Jump to content

Talk:List of territorial disputes

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

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

[edit]

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]

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

[edit]

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]

Technically all the U.S. states were independent until the Articles of Confederation were ratified, and outside of sovcits no one has any doubt that the Contstition's ratification ended the last semblance of that. And as for the NH-VT dispute, Vermont remained an independent state until 1792. Daniel Case (talk) 19:20, 13 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I am deleting Noktundo from the article.

[edit]

The reasoning is a territorial dispute is only valid if a country claims some land as its own. South Korea does not claim Noktundo as its own land. So it does not qualify as a territorial dispute. The source provided lists Russia having territorial disputes with Kazakhstan, Ukraine, Japan, Taiwan, not with South Korea.

[1]https://brilliantmaps.com/territorial-disputes/

45.74.78.11 (talk) 04:07, 15 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: this has already been discussed thoroughly at Talk:Noktundo § I am deleting Noktundo from the list of territorial disputes page.
Please have a read through the Wikipedia:Reliable sources page and cite a secondary, independent source (e.g. news article) proving that South Korea has officially resolved its land dispute with Russia over Noktundo. Otherwise, you do not have a valid, strong point to make here. The source you provided does not explicitly say the dispute has been settled, it only omits mention of the dispute, and that is likely due to it not being significant, and the page only goes over ones of bigger significance/importance, for conciseness. It might not have much significance, but a dispute that has not been officially settled is still an ongoing dispute.
Also, please stop repeating the same point over and over again when several other editors have clearly disagreed with your claims, as well as constantly flooding talk pages with new threads about the same topic. Doing so is called bludgeoning the process, which is essentially disruptive editing. Please don't make us also have to semi-protect this page again.
To help out on this matter, I have requested input from more editors at WikiProject Korea talk page, which has currently brought one new editor into the discussion – see tobigtokale's comments at the Noktundo talk page.
On Wikipedia, we resolve content disputes through consensus. That is, the version of the page that has the majority of editors favouring it is the one that is kept. So far, three editors agree that Noktundo be kept in the List of territorial disputes article while only you disagree. — AP 499D25 (talk) 07:10, 15 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Consensus is not a majority vote, it is consensus. Roger 8 Roger (talk) 08:21, 15 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
"not a majority vote" correct, my explanation wasn't the best. I'm just trying to give an idea here as to what consensus means. To give a better explanation, it's when disagreeing editors work together to develop a version of a page that pretty much all editors can agree upon. It could be one version or the other of the disputed pages, or it could be a compromise between the two. — AP 499D25 (talk) 10:06, 15 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
This isn't a logical disagreement, it was discussed already as you mentioned at Talk:Noktundo#I am deleting Noktundo from the list of territorial disputes page
@Toobigtokale mentioned it best at https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Noktundo&oldid=1189809382
We have discussed this to death, the person is NOT interested in changing their mind and quite frankly it is absurd to expect other editors like me, who have been civil this entire time to this person, to continue trying to talk to them when their only response is calling me an "American propagandist" and other things Sunnyediting99 (talk) 15:32, 15 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
What source is there that says South Korea demanded Noktundo from Russia, either for itself or for North Korea? Could you please kindly provide the source? If possible, it would be preferred if the source has a quote of the South Korean president of what he said to the Russian president regarding Noktundo. If the source is legit, then I will accept Noktundo as disputed territory between South Korea and Russia. If there is no legit source, then I think we should clean up this article and purge entries that are meaningless. Thanks.
