Jump to content

Talk:United Nations list of non-self-governing territories

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

POV

[edit]

I think the article may lack neutrality. The section “criticism” is too long, almost longer than the rest of the article itlself. It also looks like the editors are trying to defend the disputed territories status quo. I believe in the good faith of the editors, but we can’t ignore this is the English Wikipedia, and most of the territories or dependencies referred on this article are British. Gonzaloges (talk) 03:32, 12 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move 14 July 2022

[edit]
The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Result:
Moved. For such a small idea, whether or not to treat a phrase as a proper noun phrase or a common one, editors have had some interesting conversations, and this is one that's more captivating than most. Seems to be getting harder and harder to apply the MOS to these cases, because like this one, it's just not so cut and dried as it was a few years ago when the "great decapping" began. That might mean that there is an opportunity to make the MOS even more clear when it comes to upper- vs. lowercasing. In any event while all args below are in essence strong, compelling and triumphant, the fairly clear community consensus (MOS) supports this local consensus, which is strong enough to lead us to move this list. Thanks and kudos to editors for your input; good health to all! P.I. Ellsworth , ed. put'r there 23:34, 6 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

United Nations list of Non-Self-Governing Territories → United Nations list of non-self-governing territories – MOS:CAPS Wallnot (talk) 00:03, 14 July 2022 (UTC) — Relisting. — Ceso femmuin mbolgaig mbung, mellohi! (投稿) 04:04, 23 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

FYI [1] this edit did not have a meaningful edit summary, that people missed it did not mean there was no objection. The editor in question is now indefinitely blocked for disruption, partly on this article, and he left a lot to clean up. WCMemail 16:32, 18 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose: It may not be so simple as the MOS. The UN capitalizes this phrase in English. I suspect that may be because "Non-Self-Governing Territories" is a bit of bureaucratic jargon. It would appear that not all de facto non-self-governing territories are UN Non-Self-Governing Territories. For instance, there are no uninhabited territories on the list, despite them necessarily being not self-governing, and 2 British territories are not on the list where we could argue the point (for the British territories in Cyprus, the residents don't count as residents, and in the BIOT the residents have been expelled.) Also, the French Non-Self-Governing Territories (New Caledonia, French Polynesia) actually are self-governing, with quite a bit of autonomy, arguably more than the French territories that aren't on the list (Wallis & Futuna, St. Pierre, St. Barts, St. Martin). French Polynesia has itself argued that it doesn't belong on the list. The capitalization shows that this is the name of a set category and not just a descriptive phrase where we can pick and choose membership. — kwami (talk) 01:03, 16 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    We don't capitalize bureaucratic jargon. See WP:SSF. Wallnot (talk) 01:30, 16 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    And I agree with SSF. I've been in plenty of those arguments. But I'm not saying we should capitalize "non-self-governing territories" because the UN does. I'm arguing that Non-Self-Governing Territories are not simply non-self-governing territories, rather like the United States are not just united states. I may be wrong, but I don't think this is a speedy close. — kwami (talk) 01:35, 16 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Non-Self-Governing Territories is not a country or otherwise a proper noun. Even if UN’s definition of NSGT is distinct in some way from the generic usage of that term, the fact that the UN specific meaning is intended here is captured by fact that this article is titled “United Nations list…” Not to mention CAPS says we only capitalize things if a substantial majority of reliable secondary sources do so, and there’s no evidence that’s the case. Wallnot (talk) 03:23, 16 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Agree that the diff is captured by 'list' in the title. Tentatively disagree that it's not a proper noun -- that what this discussion should determine. We could argue that "National Aeronautics and Space Administration" is a descriptive phrase and so shouldn't be capitalized. The distinction isn't always obvious. — kwami (talk) 06:03, 16 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    As I’ve explained, the distinction is determined by whether a substantial majority of reliable secondary sources capitalize the word or phrase. That is the definition of a proper noun for CAPS purposes. All sources capitalize NASA. As Dicklyon showed below, sources do not consistently capitalize NSGT. So it isn’t a proper noun for CAPS purposes. Wallnot (talk) 13:08, 16 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    This is a lot like Walrasiad's conjecture that I've refuted below, having studied the sources. If anyone uses the term to refer to uninhabited islands or other things not on the UN list, those are quite rare. Of the ones that refer to the UN list/definition/jargon, capitalization is quite mixed. Dicklyon (talk) 04:57, 16 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Oppose I understand the motivation. But for this list, this is really a proper term, not a descriptive term. It is used in capitalized form in UN documents and in referrals to it. It is a recognized official status, with legal implications. e.g. if I am in a Gaullist mood, I can say "Quebec is a non-self-governing territory" on the floor of the UN assembly, and that's how it is going to be printed, but I can't say (and it won't be printed as) "Quebec is a Non-Self-Governing Territory", as Quebec is not on the UN list. Similarly, the phrase "debate over non-self-governing territories" is different from the "debate over Non-Self Governing Territories". Only the latter is specifically about the UN list only. Walrasiad (talk) 03:38, 16 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    MOS:CAPS says, only words and phrases that are consistently capitalized in a substantial majority of independent, reliable sources are capitalized in Wikipedia. There is nothing in there that says that points like it is a recognized official status, with legal implications are relevant to the capitalization decision. For comparison, president of the United States is a recognized official title with legal implications, but Wikipedia lowercases it in most uses. Wallnot (talk) 04:15, 16 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    If what Walrasiad says is correct, that the capped and lowercase versions refer to different things, then the reference to the UN list members might be consistently capped in sources, and that distinction wouldn't be evident in n-gram stats. So I will try to understand if he's correct, by looking at sources, before I support or oppose. Dicklyon (talk) 04:24, 16 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    OK, I searched a bunch of the cited sources, and a bunch of books with the phrase, and it's clear that the capped and lowercase versions are most often interchangeable references to the UN definition or UN charter or UN list. Even the UN is not consistent; e.g. this doe has the phrase all lowercase in one usage, and caps "Non-Self-Governing" (without Territory) in another. So they're clearly not focused on any particular proper name distinction or style rule. Of books with the phrase, many use lowercase. A good example is this book that has a ton of capped instances in titles and headings, but also a ton of lowercase in sentences. This is pretty typical of books I found. Dicklyon (talk) 04:48, 16 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I researched both print and online sources and I have to comment that your analysis is flawed. When used as a proper noun it is capitalised, however, it is also used as an adjective where it is not. This example shows both and why context is important [[2]]. WCMemail 22:33, 18 July 2022 (UTC).[reply]
As an adjective? Hard to picture. Your example link does include both "Non-Self-Governing Territories" and "non-self-governing territories", but it's hard to see that they intend any difference in meaning or reference between them, except where ""Non-Self-Governing and Trust Territories" refers to UN Charter chapter titles. Dicklyon (talk) 03:07, 19 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
There is a clear difference in meaning, the Non-Self-Governing Territories is being used as a proper name to refer collectively to the NSGT listed by the UN, non-self-governing to describe the status. You are mistakenly assuming they are the same but they are not. WCMemail 06:49, 19 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
And the OP is in act 100% correct [3]. WCMemail 06:57, 19 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
There is a clear difference in meaning, the Non-Self-Governing Territories is being used as a proper name to refer collectively to the NSGT listed by the UN, non-self-governing to describe the status. This is patently false. In the two sources you linked below in reply to me, all references to NSGTs are references to the UN-specific meaning. See, e.g., p. 43, Consequently, as one of the principal organs of the United Nations the Trusteeship Council, in dealing with non-self-governing territories, will have the assistance of whatever specialized agencies are brought into relationship with the United Nations. The UN is literally mentioned in this sentence twice—how is this not the UN-specific meaning?

