Jump to content

Talk:List of territorial disputes: Difference between revisions

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Browse history interactively
← Previous editNext edit →
Content deleted Content added
VisualWikitext
Tags: Reverted New topic
User continues their spamming and refuses to engage with the ANI notice
Line 388: Line 388:


[[Special:Contributions/45.58.94.255|45.58.94.255]] ([[User talk:45.58.94.255|talk]]) 17:24, 21 November 2023 (UTC)
[[Special:Contributions/45.58.94.255|45.58.94.255]] ([[User talk:45.58.94.255|talk]]) 17:24, 21 November 2023 (UTC)

== Noktundo should be removed from the article ==

No South Korean president has ever asked Noktundo from Russia. In the source provided there is no official position on Noktundo. So it should not be listed as a disputed territory.

[[Special:Contributions/172.98.151.41|172.98.151.41]] ([[User talk:172.98.151.41|talk]]) 05:17, 25 November 2023 (UTC)

Revision as of 05:47, 25 November 2023

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

  • 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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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:

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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.

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

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:

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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:

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)[reply]

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:

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]

International Disputes

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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. [1] I have added a note regarding the Kabaw border disagreement with Myanmar in the table. GeoEvan (talk) 22:14, 27 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ [1]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Secondary source? --Numberguy6 (talk) 01:06, 17 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
@Whodoeswhatnow: -- Zanimum (talk) 17:15, 19 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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[reply]

They are not at the moment disputed between the states in this sense. CMD (talk) 16:55, 25 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
There are now paragraphs for this territories, summarized enough. Владимир Казаринов (talk) 05:00, 3 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]


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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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:

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

Merger discussion

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

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

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)[reply]

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. [3] Jargo Nautilus (talk) 00:16, 20 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]
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)[reply]
I'm also not sure why you think the map is not a reliable source. The Diplomat [4], 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)[reply]
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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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:

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

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:

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

Noktundo should be removed from the list

There is no documented territorial dispute regarding Noktundo, at least in recent years. 172.98.156.47 (talk) 172.98.156.47 (talk) 05:12, 30 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

"Missouri" entry, under resolved territorial disputes in the Americas

Why is this here? Arguably, the Union and the Confederacy disputed the territory of every secessionary state; should we list all of those too? And by that standard, isn't every every civil war in which both sides can form a functioning or internationally-recognized government a territorial dispute? But including all of those would dilute the list's usefulness to irrelevance. Bernanke's Crossbow (talk) 07:57, 25 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Deletion of Noktundo

I deleted Noktundo because there is no such island and even if it once existed it hasn't existed for centuries. You cannot dispute something that does not exist. It's common sense.

136.143.217.225 (talk) 21:32, 10 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Not being an island anymore does not automatically void the territorial claim.--Jusjih (talk) 02:25, 3 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
How so? Are we going to dispute which country owned Pangea? Disputes can only be for things that exist. Disputes cannot be for things that do not exist. Any claim that Primorsky krai is Korean land is a blatant violation of Russia's territory. Might as well claim Moscow is Korean land because Moscow is north of the Tumen river. So? Is South Korea going to claim Moscow is Korean land because Moscow is connected to Primorsky krai by land?
216.165.208.163 (talk) 18:16, 5 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

!!?US states in 1780's???

Seriously, who in their right mind would consider the Kashmir border dispute in the same category or page as a New Hampshire-VT disagreement in the US Revolutionary war times? When did NH or NY exist as independent republics?? Vermont REPUBLIC??? recognized by who? If that merits mention, there were dozens of provincial disputes in the Spanish colonies in South America not mentioned here. Leave it to some overzealous US dimwit to put those on the same level. 198.24.21.137 (talk) 14:55, 15 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Noktundo is not disputed territory

South Korea does not claim it as disputed territory. The quoted source is unreliable. Wikipedia should not be used as a source of propaganda or for inciting hatred and conflict. Unless there is a reliable source that states South Korea claims Noktundo as South Korean land, the entry of Noktundo should be deleted from this article. 168.91.61.39 (talk) 14:28, 14 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

There is no evidence Noktundo is in Russia

There is no evidence of this. Stop spreading lies on Wikipedia.

45.58.94.255 (talk) 17:24, 21 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Talk:List_of_territorial_disputes&oldid=1186745547"