The source provided in this article https://www.10news.com/news/national-news/south-korea-fires-warning-shots-at-russian-military-aircraft states 'Their only point of contention is the island of Noktundo, which Russia claims as its own territory but South Korea maintains is an important part of Korean territory.' This sentence does not imply South Korea demands Russia return Noktundo to Korea. It merely states South Korea considers Noktundo an important part of Korean territory. This is not sufficient to consider Noktundo a disputed territory, because every country in the world has land that is now in some other country, and that does not make every country in the world having territorial disputes. 162.221.123.225 (talk) 13:11, 15 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I think there's a genuine good discussion to be had here, but these IP user(s) aren't doing a good job of it :/. Being excessively condescending and providing one or two weak sources and trying to draw arbitrary lines in the sand for what would satisfy them... Not productive.
Noktundo is commonly described as a territorial dispute by non-state academics:
  • [2] As a result of external invasion and war on the Korean Peninsula, it has led to territorial disputes as well as human and material sacrifices. Baekdusan jeonggyebi(Mt. Paektu Demarcation Stone), North Korea-China Border Treaty, Gando, Roktundo, Dokdo, Ieodo and Sector 7 are just that.
  • [3] 영토 문제를 다루며 녹둔도를 언급한 책은 있지만... -> [T]here are many books that mention Noktundo as a territorial issue
However, the South Korean govt officially denies that it is:
  • [4] 외교부 영토해양과의 홍성원 서기관은 “녹둔도는 현재 당면한 영토 분쟁 지역에 해당하지 않으므로 우리 정부는 이에 대해 어떤 특정한 입장을 갖고 있지 않다”고 했다. -> Hong Seong-won, secretary of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs’ Territorial and Maritime Affairs Department, said, "Since Nokdundo Island is not considered a current territorial dispute, our government does not have any specific position on it."
This begs the question, do territorial conflicts have to be between state actors? See Irredentism:
However, difficulties in applying the concept to concrete cases have given rise to academic debates about its precise definition. Disagreements concern whether either or both ethnic and historical reasons have to be present and whether non-state actors can also engage in irredentism.
It's not an easy question to answer. I don't have an answer to it. Unless someone's about to nail down the academic debate on this topic with more than just a few scattered sources we shouldn't be comfortable trying to nail down what is and isn't a border dispute based on gut feeling. We need to rely on what reliable sources are saying (and not reading between the lines of what they don't say, that's not acceptable reasoning on Wikipedia).
Again, there's a good, fascinating conversation to be had here, but it's not being done justice by the IP user(s). toobigtokale (talk) 17:54, 15 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the response, I think this again though shows that while it's not the clearest issue, it still is a territorial dispute due to a mixture of the fact that non-state academics see it as a territorial dispute (whereas the ROK Government is keeping quiet on it now for the necessity of good relations with Russia) and the fact that the Korean Government in 1985 and 1990 issued claims demanding the territory be given to North Korea.
https://www.sedaily.com/NewsView/1VDYZQNO1P in 1990, the South Korean government demanded the return of Noktundo (this was after North Korea and Russia negotiated, with North Korea agreeing to recognize Russian sovereignty over Noktundo), the key thing to note was that as other sources in the article pointed out, they demanded it be returned to North Korean jurisdiction.
https://news.koreadaily.com/2019/05/08/society/opinion/7223417.html "In 1990, President Noh asked for the return of the island, even offering a two million dollar compensation to Russia"
I think it's telling that the ROK Government stated that a current territorial dispute, our government does not have any specific position on it." which is a very coy response. Contrast that with North Korea, which officially resolved the dispute by ceding all territorial claims it holds over Noktundo to Russia. South Korea is deliberately using choice language to state it doesn't have a specific position on it, but it also hasn't retracted its 1985 and 1990 claims. Had the ROK retracted its claims I wouldn't consider it a territorial dispute, but the fact that it only is remaining mute on the issue just to avoid tensions with Russia combined with the fact that academics generally do see it as a dispute means it likely is a dispute. Given Wikipedia's preference for academics' opinions on an issue over a government's opinion it still is a territorial dispute. Sunnyediting99 (talk) 18:04, 15 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Noktundo should be removed from the list of disputed territories

[edit]

1. The dispute is between private citizens, not between governments. Territorial disputes between nations can only be between governments, not between private citizens. Case in point, Chinese drew the eastern half of Heixiazi island as Chinese land, but we do not consider it a territorial dispute, because it is the action of private citizens, not the action of the Chinese government.