Moreover, every use of NSGT in the books you linked is either (i) lowercase, (ii) part of a publication or organization name, which receive initial caps because a publication or organization name is a proper name even if it comprises common noun elements like NSGT, or (iii) in the case of the capitalized uses later in the book, occurs within an excerpted UN resolution or other legislative document, where it is capitalized as a term of art—these latter uses do not count toward the "substantial majority" guideline because they are not independent sources. And the OP is in act 100% correct [4] Why are you linking to grammar.yourdictionary.com? Wikipedia has its own stylebook, the MOS. yourdictionary.com is not an authority on style and usage on Wikipedia. Wallnot (talk) 12:18, 19 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment We would not cap this on the basis that the UN does this, since the UN is not an independent source for the purpose of determining caps (per MOS:CAPS). However, the UN isn't consistent in its capping and thereby a good indicator that caps are not necessary or conventionally used (per MOS:CAPS). Comparisons with United States and National Aeronautics and Space Administration to justify capping here are non sequitur. Since it is not a comparison of like with like. We universally cap names of countries businesses and organisations even if they are descriptive. We don't cap jargon or terms of art for emphasis, distinction or significance per MOS:SIGNIFCAPS. While specificity of referent is a property of proper names, it is not a defining property since common names can be specific by use of the definite article (the) and/or and the use of modifiers. Saying that this is the name of a set category is actually self-defeating argument, since common names are category names. The evidence we must rely on is consistent capitalisation in sources and we are not seeing this. Cinderella157 (talk) 23:24, 16 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose I have only ever seen this capitalised and as James Ker-Lindsay notes this is how the UN uses it. Per MOS:EXPABBR the expression is used as a proper name and capitalisation is appropriate. I believe the OP has misinterpreted policy here. WCMemail 08:26, 18 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    As we have explained above the UN usage is irrelevant for these purposes. It is CAPS itself that determines whether or not the term is a proper noun, and all that matters for CAPS is whether a substantial majority of independent, reliable sources consistently capitalize it. UN is not an independent source since it is its own term of art, and as Dicklyon has shown above, other reliable sources do not consistently capitalize it. It follows that it should be lowercase. Where exactly have I misinterpreted policy? Wallnot (talk) 13:06, 18 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Well I looked at your reply and decided to investigate further rather than rely on my own book collection. Whilst for some reason the Google algorithm converts it to lower case, if you look at sources it is capitalised - consistently. I'll go so far to say that in Google books I didn't find an example of the use of lower case. So whilst a google search may have misled you had you done more thorough research you'd have found it not to be the case. So I'm not going to strike my oppose as it is based on a review of sources and I maintain your interpretation of policy is flawed. The specific aspect of policy I highlighted would support this position. May I also respectfully suggest that you refrain from badgering people who comment. WCMemail 16:20, 18 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
[5] to add this example that shows both. One example where it is being used as a proper noun, as it is in the UN Context, it is capitalised, where it is not it is lower case. WCMemail 16:39, 18 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
A Google search did not mislead me, because I did not conduct a Google search. Dicklyon used Google's ngram viewer to demonstrate empirically that sources do not consistently capitalize the term. See here. The distinction you are drawing between proper nouns and others is flawed for two reasons: 1) CAPS distinguishes between proper nouns and others solely on the basis of whether reliable secondary sources consistently capitalize the term. If RSs do not consistently capitalize the term, as Dicklyon's analysis shows they do not, then it is not a proper name for purposes of the guideline, and it is treated as lowercase. You've made several claims about proper names but still failed to address the key point: only words and phrases that are consistently capitalized in a substantial majority of independent, reliable sources are capitalized in Wikipedia. We have showed that reliable sources do not consistently capitalize this term. 2) The capitalized instances in the book you link to are references to specific chapters within the United Nations Charter. The title of a chapter could be a proper name even if it contains constituent elements that would by themselves be common nouns. Additionally, even if this book did show what you think it does, it is not persuasive, because CAPS requires that a substantial majority of reliable sources consistently uppercase the term. One book does not meet that high bar, and, as Dicklyon showed, the evidence actually points the other way. Wallnot (talk) 17:19, 18 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
To address your specific point re MOS:EXPABBR: Nothing in that guideline supports your contention that NSGT should be capitalized. All the guideline says is that we should not capitalize a term just because capitals are used in its abbreviation. You seem to be latching onto the third example, which says that an expanded abbreviation ought to be capitalized if it is a proper name. But EXPABBR does not tell us what counts as a proper name; CAPS does. And CAPS, together with the evidence Dicklyon gathered, says that NSGT is lowercase. Wallnot (talk) 17:47, 18 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
You should take care drawing conclusions from Ngram, for example in the example I gave there is usage with both capitalisation and without. It would lead to a false positive plus it is not looking in context. I would reject such analysis as it not looking in context to see how sources would actually use it. Looking at it objectively you've jumped to a conclusion based on flawed evidence and now are simply not listening. Secondly you've apparently ignored the fact that I've looked at multiple sources both hard copy and online and when used in this context, it is capitalised. Further I quoted the actual guidance on this which again you've ignored.
The correct form when using a proper name is capitalised. Again I simply gave an example of how sources used the term using one to illustrate my point. It wasn't the sole source. E.g. [6],[7] I looked at multiple sources.
I did suggest you stop badgering anyone who comments, given your edit warring (which by the way I don't intend to indulge you), the apparent deliberate ignoring of what MOS actually recommends, ignoring the point I made to focus on flawed analysis and the strawman argument of a single source I am left with the impression you see this as a contest to win. Its not, we should be working together to build a quality encyclopedia and check our ego at the door. WCMemail 22:24, 18 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
(a) The correct form when using a proper name is capitalised. Yes, of course this is true. But that doesn't tell you whether something is a proper name or not. CAPS tells us whether something is a proper name or not. CAPS says that this is not a proper name.
(b) in the example I gave there is usage with both capitalisation and without. It would lead to a false positive plus it is not looking in context. You seem to be under the impression that there are generic uses of NSGT as compared to uses meant to invoke the UN-specific meaning, that the latter should self-evidently be capitalized, and that lowercase references to NSGT do not count toward CAPS' substantial majority measure because they refer to the former. That is mistaken: In the example you gave above, both the capitalized and the lowercase uses of NSGT are referring specifically to the UN concept, not to some generic notion of NSGT. For example, it reads on p. 235, Article 73, sub-paragraph (b), of the UN Charter refers to the need to take "due account of the political aspirations of the peoples" of non-self-governing territories. Given that it expressly references the UN charter, this usage is obviously intended to invoke the supposed UN-specific meaning. Yet it is lowercase.
(c) In this example (by the way, the two links in your previous reply go to the same book), every use of NSGT that I can see is lowercase, headline-style capitalized because it is in a heading, or occurs within an excerpt from a UN resolution, which is not an independent reliable source.
(d) Secondly you've apparently ignored the fact that I've looked at multiple sources both hard copy and online. No, I didn't ignore that fact. But a selective survey of a handful of sources is inherently less reliable than an ngram, which incorporates far more sources and is less subjective in its omissions.
(e) when used in this context, it is capitalised. No, it isn't—see (b) and (c) above. The only uses in reliable secondary sources in which it is capitalized are headline-style capitalized.
(f) edit warring I reverted you twice and gave a clear reason each time. That's not edit warring.
(g) badgering I'm sorry if you feel badgered, but if you are going to misrepresent the evidence, I am going to point that out.
(h) I am left with the impression you see this as a contest to win. Its not, we should be working together to build a quality encyclopedia and check our ego at the door. Part of building a quality encyclopedia is copy editing it. Part of copy editing is consistent rules around what to capitalize and when to capitalize it. We have such consistent rules, and they say we should lowercase this, because it is not consistently capitalized by a substantial majority of reliable sources, which makes it a common noun. This should have been a routine RM that has now taken up an enormous amount of time. Wallnot (talk) 12:18, 19 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I realise this is probably a pointless exercise as you're plainly not listening but just in case it helps another editor.
A) Yes, of course this is true. But that doesn't tell you whether something is a proper name or not. CAPS tells us whether something is a proper name or not. CAPS says that this is not a proper name. No, you are wrong, MOS:CAPS does tell us to capitalise in this case. See MOS:PROPER:
Further, per MOS:EXPABBR the expression is used as a proper name and capitalisation is appropriate.
The example here NSGT is the equivalent of BBC.
B) You seem to be under the impression that there are generic uses of NSGT as compared to uses meant to invoke the UN-specific meaning, that the latter should self-evidently be capitalized, and that lowercase references to NSGT do not count toward CAPS This is a strawman argument and does not relate to my comment at all. This source [8] has examples where it describes a territory as a non-self-governing, it also shows that when referring to the proper name it uses Non-Self-Governing. Both are correct in context. However, relying on a Ngram to make your argument you presume both are equivalent, they simply aren't. The whole Ngram based argument is fundamentally flawed, Ngrams should always be used with great care and they are not a substitute from establishing the prevailing view in the literature. This is fundamentally where you're falling down.
C) No, I didn't ignore that fact. But a selective survey of a handful of sources is inherently less reliable than an ngram, which incorporates far more sources and is less subjective in its omissions. Nope, you are simply wrong in insisting a flawed Ngram based analysis can trump a literature review. And I've only presented 3 sources, pointing out that I've looked at many more. I've also been editing on NSGT for over 15 years but nevertheless did not rely on my own knowledge but also looked at the literature. I looked to the literature to sanity check and make sure I was correct.
D) I reverted you twice and gave a clear reason each time. That's not edit warring. No you were edit warring, I corrected the edit of an indeffed editor who'd done a lot of damage to this article. You are edit warring to keep their edit. Its rather ridiculous to claim otherwise and perpetuating a situation when the article and article title conflict is poor judgement.
E) I'm sorry if you feel badgered, but if you are going to misrepresent the evidence, I am going to point that out. I am not misrepresenting the evidence, I am plainly speaking and presenting an argument. You're not listening replying with strawman arguments and ignoring what I say. Fundamentally, you've decided on the basis of a flawed Ngram analysis and are unable to acknowledge its flawed.
F) Copy editing has a role to play but it should not be done at the expense of article quality and I do appreciate the wiki gnomes who help out in that respect. But when you have one editor stubbornly insisting they are correct and revert warring to impose their view that is no longer about article quality but personal ego. WCMemail 12:53, 19 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
And to further illustrate the foolishness of relying on Ngram [9] my Ngram shows Self-Governing-Territory to be the predominant term. [10], [11],[12]. Ngram should always be used with great care, they are easily manipulated and vulnerable to false positives, as a means of establishing capitalisation they do not recognise context and so are not reliable. Also using without applying smoothing will always result in an ambiguous answer because of noise in the data. WCMemail 13:34, 19 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Example text No, that is false. All the capitalized instances are capitalized because they occur within excerpts from UN documents, which are not themselves independent reliable sources. When NSGT occurs within the running text of the book itself, it is lowercase. Compare p. 45, which explicitly references the UN concept of NSGT but is lowercase, to p. 288, which is also an explicit reference to the UN concept of NSGT and is capitalized because it occurs in an excerpt/block quotation from UN General Assembly Resolution 1541. The resolution is not an independent source, so its capitalized instances do not count. Can you point to a single capitalized instance in the running text of that book that is not within an excerpt, part of a header, or contained within the title of a publication?

