Knowledge

:Articles for deletion/List of special entities recognized by international treaty or agreement (2nd nomination) - Knowledge

Source 📝

477:
not naming but ABSENCE OF LIST CRITERIA, i.e. a proper way of deciding what goes in and what does not. If such criteria existed, we could easily find a usable title; but there aren't any, which is fatal to the article. A second fatal problem is that there are no reliable sources anywhere which define the non-existent criteria. A consequence of the indefinability of this list is that things which one might have guessed would clearly belong outside the list's vague scope - like sovereign states - seem to be included in the general miasma; and it appears that User:Diego Moya indeed believed those states should have been excluded, so there is probably nobody who knows what this list should contain. It's a disaster and an embarrassment to the encyclopedia.
247: 381:. But there are a great many political entities which are not independent states in the sense of being members of the United Nations. How they came into being, what arrangements exist for administration, the manner in which their relationship with other states is incorporated in treaty is a function of history. Some of what are now constituent states of the USA owe their origins to international treaty, as of course do many states which 78: 537:, though. And there are sovereign states, dependences and constituent parts of states which also were the creations of, or are subject to, international treaties and agreements concerning their status and territorial integrity. What do these have in common not shared with others, other than a subjective judgement of quaintness? -- 870:
The original creator seemed to have four specific territories in mind: Åland, Svalbard, Hong Kong and Macau. Because there is no clear definition or source linking these, the topic is open to the introduction of disputed territories such as Palestine and Northern Ireland. This makes the topic more
802:
That is helpful, but many states and territories are extraordinary in their own way and the categories into which we place them may seem arbitrary. I am not clear whether this article is intended to be about the fact that there are places that do not fall within the accepted definitions of state, etc
376:
The article has a complicated history and the criteria for inclusion have been much discussed. Whatever the original intentions of the creator I just do not see how the list an be sufficiently defined within the terms of the title. At the heart of it seems to be a concept of state, or statehood, into
385:
members of the United Nations. The special constitutional arrangements of Svalbard, the Aland Islands and Hong Kong are interesting, and in some senses peculiar, but so are those of the Channel Islands or Belgium. It does great injustice to the complexities of their history to say that, for example,
811:
or Berlin after WW2) in which case the list would be long and diverse even if it were confined to those arrangements currently in force, though I am not sure that it should. In either case there needs to be explicit and referenced use of accepted criteria in international law and I am not sure that
476:
No, unfortunately that is not true - there is no acceptable name for a random ragbag of things that have nothing in common that actually distinguishes them from things around them that the authors have decided not to include (the preceding phrase being a bit long for use as a title). The problem is
73: 783:
have played an important historical and political role in international law and this is a useful collection of them. The article needs expansion and rewriting, but there is a useful base to work with and it should stay." The relevant criterion for inclusion is a territory (current or, perhaps,
647:
Please read the detailed criticism that has been written by me and others. It is nothing whatsoever to do with not liking the current or suggested titles: it is to do with their essential incoherence, because of the utter failure of the article to conform to any workable set of list inclusion
250:
for this hopelessly vague concept. The user on the talk page is correct, how do you define this? A: a ragbag of unrelated items, each defined more or less by its separate section heading. This is Not Notable "within the meaning of the act", and everything that Knowledge shouldn't be.
500:
Not sure what the article should be named, but it should be kept. Nations that exists with special conditions or control of more than one nation? All of these are recognized by the international community, so the current name is fine. It has specific inclusion criteria.
179: 105: 100: 109: 92: 784:
historical) whose political status is neither that of an "ordinary" nation or sovereigh state, nor that of an "ordinary" dependent territory (or trust territory or the like), but is the subject of a specific treaty regime among two or more states or parties.
421:
But it also lists sovereign states. Can you provide some reliable source for the term "special entities recognized by international treaty or agreement"? We don't know what it means. It lists sovereign states like Andorra and Vatican, it lists
173: 551: 386:
Vatican City is the creation of treaty; what treaty or other settlement did was to formulate an arrangement which fitted the circumstances including local needs and the interests of the guaranteeing powers or entities. --
896:. What's troubling is that some of the content in this article deserves to be on Knowledge, but the way that it is organized is clearly original research. The good parts should be moved to appropriate other articles. 139: 923: 902: 888: 856: 821: 793: 771: 754: 729: 700: 657: 642: 614: 600: 577: 546: 524: 486: 461: 447: 416: 395: 368: 343: 323: 292: 260: 233: 57: 914:. Such a list as this one would be expected to be rather dynamic, even more than the UN list. As long as there is evidence in the main articles cited for inclusion on this list, it should be allowed. 220:
since October 2006. What are the criteria for inclusion on the list? To quote one user from talk page: How exactly does one define "special entities recognized by international treaty or agreement"?
300: 605:
Exactly, and the suggested "title" makes it clear both that the existing title is unusable, and that any alternative will be hopeless, for the reasons I and other editors have given.
194: 161: 911: 871:
trouble than it's worth — just wait until Gibraltar is added to the list! :) If we seem to have a gap, then the topic needs to start with a good source. Here's an example of
403:
for the same reasons it was kept the last time - it's a list of places that are listed in List of Countries that are neither sovereign states or dependencies; maybe rename to
155: 151: 96: 132: 674: 201: 88: 63: 269: 807:(like Antarctica), or about the fact that there can be special international treaties governing the status of an area (which would include things like the 737:. I note that those advocating keep are also suggesting the name should be changed. As the present content is only unreferenced OR and is contained in 167: 552:
List of entities which have or have had their own government while still being governed to an extent by a different government beyond theirs
427: 741:, there is absolutely no loss to WP by deletion. If, at a later stage, an editor can find the right title, the references and avoid 17: 351:
per above, and the prior AfD is utterly unconvincing. Title is absolutely absurd, the content is pure OR and synthesis.
762:
none of the keep votes are convincing and do not address the fundamental issue of what criteria to get on this list.
718: 589: 317: 286: 214: 407:
or similar. If the problem is that the title doesn't match the content, change the title, don't delete the thing.
942: 876: 40: 884: 79:
Articles for deletion/List of special entities recognized by international treaty or agreement (2nd nomination)
582:
This looks to be another one of these situations where the component parts are notable and the grouping isn't
723: 653: 610: 594: 482: 256: 619:
Not liking the title of an article is not a valid reason to delete it. The information is encyclopedic.
938: 789: 713: 584: 363: 36: 910:. This is a unique way of classifying certain quasi-autonomous territories. It is quite different from 817: 750: 542: 457: 412: 391: 919: 880: 378: 352: 187: 53: 850: 832:
Write a few sentences explaining the criteria for inclusion (citing reliable sources, of course)?
649: 606: 478: 441: 252: 227: 898: 872: 808: 767: 74:
Articles for deletion/List of special entities recognized by international treaty or agreement
29:
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below.
937:
Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
35:
Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
826: 785: 738: 678: 620: 555: 502: 423: 339: 813: 746: 538: 453: 408: 387: 875:
which talks about these four areas as "special regions" in the context of a spectrum of
915: 312: 281: 49: 845: 436: 222: 763: 742: 431: 334:
per nomination and per Chiswick Chap: this is not a sensible topic for an article.
243: 210:
After 7 years, this list still does not have a single reliable source. Tagged with
126: 377:
which these entities do not fit and the article seems to have been a split from
335: 554:. How about that for a title then? That covers everyone nicely on the list. 305: 274: 89:
List of special entities recognized by international treaty or agreement
64:
List of special entities recognized by international treaty or agreement
648:
criteria. If the list were coherent it would be easy to find a title.
673:
Note: This debate has been included in the Article Rescue Squadron's
835:
Remove from the list all entries that do not meet these criteria?
931:
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.
843:
If you can do this, I will gladly withdraw this nomination.--
829:, can you please fix the article? In particular, can you: 745:
it will be easier to create without the present baggage.--
879:. The latter title seems to be a better place to start. 301:
list of Bilateral relations-related deletion discussions
452:
Again, that can be dealt with by renaming the article.
122: 118: 114: 186: 912:
United Nations list of Non-Self-Governing Territories
43:). No further edits should be made to this page. 945:). No further edits should be made to this page. 779:. My comment at the AfD in 2007 was: "Entities 200: 8: 299:Note: This debate has been included in the 268:Note: This debate has been included in the 672: 298: 270:list of Lists-related deletion discussions 267: 675:list of content for rescue consideration 71: 430:?). If you ask me, the whole list is 7: 428:Federation of Bosnia and Herzegovina 812:we end up with the same article. -- 70: 24: 246:, uncited for one good reason: 18:Knowledge:Articles for deletion 838:Change the title if necessary? 1: 533:You cannot call all of these 405:Areas of Special Sovereignty 248:No citations are to be found 962: 877:sub-national jurisdictions 934:Please do not modify it. 924:22:13, 14 May 2013 (UTC) 903:22:02, 14 May 2013 (UTC) 889:12:55, 14 May 2013 (UTC) 857:09:11, 13 May 2013 (UTC) 822:23:53, 12 May 2013 (UTC) 794:22:39, 12 May 2013 (UTC) 772:15:39, 11 May 2013 (UTC) 755:07:12, 11 May 2013 (UTC) 730:01:43, 11 May 2013 (UTC) 701:02:22, 11 May 2013 (UTC) 658:14:35, 12 May 2013 (UTC) 643:13:29, 12 May 2013 (UTC) 615:13:15, 12 May 2013 (UTC) 601:12:49, 12 May 2013 (UTC) 578:12:08, 12 May 2013 (UTC) 547:10:10, 12 May 2013 (UTC) 525:01:29, 11 May 2013 (UTC) 58:00:43, 15 May 2013 (UTC) 32:Please do not modify it. 803:- that are as you say, 487:06:12, 6 May 2013 (UTC) 462:05:17, 6 May 2013 (UTC) 448:22:11, 5 May 2013 (UTC) 417:21:07, 5 May 2013 (UTC) 396:12:02, 5 May 2013 (UTC) 369:11:42, 5 May 2013 (UTC) 344:09:59, 5 May 2013 (UTC) 324:09:38, 5 May 2013 (UTC) 293:09:37, 5 May 2013 (UTC) 261:08:59, 5 May 2013 (UTC) 234:08:18, 5 May 2013 (UTC) 48:The result was delete. 69:AfDs for this article: 711:All OR, all the time 365:(tell Luke off here) 379:Dependent territory 809:Panama Canal Zone 703: 326: 295: 215:Original research 953: 936: 901: 855: 853: 848: 739:List of treaties 728: 726: 721: 716: 697: 694: 691: 688: 685: 682: 639: 636: 633: 630: 627: 624: 599: 597: 592: 587: 574: 571: 568: 565: 562: 559: 521: 518: 515: 512: 509: 506: 446: 444: 439: 424:Republika Srpska 361: 358: 355: 322: 320: 315: 310: 291: 289: 284: 279: 232: 230: 225: 219: 213: 205: 204: 190: 142: 130: 112: 34: 961: 960: 956: 955: 954: 952: 951: 950: 949: 943:deletion review 932: 897: 851: 846: 844: 724: 719: 714: 712: 695: 692: 689: 686: 683: 680: 637: 634: 631: 628: 625: 622: 595: 590: 585: 583: 572: 569: 566: 563: 560: 557: 519: 516: 513: 510: 507: 504: 442: 437: 435: 359: 356: 353: 318: 313: 306: 304: 287: 282: 275: 273: 228: 223: 221: 217: 211: 147: 138: 103: 87: 84: 67: 41:deletion review 30: 22: 21: 20: 12: 11: 5: 959: 957: 948: 947: 927: 926: 905: 891: 864: 863: 862: 861: 860: 859: 841: 840: 839: 836: 833: 797: 796: 774: 757: 732: 705: 704: 670: 669: 668: 667: 666: 665: 664: 663: 662: 661: 660: 603: 528: 527: 494: 493: 492: 491: 490: 489: 469: 468: 467: 466: 465: 464: 398: 371: 346: 328: 327: 296: 264: 263: 208: 207: 144: 83: 82: 81: 76: 68: 66: 61: 46: 45: 25: 23: 15: 14: 13: 10: 9: 6: 4: 3: 2: 958: 946: 944: 940: 935: 929: 928: 925: 921: 917: 913: 909: 906: 904: 900: 895: 892: 890: 886: 882: 878: 874: 873:such a source 869: 866: 865: 858: 854: 849: 842: 837: 834: 831: 830: 828: 825: 824: 823: 819: 815: 810: 806: 801: 800: 799: 798: 795: 791: 787: 782: 778: 775: 773: 769: 765: 761: 758: 756: 752: 748: 744: 740: 736: 733: 731: 727: 722: 717: 710: 707: 706: 702: 699: 698: 676: 671: 659: 655: 651: 650:Chiswick Chap 646: 645: 644: 641: 640: 618: 617: 616: 612: 608: 607:Chiswick Chap 604: 602: 598: 593: 588: 581: 580: 579: 576: 575: 553: 550: 549: 548: 544: 540: 536: 532: 531: 530: 529: 526: 523: 522: 499: 496: 495: 488: 484: 480: 479:Chiswick Chap 475: 474: 473: 472: 471: 470: 463: 459: 455: 451: 450: 449: 445: 440: 433: 429: 425: 420: 419: 418: 414: 410: 406: 402: 399: 397: 393: 389: 384: 380: 375: 372: 370: 367: 366: 362: 350: 347: 345: 341: 337: 333: 330: 329: 325: 321: 316: 311: 309: 302: 297: 294: 290: 285: 280: 278: 271: 266: 265: 262: 258: 254: 253:Chiswick Chap 249: 245: 241: 238: 237: 236: 235: 231: 226: 216: 203: 199: 196: 193: 189: 185: 181: 178: 175: 172: 169: 166: 163: 160: 157: 153: 150: 149:Find sources: 145: 141: 137: 134: 128: 124: 120: 116: 111: 107: 102: 98: 94: 90: 86: 85: 80: 77: 75: 72: 65: 62: 60: 59: 55: 51: 44: 42: 38: 33: 27: 26: 19: 933: 930: 907: 893: 867: 827:@Newyorkbrad 804: 780: 776: 759: 734: 708: 679: 621: 556: 534: 503: 497: 404: 400: 382: 373: 364: 348: 331: 307: 276: 239: 209: 197: 191: 183: 176: 170: 164: 158: 148: 135: 47: 31: 28: 805:sui generis 786:Newyorkbrad 781:sui generis 174:free images 814:AJHingston 747:Richhoncho 539:AJHingston 388:AJHingston 939:talk page 916:Attleboro 426:(but not 50:Ironholds 37:talk page 941:or in a 242:as pure 133:View log 39:or in a 847:В и к и 764:LibStar 709:Delete: 535:nations 438:В и к и 434:crap.-- 224:В и к и 180:WP refs 168:scholar 106:protect 101:history 899:Andrew 894:Delete 881:Warden 868:Delete 760:delete 735:Delete 374:Delete 349:Delete 336:Nick-D 332:Delete 240:Delete 152:Google 110:delete 743:WP:OR 696:Focus 638:Focus 573:Focus 520:Focus 454:Diego 432:WP:OR 409:Diego 244:WP:OR 195:JSTOR 156:books 140:Stats 127:views 119:watch 115:links 16:< 920:talk 908:Keep 885:talk 818:talk 790:talk 777:Keep 768:talk 751:talk 654:talk 611:talk 543:talk 498:Keep 483:talk 458:talk 413:talk 401:Keep 392:talk 354:Luke 340:talk 308:czar 277:czar 257:talk 188:FENS 162:news 123:logs 97:talk 93:edit 54:talk 383:are 202:TWL 131:– ( 922:) 887:) 852:T 820:) 792:) 770:) 753:) 677:. 656:) 613:) 545:) 485:) 460:) 443:T 415:) 394:) 360:94 357:no 342:) 303:. 272:. 259:) 229:T 218:}} 212:{{ 182:) 125:| 121:| 117:| 113:| 108:| 104:| 99:| 95:| 56:) 918:( 883:( 816:( 788:( 766:( 749:( 725:p 720:b 715:p 693:m 690:a 687:e 684:r 681:D 652:( 635:m 632:a 629:e 626:r 623:D 609:( 596:p 591:b 586:p 570:m 567:a 564:e 561:r 558:D 541:( 517:m 514:a 511:e 508:r 505:D 481:( 456:( 411:( 390:( 338:( 319:· 314:· 288:· 283:· 255:( 206:) 198:· 192:· 184:· 177:· 171:· 165:· 159:· 154:( 146:( 143:) 136:· 129:) 91:( 52:(

Index

Knowledge:Articles for deletion
talk page
deletion review
Ironholds
talk
00:43, 15 May 2013 (UTC)
List of special entities recognized by international treaty or agreement
Articles for deletion/List of special entities recognized by international treaty or agreement
Articles for deletion/List of special entities recognized by international treaty or agreement (2nd nomination)
List of special entities recognized by international treaty or agreement
edit
talk
history
protect
delete
links
watch
logs
views
View log
Stats
Google
books
news
scholar
free images
WP refs
FENS
JSTOR
TWL

Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.