https://www.channelnewsasia.com/asia/china-new-map-territory-g20-asean-summit-india-malaysia-russia-indonesia-protest-3737366

2. North Korea and USSR signed a border treaty in 1990. There is no territorial dispute between North Korea and USSR. Territorial disputes cannot be made on behalf of someone else. Case in point, Brazil considers Falklands islands as part of Argentina and supports Argentina's claim. This does not make Brazil having territorial dispute with the UK regarding the Falkland islands. Likewise, it cannot be considered territorial dispute even if South Korea claims Noktundo should be part of North Korea. It can only be considered territorial dispute if South Korea claims Noktundo belongs to itself.

https://en.mercopress.com/2024/01/05/brazilian-support-for-argentine-sovereignty-claim-over-the-falklands

3. The list of territorial disputes compiled by CIA is very thorough as you can see considering it includes very small minor disputes such as Hans island. So it seems Noktundo should not be considered a disputed territory.

[5]https://www.cia.gov/the-world-factbook/field/disputes-international/

45.74.78.47 (talk) 05:20, 16 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Please see explanation in the previous section above, by Sunnyediting99. Particularly, the last paragraph.
This is the last time you're going to push your point over and over again here while ignoring / not responding to other people's points. So please listen up. Any further comments like that, they will be removed and this talk page may be semi-protected again. — AP 499D25 (talk) 05:34, 16 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Sunnyediting99 believes Noktundo should be a disputed territory because certain private citizens claim it should be Korean land. I have given my reason why I think this does not seem reasonable. I have listed my argument with the 3 points I made above. I have provided my reasoning and I have provided evidence.
Again, I am more than willing to debate with him on this issue. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 45.74.78.47 (talk) 05:46, 16 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, I'll quote this paragraph from Sunnyediting99 in his last comment, which explains really well (and in accordance with Wikipedia guidelines) why Noktundo should still be listed as an ongoing dispute:

I think it's telling that the ROK Government stated that a current territorial dispute, our government does not have any specific position on it." which is a very coy response. Contrast that with North Korea, which officially resolved the dispute by ceding all territorial claims it holds over Noktundo to Russia. South Korea is deliberately using choice language to state it doesn't have a specific position on it, but it also hasn't retracted its 1985 and 1990 claims. Had the ROK retracted its claims I wouldn't consider it a territorial dispute, but the fact that it only is remaining mute on the issue just to avoid tensions with Russia combined with the fact that academics generally do see it as a dispute means it likely is a dispute. Given Wikipedia's preference for academics' opinions on an issue over a government's opinion it still is a territorial dispute.

I'll also repeat once more, my comment on this matter: Please cite a secondary, independent source (e.g. news article) proving that South Korea has officially resolved its land dispute with Russia over Noktundo.
The sources you provided above still only omit Noktundo as a disputed territory. You still haven't provided a source explicitly saying that South Korea has settled its dispute with Russia over Noktundo.
You've repeated your points many times, other editors have also made their points very clear too. You need to listen to their points and understand them instead of repeating your own point over and over again. — AP 499D25 (talk) 06:33, 16 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
There's no point in talking, I provided sources for the claims on the very same comment that AP cited from, which this user is just pretending it doesn't exist and stating this is my "personal opinion" which is incredibly ironic given that I provided sources, cited academics and newspapers whereas the IP abuser initially tried to just delete Noktundo without providing evidence or reasoning based off their first few edits. This has been talked and bludgeoned to death, the user here clearly has intent on sending wave after wave of edits and topics just to push their point.
https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Noktundo&oldid=1186573443
This ^ is what the pages looked like because of the vandalism wrought by this person. It's time we stamp this down and end this
@AP 499D25 do you want to put in the semi-protection request in, or would you prefer I do it? I think we might need sth longer than one month because this person keeps coming back every month after the protection ends. Sunnyediting99 (talk) 23:29, 16 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I think I've made my point very clear in the latest reply of mine below. Secondary sources should be preferred over primary ones on Wikipedia whenever possible. One more time-wasting WP:ICHY comment from them and I will request protection again. — AP 499D25 (talk) 23:45, 16 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Sunnyediting99 is making a lot of personal opinions. Notice the words like "coy" and "combined with" which he uses. Wikipedia should be objective, not subjective. Wikipedia should not be based on some user's personal opinions.
Sunnyediting99 still have not provided a single source regarding his claim that South Korea asked USSR to return Noktundo to North Korea, which Sunnyediting99 claims South Korea did so in 1985 and 1990 under president Noh. I have repeatedly requested him to provide a source proving his claim. He never did so. Is providing a source really too much to ask for? He mentions a president Noh. I tried to look him up. And I cannot find anything about the existence of this president Noh which Sunnyediting99 mentions.
As I explained in point 2 of my argument, territorial dispute cannot be made on behalf of someone else. Noktundo cannot be considered territorial dispute unless North Korea considers Noktundo belongs to itself or South Korea considers Noktundo belongs to itself. Noktundo cannot be considered territorial dispute even if South Korea considers Noktundo belongs to North Korea, which, again, Sunnyediting99 claims happened in 1985 and 1990 without ever providing a source. I have given an example. I explained why Falklands is not a territorial dispute between Brazil and the UK even though Brazil considers Falklands belonging to Argentina.
And last but not least, if Noktundo really is a territorial dispute, then why is it not in the CIA's list of territorial disputes which I provided in point 3 of my argument? This list is comprehensive and contains every territorial dispute there is on the wikipedia's list of territorial disputes, with the exception of Noktundo which not appear on CIA's list of territorial disputes.
I hope I'm making my points clear.
45.74.78.47 (talk) 12:55, 16 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
If you look at the comments in the thread above, other users (not only Sunnyediting99 but also toobigtokale) have provided sources showing that Noktundo is a disputed territory. I'll repeat them here for you: [1][2][3][4]
Also a couple more sources from the Talk:Noktundo § I am deleting Noktundo from the list of territorial disputes page thread: [5][6]
Regarding the source you provided, it comes from the CIA, a governmental organisation, so it is considered a primary source. Wikipedia's reliable sources guideline states that articles should rely on secondary sources whenever possible. See Wikipedia:Reliable sources § Some types of sources.
The sources that other users provided above are secondary sources, disproving your points 1 and 2, which are WP:SYNTH I'm afraid.
On top of that, like I said before, the CIA source does not clearly state that the Noktundo dispute has been settled. It simply omits mentions of it. Wikipedia's reliable sources guideline, as linked above, states that editors should never interpret the content of primary sources for themselves. Saying that it's settled because there's no mention of it in that primary source is considered original research.
So until there are new secondary sources clearly stating that South Korea has settled its Noktundo dispute with Russia, Noktundo is staying on the list of ongoing territorial disputes article, I'm afraid. If you don't have such new secondary sources to provide, then end of discussion. — AP 499D25 (talk) 23:41, 16 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