With respect to your point about CAPS: MOS:CAPS does tell us to capitalise in this case. See MOS:PROPER. PROPER tells us to capitalize proper names. But it doesn’t tell us what counts as a proper name, which is what I’ve been saying. What does tell us what counts as a proper name is the text at the beginning of CAPS: only words and phrases that are consistently capitalized in a substantial majority of independent, reliable sources are capitalized in Wikipedia. The books you are linking to do not consistently capitalize the term. In fact, they always lowercase it, unless it is headline-style capitalized or is part of a quotation from a primary source document that capitalizes the term. Wallnot (talk) 15:53, 19 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

If you are referring to the NSGT it is written as Non-Self-Governing Territory; it is being used as a proper name. This is why the UN documentation uses it, because that it is talking about the Non-Self-Governing Territories. Not only the UN but other sources follow the same rule ie it is a proper name. Where a territory is described as a non-self-governing territory it isn't capitalised as in this case it is used an adjective. So it isn't false. This is explained in the UN editorial manual it is a proper name [13]. It is also rather difficult to simply dismiss the UN usage, since this is a specific UN terminology, the predominant source in literature is the UN itself. Per MOS:CAPS and MOS:EXPABBR it should be capitalised as this is the common term in the literature. And I'm done, you're welcome to the WP:LASTWORD, which I somehow know you won't resist.
PS Ngram show it is clearly the predominant term [14]. WCMemail 17:07, 19 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Again, I asked you for an example of where NSGT was capitalized outside of the excerpts from UN documents. Since you weren’t able to provide one, and I don’t see one myself, I have to assume there aren’t any. So what your argument basically boils down to is, we should capitalize it because the UN does. But as we’ve endlessly discussed, the "official" usage just isn’t relevant to CAPS.
Yes, I read your discussion about the use of the definite vs the indefinite article. That distinction isn’t recognized by the guideline. It also doesn’t make any sense: if something is a proper noun, we capitalize it regardless of whether it’s used with the definite or indefinite article. e.g., Socrates was a Greek, The Greeks were…. Finally, the book you point to isn’t even consistent on that point: on p. 20, for example, there are two occurrences of NSGT, lowercase and preceded by the definite article "the".
To your point about the Ngram, CAPS requires that a term be consistently capitalized by a substantial majority of reliable sources. I.e., it requires a supermajority. NSGT isn’t even consistently capitalized in the sources you linked to. Plus, the Ngram includes instances where NSGT is capitalized because it occurs within a section heading, for example. The count of lowercase uses is not inflated in the same way, so the fact that they are nearly equal in recent years weighs heavily in favor of lower casing. Wallnot (talk) 18:30, 19 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
And now we're getting somewhere, yes I would acknowledge a Ngram would pick up things like Title Case. But then that isn't my argument, it's yours and its good that at last you acknowledge the use of Ngram is flawed as I've said all along. So any argument based around Ngram should be ignored by any closer. I presume you agree?
[15] Any search is dominated by UN reports, so we cannot lightly ignore the UN nomenclature since that effectively ignores the vast majority of published material. I've already given you an example, you keep trying to argue semantics but it is exactly as I stated. Here's another [16]. I've also point you at the UN editorial manual, which identifies this as a proper name and requires it to be capitalised. WCMemail 19:59, 19 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]


you acknowledge the use of Ngram is flawed as I've said all along. So any argument based around Ngram should be ignored by any closer. I presume you agree? No, actually, that’s not what I said. What I said was that Ngram is actually biased in favor of capitalization because it includes things like headers that are always capitalized. So the closer should actually adjust the number of capitalized instances in the Ngram downward to adjust for that.
Any search is dominated by UN reports, so we cannot lightly ignore the UN nomenclature since that effectively ignores the vast majority of published material. No, actually, the guideline requires us to ignore the UN publications, because they are not independent.
I've also point you at the UN editorial manual, which identifies this as a proper name and requires it to be capitalised. The UN style manual doesn’t count for CAPS purposes for the same reason as other UN sources. i.e., CAPS refers only to independent RSs.
I've already given you an example. No, actually, you haven’t. As I previously explained, the examples of capitalized NSGT you provided occurred either in excerpts from UN docs or in publication titles and were capitalized for that reason alone. Perhaps you should read that reply. I asked for a quotation from the book showing a capitalized use of NSGT that is not in an excerpt or publication title. You haven’t provided a single one, because there aren’t any. Wallnot (talk) 20:39, 19 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
No, actually, that’s not what I said. What I said was that Ngram is actually biased in favor of capitalization because it includes things like headers that are always capitalized. So the closer should actually adjust the number of capitalized instances in the Ngram downward to adjust for that. So in other words if a Ngram supports your argument they're the best thing since sliced bread and you'll ignore the fact a legitimate use of a phrase as an adjective leads to a high percentage of false positives. If a Ngram doesn't support your argument it needs to be adjusted downward. You really need to look at your logic, it's logic Jim but not as we know it.
I give you examples, you say I didn't, instead trying to argue that it's something else. I'm not playing the game anymore, I'll leave it to the closer to look at the sources and make up their own mind. WCMemail 06:52, 20 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

My question, and why I thought this wasn't a speedy close, was exactly this: is "Non-Self-Governing Territory" jargon, a set proper-noun phrase referring to the territories that appear on the UN NSGT list, that contrasts with the generic phrase "non-self-governing territory"? That would make sense: some listed NSGT's are actually self-governing, and so are not non-self-governing territories, and many non-self-governing territories are not listed. This is a potential contrast, but is it actually used? For that we'd need to show a distinction in the lit between the two cases, even if the distinction is only made by the UN. If we can't show it in UN sources, if the UN variation in capitalization does not correspond to a difference in semantics, then we can't make the distinction on WP. Instead, we'd want to say something like "UN list of NSGT's" when we want to refer to the UN 17, and "non-self-governing territories" when we mean such entities in general. — kwami (talk) 22:44, 19 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

