Talk:Quadripoint

PLS safe this page! Can any one else host it?

Russia, China, Mongolia, Kazakhstan

what about Russia, Mongolia,China Kazakhstan border?

hmm not sure what you could mean by this but there is surely no cnkzmnru quadpoint by any name

Explanation of origin of this article

This article still needs a lot of work. I am planning to write an article tripoint and then come back to quadripoint and fix it up. By way of explanation, this article began as a translation by me of the Dutch article nl:Vierlandenpunt. However, I don't know any Dutch; I just ran it through a machine translator and then figured it out based on similarity to English and German. One thing I realized is that the Dutch word "Vierlandenpunt" is not the same thing as the English word "quadripoint": a Vierlandenpunt is literally a four-country point, while a quadripoint can be four subnational units (e.g. the U.S. Four Corners). In German, the word is "Vierländereck" meaning "four-country corner"; not quite the same thing as "four-country point" but close.

Among other things the images in this article need to be fixed up but I am hopeless at stuff like that. No need for such a large image of Lake Chad, but it needs to be large enough to see that within the lake are two tripoints rather than a single quadripoint. It would be great to have this image from the Dutch wiki. Also there must be photos of the Sweden/Norway quadripoint mentioned in the article. There's a monument at the Manitoba/Saskatchewan/NWT tripoint which may have become a quadripoint with Nunavut (see article); three photos are on this page. Also I like this photo even though it's a bit out of focus.--Mathew5000 21:57, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

three regions meet at a point...

"three regions meet at a point on the line...": sorry, if a house has four rooms that meet at a point, there are still four corners, even if not all 90 degrees. So explain your point better. --User:Jidanni 2006-10-29

Here's what I mean. There are four countries meeting at a single point, but only three corners, not four:

--Mathew5000 20:38, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

It's a fair point but a bit pedantic for the intro. I've relegated it to a footnote, if that's ok. I don't see any other way you can have a quadripoint without four corners. jnestorius^(talk) 02:40, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

The footnote is fine. But there are definitely other ways you could have a quadripoint without four corners. For example, if two of the countries are shaped like ellipses, tangent to one another. Then there is a quadripoint with only two corners. But yeah I agree this is quite pedantic:

--Mathew5000 04:14, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

Indeed. Just about conceivable for one country to define part of its border along a circle of latitude and another to do so along a tangential great circle. If and when that happens, it should definitely take pride of place in the intro para :) jnestorius^(talk) 21:49, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

Marine quadripoint

Oceania political boundaries

Looks to me like some kind of borders of Solomon Islands, Tuvalu, Kiribati, Nauru all meet at a point. Going by the various articles, these are not the territorial waters; are they the Exclusive Economic Zone? It might be worth mentioning in any case. jnestorius^(talk) 19:47, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

Apparently these lines are cartographic conveniences with no legal basis quadripoint in the Pacific- No!. jnestorius^(talk) 21:45, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

Non-quintipoint in Colorado

The external link Local Curiosities has a sister page USA County curiosities which lists a possible quintipoint involving 3 counties of Colorado: Jefferson, Boulder and Broomfield. This large scale map suggests that where the SW fragment of Broomfield meets the main body, you have (clockwise from north-west) Boulder-Bloomfield(main)-Jefferson(pincer#1)-Bloomfield(fragment)-Jefferson(pincer#2). However, these detailed maps from the Bloomfield site north-east of quintipoint and south-west of quintipoint suggest either the fragment is an exclave, or it is linked to the parent by a corridor. (Or possibly by an infinitely thin line? Can they do that??) Anyway, no quintipoint. jnestorius^(talk) 00:58, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

United Kingdom: Four Shire Stone

Before 19th century tidying up of local boundaries, the stone did mark the convergence of four counties: Oxfordshire, Warwickshire, Gloucestershire, and a detached portion of Worcestershire. FGB —The preceding unsigned comment was added by FatGravyBoat (talk • contribs) 10:24, 15 February 2007 (UTC).

United Kingdom: Cambs/Lincs/Northants/Rutland quadripoint

I'm not sure about this one. I've looked at the relevant OS 1:50,000 map (sheet 141) and it seems to show a Rutland/Lincs/Northants tripoint and a Lincs/Cambs/Northants tripoint about 600m apart, with a 2-300m wide 'tongue' of Lincolnshire keeping Rutland and Cambridgeshire(Peterborough UA) apart. FatGravyBoat 10:33, 15 February 2007 (UTC)FatGravyBoat

Names

Tetrapoint redirects here should we mention this usage?