If CIA does not even consider Noktundo a disputed territory, then Noktundo should not be included in wikipedia's list. What makes Noktundo so special it is on wikipedia and not on CIA's list of territorial disputes?
Even if South Korea asked USSR to give Noktundo to Korea in 1985 and 1990, as Sunnyediting99 claimed to have happened (no source provided) under president Noh (no such person seems to exist), this is not a territorial dispute. First, North Korea does not claim Noktundo is North Korean land. Second, USSR no longer exists. Even if South Korea demanded from USSR, South Korea never demanded from Russia. Whatever happened with USSR does not automatically carry over to Russia. Russia is not responsible for any treaty signed by USSR or any interaction USSR may have had with any country.
This is the particular content of the dispute given in wikipedia regarding Noktundo:
In 1990, the former Soviet Union and the Democratic People's Republic of Korea (North Korea) signed a border treaty which made the border run through the center of the Tumen river, leaving Noktundo as a former island in Russia. South Korea refused to acknowledge the treaty.[56][57][58]
This paragraph does not appear to be a dispute from the wording of it. Not acknowledging the treaty is natural considering South Korea does not consider North Korea as legitimate. But from the wording one cannot conclude there is dispute. The wording of this paragraph does not mention who is disputing what with whom. So from the wording of this paragraph, one cannot conclude there is dispute in the first place.
I hope I'm making my points clear.
216.165.212.4 (talk) 03:24, 17 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@AP 499D25 they have no new secondary sources and they either don't remember or are willingly omitting that I provided sources in the previous discussion back in 2023. I am formally requesting you put in a protection request for longer than a month as well as ending discussion with the person who has abused IPs and bludgeoned the point.
Also because of the very glaring incorrect nature of their claim, President Noh is a real person who made the claim to Russia in 1990, (Roh Tae-woo) romanticized in English as "No Tae(-)u" Sunnyediting99 (talk) 04:00, 17 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Well, personally, I don't think Noktundo should have been included in wikipedia's list in the first place. I think, for it to be included in wikipedia and not be on CIA's list, there has to be very good reason. Now, some user(s) have mentioned president Noh demanded USSR give Noktundo to North Korea in 1985 and 1990 (which I doubt ever happened) as justification to add Noktundo to this list. It appears to me this event never took place. It appears to me Noktundo was added to this list based on erroneous or dubious sources or perhaps based on sources that reflect the opinion of certain private citizens. In my opinion there is not sufficient justification for Noktundo to be on this list based on again, the 3 points I made above:
1. South Korea does not claim Noktundo is South Korean land. As I mentioned, territorial dispute cannot be made on behalf of someone else. Case in point, Brazil supporting Argentina's claim of Falklands is dispute between Argentina and UK, not between Brazil and UK.
2. South Korean government has clearly stated there is no current dispute regarding Noktundo. This clearly state there is no dispute on a government level, only there is dispute between private citizens. Dispute between private citizens does not justify Noktundo to be on this list.
3. Even if South Korea demanded Noktundo from USSR, South Korea never demanded Noktundo from Russia. What happened with USSR does not automatically carry over to Russia. Case in point, Russia had to sign new border treaties with all of its neighbors after USSR, including new border treaties with China, North Korea, every former Soviet republic.
So it is my belief Noktundo should never have been on wikipedia's list in the first place, as there is not sufficient grounds for it to be on this list.
45.74.78.47 (talk) 04:48, 17 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That's enough. Original research, no secondary sources provided, ignoring other people's points, interpretation of primary sources. Page protection has been requested. — AP 499D25 (talk) 05:05, 17 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Sunnyediting99 said "Also because of the very glaring incorrect nature of their claim, President Noh is a real person who made the claim to Russia in 1990".
Could you kindly provide a source for this please? Look mate, I'm trying to learn something here about Noktundo which I frankly find very fascinating, but you gotta give me a chance here. I'm not Korean myself, so I might come off as ignorant.
— Preceding unsigned comment added by 45.74.78.47 (talk) 05:02, 17 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Well, not every source is reliable. What if I'm to create a .org page, write on it 1 + 1 = 4, then link it as a source on wikipedia? Does that make 1 + 1 = 4 the truth? You gotta be reasonable and examine the validity of sources too man. Am I not correct? 136.143.222.166 (talk) 11:19, 17 January 2024 (UTC))[reply]
If there is a claim it would be by Korea, not South Korea. Roger 8 Roger (talk) 21:19, 17 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, 1 more time I'm going to talk about Noktundo. Previous sections are getting too long to read.

[edit]

Now, first I'd like to point out I ain't Korean, so I might come off ignorant on this subject. So please bear with me.

I want to make a point here the justification of Noktundo on wikippedia's list of disputes is questionable. First and foremost, South Korea has never demanded Russia return Noktundo, even though South Korea may have demanded USSR to do so in 1985 and 1990 (again, I haven't seen any source confirming this so I kinda doubt the validity of this). USSR is long gone. What might hold true for USSR does not automatically carry over to Russia, which is a completely different nation. I figure South Korea has to make fresh demands post 1991 in order for Noktundo to be considered a dispute. Case in point, what might hold true for the UK does not automatically carry over to the USA despite the fact the USA is descended from the UK the way Russia descended from the USSR. What say you?

136.143.222.166 (talk) 11:26, 17 January 2024 (UTC) Above comment was modified after it was replied to[reply]

This is incorrect, Russia has specifically taken on all treaty obligations of the USSR, and was accepted by the international community as a successor state. Please stop creating new sections on this same topic, this has all been answered many times already. CMD (talk) 11:33, 17 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Well, in that case, I'd like to see a source regarding South Korea asking Russia to return Noktundo. It shouldn't be that hard to find. 1990, even 1985, is not that ancient.
136.143.222.166 (talk) 11:36, 17 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Sources have already been provided above, as I pointed out many times. Also, please put your signature on the same indentation level as your comment, thank you. — AP 499D25 (talk) 11:41, 17 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Can you point to me where in the 6 provided sources does it say South Korea demanded USSR return Noktundo please? The first 4 sources are in Korean which I cannot read. I checked sources 5 and 6 and neither says anything about South Korea demanding return of Noktundo. 136.143.222.166 (talk) 11:48, 17 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You've personally decided that "territorial dispute" should satisfy your definition (a direct stated dispute between two contemporary countries). I'm actually sympathetic to your definition, but here's the thing: your definition is not the only possible definition, nor should it even matter really.
What we do on Wikipedia is we reference what scholars say. And scholars describe it as a territorial conflict. Even if the definition is wonky and involves a stretch (I agree it is), if scholars are saying it we include it. That's how Wikipedia works.
I include tons of stuff that I don't agree with.
Again, stop with the original research. If your next reply is another attempt to enforce your own definition of "territorial conflict", you must be ignored because you are in violation of Wikipedia policies and either cannot be reasoned with or are incapable of understanding arguments that have now been repeated to you multiple times. To others, do not reply if the reply is more of the same. toobigtokale (talk) 11:55, 17 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'm already done with this, I'm outta here now. I've already filed a page protection request a few hours ago. — AP 499D25 (talk) 11:58, 17 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'm trying my best to learn something here and all you guys are doing is being all bullies about it. Am I not allowed to question Noktundo? All I'm looking for is someone provide me a quote from a source of South Korea demanding Noktundo returned from USSR in 1985 or 1990. That's all. I'm being pretty reasonable as far as I can tell. I would accept Noktundo as a dispute if I see justification of it. That's all. 136.143.222.166 (talk) 12:01, 17 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thankfully this is over now. Each time this IP abuser re-appears on the page the exact same thing happens (Bludgeon the point, personal attacks, ignoring all the claims and sources provided by other editors, not providing sources for their own claims) and it always ends with the page protected. Sunnyediting99 (talk) 22:09, 17 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ https://www.kci.go.kr/kciportal/ci/sereArticleSearch/ciSereArtiView.kci?sereArticleSearchBean.artiId=ART002709076
  2. ^ https://monthly.chosun.com/client/news/viw.asp?nNewsNumb=201303100058
  3. ^ https://www.sedaily.com/NewsView/1VDYZQNO1P
  4. ^ https://news.koreadaily.com/2019/05/08/society/opinion/7223417.html
  5. ^ https://www.10news.com/news/national-news/south-korea-fires-warning-shots-at-russian-military-aircraft
  6. ^ https://dspace.spbu.ru/bitstream/11701/19123/1/238-250.pdf

Estonia-Russia official status

[edit]

The official status of the Estonian-Russian dispute is grey, to say the least. For all intents and purposes, the border isn't moving any time soon. A treaty confirming this is signed, but was never ratified, and given the minor disagreement of impending world war, it is very unlikely to happen soon either. The Estonian constitution officially lays claim to those lands, even if any head of state or government doesn't (or even clearly states the opposite). Does the resolved conflicts section take into account de facto resolved issues, or should it be moved under ongoing disputes? It is still a topic that arises in Estonian politics, even if merely as populist undertakings by certain parties.

This is, obviously, a question of technicalities, but distinguishing the situation from Latvia which has a mutually ratified border agreement with Russia seems like a vital nuance. The Estonian-Russian border, from an Estonian juridical standpoint, is a "temporary control line". MartinusK (talk) 22:53, 1 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I wouldn't say it is a dispute. Any territory dispute had to be resolved before both sides can sign a border treaty. And because there is a border treaty signed by Estonia and Russia. It means there is no territorial dispute between Estonia and Russia. It's just common sense.

45.58.94.237 (talk) 10:39, 21 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Map issue

[edit]

The current map in the lead shows (among other things) the vast traditional territorial claims of the Republic of China (Taiwan) as disputed territory, but is currently missing the chunk of land Taiwan also technically claimes in Tajikistan (See China–Tajikistan border#History) If the traditional claims were to be referenced. Can someone fix that slight error, thanks. Zinderboff(talk) 02:24, 29 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Why was Socotra deleted from the article?

[edit]

[6]https://hiiraan.com/news2/2010/Oct/for_first_time_in_history_somalia_claims_socotra_as_its_own.aspx

162.221.127.213 (talk) 10:35, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The image is terribly false

[edit]

Why is the image like that. Mongolia is territorial dispute free country. Why is it bloody red? 23.242.168.218 (talk) 15:39, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The Republic of China (Taiwan) technically still claims Mongolia as part of its territory, thus the map. Zinderboff(talk) 19:05, 23 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Durand Line

[edit]

It seems like the Taliban does not recognize the Durand Line https://www.arabnews.pk/node/2461556/pakistan https://tolonews.com/afghanistan-187446 https://foreignpolicy.com/2024/02/20/taliban-pakistan-afghanistan-border-dispute/ So wouldnt it make sense to add it as a territorial dispute? The article for the Durand Line states it was recognized by Afghanistan during the 70s, but even if that is true. These articles imply the recognition has been revoked. Rad da writer (talk) 15:03, 27 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Seems clear there is a dispute, but it seems unclear what exactly the Taliban are claiming. CMD (talk) 16:07, 27 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe we can just state Durand Line?
On the map the line itself would be coloured red to represent the fact it is in dispute. Rad da writer (talk) 16:27, 27 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Countries having territorial disputes according to Google Maps

[edit]

Google Maps only highlights countries with no territorial disputes. According to Google Maps, out of the 197 countries within the United Nations System, 40 countries have territorial disputes, more than half of them are Asian countries:

Of course, all eight de facto states have territorial disputes with their claimant states:

Antarctica and 11 dependent territories also have territorial disputes:

2001:8003:9100:2C01:9006:BEC6:5A54:67BC (talk) 07:25, 28 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Somalia & Somaliland

[edit]

The Somalia - Somaliland dispute has been excluded from this page completely. As have Somalia's other disputes with Kenya and Ethiopia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 1001950cats$ (talk • contribs) 16:14, 6 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Algeria?

[edit]

Could you tell me which territorial dispute is being pointed to by the arrow in the bottom-right corner of Algeria? [7] 197.205.57.152 (talk) 13:42, 16 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Text removed in this edit. CMD (talk) 15:05, 16 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for your response, but I was referring to the map. 197.205.57.152 (talk) 21:29, 16 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The map is referencing the text that was removed. CMD (talk) 04:38, 17 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
So the text is gone, but the map's like, ‘Nah, I'm still gonna point to something that doesn't exist. 197.207.110.250 (talk) 18:44, 19 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The edits were made by different editors, if you feel one or the other needs to be brought into line you can make a change yourself or request one at the Wikipedia:Graphics Lab/Map workshop. CMD (talk) 03:06, 20 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
 Done M.Bitton (talk) 10:34, 20 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:List_of_territorial_disputes&oldid=1264086304"