That’s what MOS:SIGNIFCAPS means: we don’t cap jargon. SIGNIFCAPS includes over-capitalization for signification, i.e. to try to impress upon the reader the importance or specialness of something in a particular context. Introduction of a term of art may be wikilinked and, optionally, given in non-emphasis italics on first occurrence. Wallnot (talk) 22:53, 19 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
If that's what SIGNIFCAPS means, then it should say so. We're not talking about emphasis, but two (potentially) distinct uses of a phrase, one as a proper noun and one as a common noun. That's no different than United States vs united states. We don't get to override the capitalization of proper nouns just because they're jargon, and repeating yourself doesn't change that reality. The only question is is this being used as a proper noun? As I said, that needs to be demonstrated, but SIGNIFCAPS is irrelevant for that. — kwami (talk) 23:00, 19 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
That is what SIGNIFCAPS says. Jargon is a common noun with a special meaning in a particular context. Hence it should be lowercase, despite the special meaning. The mention of emphasis is to suggest an alternative to capitalization. But the guideline says explicitly not to cap terms to indicate they are being used with a special meaning in a particular context. And as we have endlessly discussed, for MOS purposes, something is a proper noun only if consistently capped by a substantial majority of reliable sources, which NSGT is not. This ridiculous notion that there are special uses of NSGT that constitute proper nouns because they invoke the UN-sanctioned meaning has already been refuted by the multiple lowercase uses of NSGT with the UN-specific meaning that I identify above. Wallnot (talk) 00:45, 20 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Don't be obtuse. You're not refuting what anyone said, just making stuff up so you can "win". It's not about winning.
I invite you to try to add "we don't capitalize jargon" to SIGNIFCAPS. You'll be shut down pretty quickly. — kwami (talk) 01:34, 20 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
You and WCM have both resulted to personal attacks during this discussion. I'm not sure why since I haven’t attacked either of you. I’m also not sure what I made up. We have a guideline that explicitly says we don’t capitalize words to indicate they are special in a particular context, which obviously includes jargon, which is words that have a special meaning in a particular context. To your final point, SIGNIFCAPS already contains a reference to terms of art, which is a near synonym of jargon, and suggests an alternative to capitalizing them, because the guideline obviously proscribes capitalization of terms of art, as I have explained. Wallnot (talk) 01:40, 20 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
That's not what "jargon" means. And I suspect that the writers of SIGNIFCAPS were competent enough to say 'jargon' if that's what they meant.
If NSGT is just a term of art, then I agree that per SIGNIFCAPS (and just good writing style) that it shouldn't be capitalized. But that's not my argument. I was basically agreeing with you, saying that it needed to be demonstrated that the phrase was a proper noun, and found it irritating that you would mischaracterize what I said, as if you couldn't be bothered to read what you were quoting. — kwami (talk) 04:57, 20 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Kwamikagami, I replied to your initial comment, though not specifically as a reply and without pinging you when I posted my comment. MOS:SIGNIFCAPS refers to terms of art, which is a link to jargon. I would think that MOS:CAPS has articulated its meaning and intent WRT capitalised jargon generally and specifically to your observation that this is a bit of bureaucratic jargon. I have also addressed your observation that this is the name of a set category and not just a descriptive phrase, since common names are categories. Regards, Cinderella157 (talk) 10:49, 20 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
It's not a common name, it is a proper name. The UN editorial manual is clear on this. WCMemail 12:14, 20 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
What don’t you understand about independent? Wikipedia has its own style manual. We don’t care what the UN one says. And after all this, you still haven’t provided a single non-UN source that capitalizes it. I’m sure you’ll reply by saying that you have provided such a source, and I’ve just ignored it; but that just isn’t true: in all the books you linked to, it was lowercase on every reference, except in excerpts from UN documents, which do not count because they are not independent as required by the guideline. See also this reply from yesterday which you apparently did not read. Your argument that this must be capitalized because it has a special meaning when used in a UN context also just doesn’t hold water in light of the fact that we have a guideline that says verbatim that we don’t capitalize to indicate specialness of something in a particular context. Wallnot (talk) 20:24, 20 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with Wallnot's interpretation here. The UN has a style of capping their important stuff (though they don't quite always follow it, and they cap all sorts of things that we never would), but many (most?) independent sources don't follow that. That's all the evidence we need that this is not a proper name in the sense of MOS:CAPS, so we use lowercase. Dicklyon (talk) 23:46, 20 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. This is not a proper name, it's a categorization/description. WP doesn't care what bureaucratese over-capitalization happens under the UN style guide, which is not what WP is written to conform to.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  01:19, 21 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. The argument that this is a proper name fails by a simple test: the sentence A non-self-governing territory (NSGT) is a territory "whose people have not yet attained a full measure of self-government" is grammatical, i.e. one can attach an indefinite article to NSGT. A proper name is, by definition, attached to a single specific entity. So, that means it's a term of art that signifies Something Special, and per our MOS we do not do that. QED. No such user (talk) 07:15, 21 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Worth noting for the closer see Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (capitalization),Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Capital letters. If you look at other move discussions you see the same editors acting in concert to support one another. They've never contributed to the articles in question, have no domain knowledge and act as group based on the flawed notion that Ngram can be used instead. Noticeably they acknowledge one aspect of Ngram is flawed but refuse to recognise others that contradict their position. WCMemail 07:40, 21 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Wee Curry Monster: "If you look at other move discussions you see the same editors acting in concert to support one another." The source of our coordination is Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Capital letters#Capitalization discussions ongoing (keep at top of talk page). Unless there's a cabal I don't know about, that's all there is. The people who have that page on their watchlist tend to be interested in style issues, especially capitalization, and they usually are people who are trying to get Wikipedia to better follow its own manual of style. We're not a gang trying to pick fights to win, we're trying to make Wikipedia look more credible by following a consistent style. Thank you, SchreiberBike | ⌨  12:30, 21 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I'm looking at the behaviour here and on other moves. The argument that Ngram obviate the need for any domain knowledge or research is flawed and leads to an attitude I see as high handed and arrogant. There has been a serious lack of good faith demonstrated when people have stated reasonable objections to a proposal and the blunt use of wikipedia tools on small topics with a limited pool of editors is driving content creators away. I actually see this as damaging the encyclopedia, when people see things written in a way that is different from the mainstream it makes wikipedia less credible. Style over content. WCMemail 14:06, 21 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Has someone here introduced domain knowledge into the capitalization discussion? Has someone argued that "Ngram obviate the need for any domain knowledge or research"? I think both parts of your premise are false. Dicklyon (talk) 16:10, 21 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, you did. Right above. WCMemail 16:13, 21 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
If you can quote or link what you're referring to, I could discuss. Dicklyon (talk) 02:51, 22 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comment on use of Ngram

[edit]

This Ngram is presented by Dicklyon in his evidence [17]. The search expression used is "-self-governing territories". They're not actually looking for the phrase in question, changing it to "non-self-governing territory" it falls over [18]. So he is commenting having not searched for the phrase in question. WCMemail 14:26, 21 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

That's as close as we get with n-grams limited to n=5. If there are other things that could come before "-self-governing territories" than "non", someone should point that out. Here is another partial match 5-gram group. Dicklyon (talk) 16:07, 21 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Fully, as in fully-self-governing territory. WCMemail 06:55, 25 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Firstly, the case to down-case the title does non stand or fall on ngram evidence alone but also, a consideration of usage in independent sources which do not indicate consistent capitalisation. More importantly, there is no evidence that it is consistently capitalised in independent sources and that capitalisation is "necessary" per MOS:CAPS. To "fully-self-governing", it is a non-starter per here. There are no ngrams for "Fully-Self-Governing" per here. Nor are there ngrams for "Partially-Self-Governing" (in any form) per here. Cinderella157 (talk) 11:19, 25 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
That is incorrect, the case for a move was made solely on Ngram data on this and other articles. An attempt was made to undermine sources later but that was the sole criteria by which it was listed. The case made for decapitalisaing is flawed for a number of reasons. The list of the UN is the 16 Non-Self-Governing Territories, defined by criteria set by the UN, published in UN documents. This doesn't include all non-self-governing territories, eg Tibet isn't listed because China didn't list it. Fundamentally there is a difference between the NSGT, the list of which is the subject of this article and non-self-governing territories which aren't mentioned. 90% of the literature is written by the UN itself and follows the UN style guide, so the argument that you can simply ignore UN literature is specious; it makes up the bulk of the published literature. Plus its rather detrimental to article quality if the topic is presented in a fundamentally different way to the UN list the article focuses on.
So in effect you're arguing using a Ngram that can't even distinguish between the phrase used and has no context of how the phrase was being used. A fundamentally flawed process. Who is next in the tag team? WCMemail 12:52, 25 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The OP for the move made at 00:03, 14 July 2022 makes no mention of ngrams. The the first mention of ngrams (at 04:24, 16 July 2022) states: If what Walrasiad says is correct ... that distinction wouldn't be evident in n-gram stats. So I will try to understand if he's correct, by looking at sources, before I support or oppose. The edit that follows is the result of having looked at sources. Your assertion that the case for a move [here] was made solely on Ngram data is an incorrect representation. Cinderella157 (talk) 02:01, 26 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Analysis of individual sources provided by WCM

[edit]

@Wee Curry Monster: @Dicklyon:

Preliminary notes

[edit]

WCM does not find Ngrams to be persuasive evidence. Although I disagree with him on that point, as a gesture of good faith, I have analyzed the sources he himself provided, which he believes to support his position that NSGT ought to be capitalized. WCM provided two sources: 1 and 2.

I have listed page numbers for every use of NSGT within these sources below, indicating for each which book it came from, 1 or 2; whether or not it is capitalized, divided into three categories: uses that occur in a heading or publication title, and are therefore headline style capitalized; uses that occur within excerpts from United Nations documents, and are capitalized for that reason; and uses that occur within running text.

A couple of notes useful for reading the list: first, I've indicated locations in an x:y format, where x is the book number and y is the page number within the book. Second, where there are multiple instances of NSGT that are treated the same on a single page, I have listed them only a single time. Where NSGT is used differently, I added the same page number to multiple lists (see, e.g., 1:20 below, where NSGT was used lowercase in running text three times and capitalized within a heading twice).

Analysis

[edit]
  • Running text uses: all of these are lowercase
    • 1:9: lowercase
    • 1:11: lowercase
    • 1:13: lowercase
    • 1:16: lowercase
    • 1:18: lowercase.
    • 1:19: lowercase
    • 1:20: lowercase
    • 1:21: lowercase
    • 1:22: lowercase
    • 1:23: lowercase
    • 1:36: lowercase
    • 1:37: lowercase
    • 1:39: lowercase
    • 1:42: lowercase
    • 1:43: lowercase
    • 2:45: lowercase
    • 2:64: lowercase
    • 2:126: lowercase
    • 2:235: lowercase
    • 2:236, note 34: lowercase
  • Heading uses: Headings and publication titles in the books WCM linked to are consistently headline-style capitalized (or, in the case of chapter names in the header, all caps). Because headline-style capitalization capitalizes words even if they are common nouns, capitalized uses of NSGT that occur within headlines should not factor into the CAPS analysis. Unless otherwise noted, each of the below uses of NSGT occurs within a heading.
    • 1:iii: capitalized
    • 1:iv: capitalized
    • 1:v: capitalized
    • 1:1: capitalized
    • 1:2: capitalized
    • 1:4: capitalized
    • 1:6: capitalized
    • 1:8: capitalized
    • 1:10: capitalized
    • 1:11: capitalized, publication title, "Declaration Regarding Non-Self-Governing Territories"
    • 1:12: capitalized
    • 1:13: capitalized, heading and publication title, "Declaration Regarding Non-Self-Governing Territories"
    • 1:14: capitalized
    • 1:16: capitalized
    • 1:18: capitalized
    • 1:20: capitalized
    • 1:22: capitalized
    • 1:23: capitalized
    • 1:24: capitalized
    • 1:26: capitalized
    • 1:28: capitalized
    • 1:30: capitalized
    • 1:32: capitalized
    • 1:34: capitalized
    • 1:36: capitalized
    • 1:37: capitalized, heading and organization name, "Division of Information from NSGT"
    • 1:38: capitalized
    • 1:40: capitalized
    • 1:41: capitalized, publication title, "Resolution on Regional Conferences of Representatives of Non-Self-Governing Territories"
    • 1:42: capitalized
    • 1:43: capitalized
    • 1:44: capitalized
    • 1:45: capitalized, publication titles, "Text of Debates on Trusteeship Agreements and Non-Self-Governing Territories" and "Proposed International Labour Obligations in Respect of Non-Self-Governing Territories"
    • 1:46: capitalized, publication title, "Trusteeship and Non-Self-Governing Territories in the Charter of the United Nations"
    • 1:60: capitalized, heading/publication title in excerpt
    • 1:105: capitalized, heading/publication title in excerpt
    • 2:109: capitalized, publication title, "Chapters of Non-Self-Governing and Trust Territories"
  • Excerpts: uses within excerpts or quotations from UN documents and other primary sources are generally, though not universally, capitalized. However, because CAPS refers only to independent reliable sources, UN sources do not factor into the CAPS analysis at all.
    • 1:43: lowercase, excerpt from agreement between UN General Assembly and the Food and Agriculture Organization
    • 1:60: lowercase in body text of excerpt from "Resolution on Non-Self-Governing Peoples Adopted by the General Assembly, February 9, 1946"
    • 1:72: lowercase, excerpt from "President Truman's Message to Second Session of West Indian Conference, St. Thomas, Virgin Islands of the United States, February 21, 1946"
    • 1:73: lowercase, same as previous
    • 1:104: capitalized, excerpt from "Resolution on the Transmission of Information Under Article 73(e) of the Charter
    • 1:106: capitalized, excerpt from above
    • 2:111: capitalized, quotation from Article 1 of the "UN Covenants on Civil and Political Rights, and Economic, Social, and Cultural Rights"
    • 2:284: capitalized, excerpt from UN General Assembly Resolution 1514 (XV)
    • 2:286: capitalized, excerpt from UN General Assembly Resolution 1541
    • 2:288: capitalized, excerpt from UN General Assembly Resolution 1541

Conclusion

[edit]

As the lists above show, every instance of NSGT that occurs within the running text of these two books is lowercase. NSGT is capitalized only when it occurs in a headline, publication title, or name of an organization, or within an excerpt from a UN or other primary source document. Because UN documents are not material to a CAPS analysis, the plain import of the evidence WCM has provided is that independent reliable sources tend to lowercase NSGT. Wallnot (talk) 20:10, 22 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]


I don't think so

[edit]

See [19], which is a chapter on the UN charter but does not "quote" the UN Charter. Please stop badgering me and just allow people to make their own minds up by the arguments presented. WCMemail 06:53, 25 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Wee Curry Monster: Could you please cite a page number, as your link does not lead to a specific page? I'm honestly not sure which example you're referring to, as I reviewed all uses very carefully. Wallnot (talk) 12:52, 25 July 2022 (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.