Since we have trillion, quadrillion, quintillion, sextillion etc, would five or more areas joining at a point logically be called, 5-quintipoint/pentapoint 6-sextipoint/hexapoint 7-septapoint/heptapoint 8-octopoint 9-nonopoint/enneapoint 10-decapoint etc.

Octopoint is mentioned. Am I talking rubbish or are these ever used? Carlwev (talk) 17:55, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

no you are right to raise this but because tripoint along with quadripoint & quintipoint are at least somewhat common & latinate & tetrapoint & pentapoint etc are almost unheard of it has become fairly standard to extend the series with latin based terms rather than greek based ones

so quintipoint sexipoint septipoint & octapoint i would suggest btw rather than octopoint since octo is the number & octa is the combinative prefix

& probably not beyond 8s because there is not at the moment any occasion or reason to use them

one admittedly crazy exception tho is the former hypothetical sexinational hendecapoint at the south pole involving as it did adjoining & overlapping territorial claims rather than any agreed boundaries where the greek prefix hendeca has volunteered itself in the absence of any latin counterpart

but the perfectly good alternative is simply not to name or even mention it in the same article since it is not really a boundary multipoint at all as are all the others Egull (talk) 01:29, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

Jungholz is not a quadripoint

According to the several maps and sat images available in Map sources/GeoHack at the coordinates for Jungholz, at a high zoom it shows the area does not form a quadripoint although it is close. see here 47.5555°N 10.4546°E / 47.5555; 10.4546

Carlwev (talk) 12:59, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

Googlemaps et al are excellent in their way but not perfect. Borders are represented as layered overlays onto other GIS data. They may get confused by a quadripoint if the programmer hasn't worried about handling such anomalies. Layers may be slightly misaligned if different GIS datasets are based on different coordinate systems. To allay your doubts, check this site which has photos, maps and extracts from the original 1844 and 1850 treaties between the Kingdom of Bavaria and the Austrian Empire which established the quadripoint. jnestorius^(talk) 15:22, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

Brazil's secondary near misses

I'm thinking of the near misses with Brazilian states, whether any of them is relevant enough for inclusion. The states of Acre, Amazonas and Rondônia almost converge on a point on the Bolivian border; also, the Piauí-Tocantins-Maranhão and Piauí-Tocantins-Bahia tripoints are very close together.

The one which might have the most interest, however, I think would be the Distrito Federal - Minas Gerais border, with the two tripoints with Goiás state (Formosa and Cristalina municipalities) less than three kilometers apart. This DF-MG border is what makes an Eulerian path of Brazilian states possible. Amorim Parga (talk) 13:09, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

thanx & i would submit that lots of near misses are not really interesting in an article like this

in fact one or two should suffice for people to get the idea & focus on the actual topic at hand rather than on what misses the point of it Egull (talk) 01:39, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

Origin of the term "Quadripoint"

I would like to see some text on where this term comes from, and preferably a couple of reputable references for its usage. Nice term though it is, it does not seem to be a dictionary word, and seems to have little usage outside the wikipedia sphere so may be a case of WP:OR? Cheers — SteveRwanda (talk) 10:57, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

It is entirely WP:Original research. I added fact templates to the lede, especially the claim "often called 'four corners'" which is TOTAL BUNK. This and tripoint are geo-trivia fictions and do no belong in Wikipedia; point-bagger nonsense.Skookum1 (talk) 03:00, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

If there is a legitimate word for this concept in another language, but English usage appears not to have any direct equivalent, would we be well advised to use the Dutch word (or whatever other word has the most widespread usage)? Using a Google-machine translation (massaged by a Wikipedian) strikes me as a bad idea, along the lines of putting elan vital at "healthy spirit" or some similar well-intentioned but wrong location. Jwrosenzweig (talk) 19:27, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

Fwiw, I found sources using the term, in English, predating Wikipedia. Added a couple to the lead. One of them says it is using the term based on another, older book--but that book is not available online so I can't check it. Anyway, seems reasonably legit, to my surprise. Pfly (talk) 22:09, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

