visit this dark corner of Wikipedia) to read and then act on. Let me give you an example: Icebound, a book by Leonard F. Guttridge (historian) about the Jeannette's visit to the Arctic (which was endorsed by the U.S. Navy), says that the islands were discovered in the order 1) Henrietta, 2) Jeannette, 3) Bennett. I think you can see from the Report of the Secretary of the Navy that this is inaccurate and indeed, all the primary documents conflict with this order of discovery and subsequent action of formal claim. I am very suspicious of all information- right-wing, left-wing, and no agenda- which I get from the secondary sources after about 1975 (more conservatively, 1940). Since it is my understanding that it is the U.S. Congress who determines the location of the United States, since the current State Department has directly contradicted numerous government documents when it said that the U.S. never in history at any point made a claim to the islands, and since the Jeannette was empowered to claim a great Arctic continent for the United States through a bill which was passed to give them such authority (a claim, which, if the supposed continent had existed, we would have followed up with an occupation[which would not have made it any more American than it already would have been]) I am quite disposed to say that the Congress, having never released the islands and Congress, having claimed the islands through the Jeannette's expedition and Russia, having made a claim to the islands based of a principle of contiguity invalid under any standard of international law and De Long, having made such a heroic sacrifice ending up starving to death on the Lena Delta deserve a closer inspection which I am giving almost 4h/7d. I will not throw out half-collected and misinterpreted data. The main problem is that the Russian basis for claim is so bare bones that the 1916 declaration is pretty much the summary of it. I contend that the principle of abandonment might possibly apply in the case of these islands, but that even in that scenario there is a principle of international law which was set down when east Greenland’s sovereignty was being debated in the PCA between Norway and Denmark that stated that in the polar regions, effective occupation is not requisite for sovereignty due to extreme conditions. Parts of the government have been trying throughout the 20th century to maintain our claims. Even with the 1916 declaration, there was no requirement under international law that the U.S. say something if Russia claimed some of our territory, so an official “protest” is not required. I feel like some of the grammar was faulty in this comment, but it’s past 12 so give me a small break. Anyway, I plan to come to a conclusion on these islands one day (max. two years) and I’ll probably publish it. Would posting that fall under original research? Thanks for all your help, I will look into the physical descriptions. Also, that Scott Polar Institute website had some inaccurate info: the discoverer's name was wrong.CharlesRobertCountofNesselrode 04:32, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

palmyra atoll

why is palmyra incorporated? the nature conservancy currently "owns" it, does that have anything to do with it? and which maps? all since the us claim? ps check out my site (link can be found here: Jarvis_Island#External_links, second link, the .info one. Indolences 02:04, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Invitation to join WikiProject United States

Hello, CharlesRobertCountofNesselrode! WikiProject United States, an outreach effort supporting development of United States related articles in Wikipedia, has recently been restarted after a long period of inactivity. As a user who has shown an interest in United States related topics we wanted to invite you to join us in developing content relating to the United States. If you are interested please add your Username and area of interest to the members page here. Thank you!!!

--Kumioko (talk) 03:20, 4 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:WikiProject United States/The 50,000 Challenge

You are invited to participate in the 50,000 Challenge, aiming for 50,000 article improvements and creations for articles relating to the United States. This effort began on November 1, 2016 and to reach our goal, we will need editors like you to participate, expand, and create. See more here!

--MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 02:37, 8 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]