British Overseas Territories citizen status

[edit]

I figured one of the UN's criteria for listing self-governing territories as non-self-governing would be lack of political equality with the metropole. British Overseas Territories citizens, for example, who don't have UK citizenship, right of residency or right to vote. That's rather colonialistic. These days most have British citizenship as well, but that's not automatic (with the hypocritical exceptions of the Falklands and Gibraltar). Does the UN mention this as a factor in their evaluations? Or are they simply declared to be NSGT without any rationale provided? — kwami (talk) 19:56, 16 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

There is no rationale. The criteria to be listed as an NSGT, is simply that on accession to the UN countries were required to list their dependent territories. So territories such as Tibet aren't listed because China did not list them. NSGT are removed if they become a state (independence), an integral part of a sovereign state (incorporation) or a state in free association with a sovereign state. The latter is rather complicated to explain but essentially the territory is independent but the larger state agrees to act as a protector. The UN later added a 4th option, in which the NSGT and the parent state can make their own arrangement. Your comment on citizenship is not only offensive but wrong. All citizen of British Overseas Territories have British citizenship and right to abode in the UK, the exception being the sovereign base areas of Akrotiri and Dhekelia that being a requirement of the treaty whereby Cyprus became independent. Previously there were anomalies due to the different paths that territories took in their constitutions but all were aligned with the British Overseas Territories Act (2002). You appear to be confusing that immigration to a BOT and achievement of BOTC does not also confer British Citizenship. WCMemail 08:49, 18 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
You might want to correct our article on BOTC, then. (And "offensive"? Really? Gibraltar and Falklands were originally only given citizenship because they were claimed by other countries.)
Your summary of the UN situation isn't quite right. Both France and FP object to FP being on the list, but the UN added it anyway. So there's more going on than the rules you cited. — kwami (talk) 11:19, 18 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
List entries are voted on by the C24 and UNGA. They're political decisions, so whether member states take citizenship details into account is up to them. CMD (talk) 12:36, 18 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Now they're voted on, previously they had to be nominated by the parent state on joining the UN. But there is no criteria, its simply subject to the whim of the cesspit of intl politics that is the UN. FP being a good example where it was added against the wishes of FP and France. And again you're simply being gratuitously offensive, Gibraltar et al were no different to say Montserrat when it came to citizenship. WCMemail 16:09, 18 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Gibraltarians had UK citizenship, Montserratians did not. I don't see how you can consider that offensive, unless maybe you're Montserratian and find it offensive to not be accorded the same rights as Gibraltarians. If that's factually incorrect, then our articles are (or at least were) incorrect and might need to be fixed.
Anyway, my question was whether citizenship was a criterion for inclusion in the list; if it was just the list that the UK presented to the UN after WWII, then that answers my question. — kwami (talk) 22:48, 19 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
There were anomalies that were created because legislation was enacted for various reasons. In the case of Gibraltar, the Spanish made travel awkward for Gibraltarians with a blockade so legislation was brought forward to change the passport arrangements. All were aligned by the 2002 Act. As it happens I worked with guys from Montserrat who had no issues living and working here. So I'm left wondering what differences you're talking about? WCMemail 07:01, 20 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Wee Curry Monster: My understanding was that all Gibraltarians and Falklanders were granted British citizenship. At one point, they were unique among territories in having it, and my perception today is probably coloured by that era, when I was first figuring out what was going on. I remember an argument against granting citizenship to the people in the territories was that Britain would be inundated with millions of Hongkongers. Once China took over Hong Kong, that reason disappeared. I suppose the 2002 act might be the response. But my understanding is that today they still don't have full equality, that only some have full citizenship rights, and that it isn't granted automatically. Sure, the people you meet in Britain are mostly going to be those who don't have a problem residing in Britain, but that doesn't mean that everyone has the same access. Maybe that's a trivial distinction that's just exaggerated in my mind.
Anyway, the reason I thought this might be relevant was that, perhaps, the UN considered the British territories to be NSGTs because they didn't have equal citizenship rights. I don't know that's the case, I was just trying to make sense of the UN list. In the case of the US territories, the distinction is pretty obvious: PR and the N.Marianas aren't NSGT's because they have commonwealth status. The others don't. Presumably, if the US Congress ever gets off their ass and grants Guam the commonwealth status they voted for, they'd be removed from the list as well. That's inexcusable IMO. The USVI don't seem to care one way or the other, and Am.Samoa actively oppose further integration, because they fear losing the rights to their own land under the US constitution, but AFAICT have no desire for independence either, so they're both likely to remain on the list for quite some time. (There's debate in AS, with many upset at not being US citizens, and others fearing the repercussions if that did happen. I don't know how it will play out, but whatever it is probably won't happen quickly.) — kwami (talk) 02:16, 26 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
You memory is slightly faulty. Yes there was concern over large scale emigration from Hong Kong as 1997 approached and right of abode and citizenship was removed by the British Nationality Act 1981 unless there was a direct connection by parent or grand parent. In the case of the Falklands a significant part of the population was 3rd generation so had no automatic right of abode. It also applied to Gibraltar and the Falkland Islands. This was changed after the war by the British Nationality (Falkland Islands) Act 1983, so for a period the Falkland Islands were different. Whilst the Act applied to Gibraltar because of the EU, Gibraltarians had the right of free movement and could live and work anywhere in the EU.
If you want to make sense of the list, look at the countries that sit on the C24, look at international politics and you have your answer. It has nothing to do with the people and their rights, removal from the list is equally awkward and subject to the whims of the C24. Since the 4th option was introduced, Bermuda has had 2 C24 sponsored referenda, Tokelau has also had 2, both territories expressed a preference to maintain the status quo. Since the 4th option for delisting is that dependent territories make their own arrangement, both should have been delisted. Both the Falklands and Gibraltar have organised their own referenda, both with independent observers, and should similarly be delisted. None are. WCMemail 08:14, 26 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, and Norfolk Isl. wants on the list. Personally I think if Catalonia or Navajo want to secede, or Kosovo from Serbia and Mitrovica from Kosovo, let them. Who cares? But we're a long way from that happening without bloodshed. I have been encouraged by Britain allowing the Scottish referendum. — kwami (talk) 09:08, 26 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Kwami: Let me explain to you. Everyone who was a British Overseas Territory citizen (BOTC) immediately before the British Overseas Territories Act 2002 came into force was automatically granted British citizenship in 2002 (except for the BOTCs with a connnection to the Akrotiri base in Cyprus) [1]. . Thereafter, any person born in a BOT (again except Akrotiri) to at least one parent who is either a British citizen or a settled immigrant in the territory acquires British citizenship automatically at birth[2] . These are exactly the same rules currently in force for acquisition of British citizenship by birth by people born in the UK, just replacing "settled in the territory" by "settled in the United Kingdom".