The term comes up in a 1984 judgment of the International Court of Justice [1] in the separate opinion of Judge Jiménez de Aréchaga. At paragraph 33, which you can find on page 23 of the pdf file here, the judge wrote as follows:

• It is obvious that in announcing as the object of its intervention a claim to participate in the determination of these tripoints (or quadripoints) as part of the indications to be given by the Court as to how in practice the principles and rules of international law can be applied by the Parties “in order that they may without difficulty delimit such areas by an agreement”, Italy is in fact asking the Court to pronounce and decide on its rights, and conversely on the contrary claims made by the main Parties.

The context was an application by Italy to intervene in a case between Libya and Malta. Counsel for Italy argued that a quadripoint existed in the Mediterranean Sea for Italy, Tunisia, Libya, and Malta. —Mathew5000 (talk) 06:00, 30 October 2010 (UTC)

That this term was coined in a court decision (if that's its origin) still does not mean there's such a thing as "quadripoint theory" nor does it justify an original-research listing of all supposed (or alleged/misconstrued) instances on the planet. As a term it might warrant inclusion in Wiktionary, but there's no rationale at all for an article on the scope, or making the claims of relevance to anything, that this article's bloated existence presupposes/alleges....a word may exist, yes, but that doesn't mean an article on it is a worthwhile endeavour. some geometric objects qualify - triangle, cone, etc - because of their properties; a quadripoint has none, it just means somewhere that so many lines intersect, and that's it. Extrapolating from the weirdness herein, the South Pole would be a dodecapoint or polypoint or something to that effect; doesn't make the term relevant at all, or useful in any way.Skookum1 (talk) 23:01, 30 October 2010 (UTC)

There’s no reason to believe the term was “coined in a court decision”. Rather, it is a concept in international law, analogous to tripoint. For example, see Chapter VI (titled “Quadripoint Theory”) of the Akweenda book that Pfly referred to [2]. Recognize, however, that this international-law concept applies to points (in land or water) where four sovereign states meet. Places like the U.S. Four Corners have no significance in international law. Mathew5000 (talk) 23:33, 30 October 2010 (UTC)

(edit conflict) For what it's worth, one of the refs I added is a Google Book link: Chapter VI: Quadripoint Theory. It is mainly focused on the case of the Caprivi Strip area and the borders of Namibia, Botswana, Angola, and Zambia. This classic case was ruled, I think, a "near miss"--although it may still be unresolved. I think it was once mentioned on this page but no longer seems to be. Pfly (talk) 23:33, 30 October 2010 (UTC)

[undent]I read through that chapter/appendix.....the context of the wording "quadripoint" is NOT "theory of quadripoints" but "theory that this quadripoint actually exists"; i.e. theory concerning which boundaries are valid towards A theoretical quadripoint/four-way boundary meeting. It's not about some abstract theory about quadripoints, but about one particular four-state boundary convergence. Big difference, and still not sufficient rationale for this bloated article's continued existence; that the word exists if fine, and can go in wiktionary; but there's no valid grounds for a wiki article since it just becomes a trivia-pissing/checking contest....Skookum1 (talk) 05:34, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

Right, that chapter was about the theory that Namibia, Botswana, Zambia, and Zimbabwe meet in a quadripoint. I must have misunderstood when you mentioned "quadripoint theory". Anyway, if you really think this article should be deleted, start an WP:AFD. Pfly (talk) 10:35, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

Canada Four Corner?

According to Google Maps there is no point were Saskatchewan borders Nunavut. Since the zig-zagging eastern border of Saskatchewan its is very likely that Google hasn't made a mistake.--78.21.167.224 (talk) 20:24, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

Looking at that map I'd have to agree, and you'll note I changed the "name" of this point from the confabulation "Four Corners of Canada" to simply "quadripoint".....if it exists; I tried looking on Atlas of Canada but it wasn't much help; the boundary of Saskatchewan is to the west of the 102nd meridian, and isn't even a straight line in fact; I can't find any details on Geography of Saskatchewan that give the precise boundary; down south it's very complicated and jagged....there was a historical quadripoint elsewhere in Western Canada, see File:Canada-1882.png....between the NWT (i.e. parts of it not in a "District") and the Districts of Athabasca, