Talk:Sovereign state/Archive 2

This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 1

Archive 2

External links modified

Latest comment: 7 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Sovereign state. 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:

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: 18 January 2022).

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) 01:36, 27 March 2017 (UTC)

Taiwan on the map

Latest comment: 5 years ago4 comments3 people in discussion

The island of Taiwan off of the coast of China is colored in on the map as members of the UN. The ROC controls Taiwan, has always controlled it since 1945 and it should not be colored on the map because it is not a United Nation's member. Hiitsmebobby (talk) 18 May 2017, 20:55 (UTC)

I think the rationale is that the Peoples Republic of China, which is a UN member, claims sovereignty of Taiwan. Verbcatcher (talk) 23:20, 1 June 2017 (UTC)

It doesn't control it however. Hiitsmebobby (talk) 00:12, 4 June 2017 (UTC)

This has already been discussed on the talk page for the map, at File talk:United Nations Members.svg#Taiwan. Verbcatcher (talk) 02:25, 4 June 2017 (UTC)

Hiitsmebobby, please study some history. The PRC obtained China's seat in the UN after the United Nations General Assembly Resolution 2758 in 1971. The ROC used to represent whole China before that, so the coloring never changed. That's everything the map is trying to show. Take your agenda somewhere else. --94.134.89.67 (talk) 23:12, 10 July 2018 (UTC)

Removal of Emergence of States

Latest comment: 6 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

I have removed this section which consisted of 2 sentences. The first sentence has not got a necessary attribution, nor does it seem likely that it will ever get one There is a reference (Glassner) associated with the line, but the quote is not from that book and indeed is contrary to the text of the book. It more likely came from the second reference, Spruyt. I couldn't find it in the book, but it is something, I believe, the author would be likely to say. However author uses a particular definition of sovereign state in order to argue an hypothesis, and the book is the argument of the hypothesis rather than a textbook on accepted terms history and terms. The author's definition is particularly the modern state as derived from the late medieval monarchist state, where there are fixed borders and one central monarchist government. This article, though not explicit, relates to the modern state alone as it is currently defined by international law. The origins of the modern state are complex and depend on what aspect of them that you focus on. The second sentence is at best misleading. The origins of the modern state are better handled by an entirely different article which can handle the nuances of the different definitions Jameel the Saluki (talk) 00:20, 7 August 2017 (UTC)

Why revert?

Latest comment: 6 years ago4 comments2 people in discussion

@Kahastok. Why did you make this revert [1]?

Should not we clarify what it means "similar situation"? This is completely unclear.
The source seems to be questionable. I was unable to follow the link. What exactly this source tells? My very best wishes (talk) 21:10, 10 December 2017 (UTC)

You treat Taiwan as though it were in the same position as Israel when it is clear that they are in quite different positions. I do not agree with this edit and I do not think changing this article to try to improve your position in another debate is appropriate. Kahastok talk 21:15, 10 December 2017 (UTC)

No, I am simply looking at various pages related to the subject of discussion and am trying to fix all problems that I see immediately. OK, if you do not want me to fix it, please fix it yourself. My very best wishes (talk) 21:23, 10 December 2017 (UTC)

But I would like to see a secondary RS telling that "Tawain is in a similar situation as Northern Cyprus". There is none so far. My very best wishes (talk) 16:10, 11 December 2017 (UTC)

External links modified (January 2018)

Latest comment: 6 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Sovereign state. 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:

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: 18 January 2022).

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) 05:15, 21 January 2018 (UTC)

Merger proposal

Latest comment: 1 year ago7 comments7 people in discussion

No consensus to merge, editors consider the topics as separate enough.Selfstudier (talk) 11:17, 22 November 2022 (UTC)

The following discussion 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.

I propose merging Westphalian sovereignty into Sovereign state. I think the content in Westphalian sovereignty can easily be explained in the context of sovereign state. None of the current articles are of great quality, and perhaps they stray into content of each other. The "State extinction", "Westphalian sovereignty" and "Ontological status of the state" sections are overlapping with Westphalian sovereignty article very much. 145.15.244.234 (talk) 15:56, 15 October 2022 (UTC)

Oppose Not a good idea. 2001:8003:913E:5D01:2422:BF9A:7157:BB6A (talk) 22:08, 16 October 2022 (UTC)

Oppose Leutha (talk) 11:23, 14 November 2022 (UTC)

Oppose: Separate ideas with separate contexts and applications. Certainly not interchangeable terms. Content is not so terrible that it needs merging. Iskandar323 (talk) 11:29, 14 November 2022 (UTC)

Oppose Very obviously separate. //Lollipoplollipoplollipop::talk 23:34, 21 November 2022 (UTC)

Oppose Johnbod (talk) 06:30, 22 November 2022 (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.