An important point, however, is that, unlike the US unincorporated territories, the BOTs have control over immigration into their respective territories, including immigration of other British nationals. British Overseas Territories citizenship (BOTC) actually exists as a subnational citizenship within British nationality, meaning that it is possible, therefore. for someone to immigrate into a BOT and be naturalized there as a BOTC rather than a British citizen. By contrast, an immigrant in Puerto Rico for example can only be naturalized as a US citizen, never as a "Puerto Rican citizen", which is a status that doesn't really exist or, if it does, it exists only in the same way as being a "citizen" of California, or Florida, or any U.S. state.
A person who is naturalized as a BOTC in a BOT, unlike a natural-born BOTC, does not automatically acquire British citizenship, which may be the situation you were referring to. Nevertheless, BOTCs who are not already British citizens by birth are allowed to apply for British citizenship by registration, which is possible without any UK residency requirement [3] . So that is not a major issue anymore either.
To make things even more complex, neither British citizenship nor British Overseas Territories citizenship actually guarantee right of abode or right to vote for example in a BOT. In fact, what guarantees right of abode or right to vote in a BOT is "belonger status". And while both British citizenship and BOTC are regulated by UK law, "belonger status" is regulated by domestic law and is defined in each BOT independently. That actually underscores the autonomy of the BOT, rather than their "colonial status", contrary again to the US unicorporated territories where any US citizen has right of abode and automatically becomes a local voter once he or she takes up residence in the territory. 2804:14C:165:836E:0:0:0:C265 (talk) 21:54, 4 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
WCM: I would go further and say that there is actually a twisted rationale. The UN removes from the list any territory that becomes "incorporated" into the colonial power, for example French Guyana, which is now an overseas department of the French Republic. It appears contradictory to me that a body that is supposed to oppose and end colonialism is saying that the "solution" to colonialism is actually that a colony in a remote continent be literally annexed by the colonial power. In fact, how is that different for example from the status of the former Spanish colonies in the old Spanish Empire (one of the icons of European colonialism)? Puerto Rico, now a dependent territory of the USA (but, inexplicabiy, not on the UN list, although it has less autonomy than, for example, Bermuda) was a ful overseas province of Spain with representation in the Spanish Cortes and Puerto Ricans were Spanish citizens prior to the Spanish-American War. If you were the apply the UN standard, which actually condones imperialism rather than opposing colonialism, we would have to conclude that Puerto Rico or Cuba prior to the said war were not colonies and that Puerto Ricans and Cubans had "full self-determination". 2804:14C:165:836E:0:0:0:C265 (talk) 10:20, 5 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you very much for all that detailed and very helpful info. Things certainly have improved from the days when the only BOTCs who had British citizenship were those residing in territories claimed by other powers. Now that BIOT/Chagos appears to be resolved, it doesn't appear that Britain has any colonial legacy worth mentioning. All the rest seem content with where they are, and appear to have the right to change their status if they so wish.
I think the idea for the UN is whether the people have the right to self determination. Puerto Rico has the right to secede, and indeed has had several referendums where that was an option. So if being incorporated means that you have greater power over your destiny, that makes sense. Or if you have equal rights to metripolitan citizens, which territories don't normally grant. How well that works in practice I don't know, but N. Ireland and Hawaii, for example [or the Isle of Man and Navajo], were never voted onto the list.
BTW, while your point is well taken, pace your example you actually can be a citizen of Puerto Rico. See Puerto Rican citizenship and nationality. In fact, you can hold dual US-PR citizenship, and being a PR citizen allows you residency rights in Spain, which US citizenship does not.
I wonder if all Chagossians will now get Mauritian citizenship, or only those inhabiting Mauritius? — kwami (talk) 00:37, 6 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
But Bermuda also has the right to secede, In fact, Bermuda held a referendum on undepndence in 1995 where 74.12 % voted against independence on a 58.76% turnout. The UK granted independence to over 50 countries in the past 100 years. I think the UK has made it pretty clear that any BOTC that chooses independence can have it, except Gibraltar.
On the issue of PR citizenship, my interpretation is what I stated before. PR citizenship does not exist separately from US citizenship. If a person renounces his or her US citizenship, he or she automatically loses both right of abode in Puerto Rico and right to vote in Puerto Rican elections. Puerto Rico does not have any control over immigration into its territory; that is controlled by the US federal government. Likewise, a foreign immigrant cannot be naturalized as a PR citizen in Puerto Rico; naturalization is only possible as a US citizen. Puerto Rico cannot issue a separate US Passport (Puerto Rico) eithr; US citizens born or naturalized in Puerto Rico get the same US Passport as a US citizen in the mainland USA. All of the above contrasts with the actual control that Bermuda or other BOTCs have over international immigration into their territory and with the actual legal existence of British overseas territory citizenship and British citizenship as two different forms of citizenship within British nationality (which is sometimes very difficult for non-British people to understand).
It is true, however, that Puerto Rico now issues "certificates of Puerto Rican citizenship" to people born in Puerto Rico, or people born overseas to at least one Puerto Rican parent. Those certificates, however, have no legal standing in the context of US law and do not confer any additonal right, either in Puerto Rico or the USA, that any other US citizen who becomes a PR resident does not already have. If anything, they confer only "bragging rights".
The case you have mentioned of Spain fast-tracking naturalization of "Puerto Rican citizens" compared to other non-PR US citizens is actually the only example that I know of a (limited) international recognition of PR citizenship as a legal status that is separate from US citizenship. Obviously Spain has historical reasons to take that stance. 177.95.242.41 (talk) 01:27, 7 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, the UK is doing well by its territories AFAICT. Gibraltar too has had referendums I thought. France has a problem w New Cal, but otherwise seems to be doing mostly right. NZ and the Netherlands also doing right by their territories. The US is dragging its feet on making Guam a commonwealth. So of the areas in the UN list, it's just WSahara and 40% of New Cal who want independence. Plus of course Xinjiang, Tibet, Hong Kong, Irian Jaya, the Nuba Hills, Darfur, Chechnya, Tatarstan, Kurdistan, Kashmir, Palestine, etc. etc. — kwami (talk) 02:30, 7 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

1958 French constitutional referendum

[edit]

Hello people from wikipedia, so I was reading the article and I noticed that it seems to completely ignore the 1958 French constitutional referendum. I understand it is not mentioned in the "Former entries" tables because that's not when they were delisted (except for Guinea obviously), but I believe that it could be mentioned as an example of a referendum in the criticism/referendums part and in the "Current entries" table under "Referendum(s)". Also to make it clear, the 1958 French constitutional referendum was essentially two referendums into one, where european France + French Algeria voted on whether they should adopt a new constitution while each colonies voted on whether or not they should become independant(with french polynesia and new caledonia having voted to remain). Hellovikipediapeople (talk) 20:38, 19 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, we would want a source specifically linking that referendum to this list to discuss it here, for example if it has been cited in debates over French Polynesia or New Caledonia. CMD (talk) 01:55, 20 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

French Overseas Collectivites

[edit]

Obviously this isn't a list that we can change, but I'm curious as to why French Polynesia and New Caledonia are included, yet the four other French Overseas Collectivities are not?

XA1dUXvugi (talk) XA1dUXvugi (talk) 22:42, 22 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@XA1dUXvugi: Both were initially removed from the list along with other French overseas territories in 1947, after the establishment of the French Fourth Republic and France having considered these territories integrated and thus no longer colonies. Both were re-added to the list by the UN at later points, due to cooperation between local separatist parties and Pacific states. CMD (talk) 00:40, 23 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  1. ^ https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2002/8/section/3
  2. ^ https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1981/61/section/1
  3. ^ https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1981/61/section/4A
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:United_Nations_list_of_non-self-governing_territories&oldid=1249833474"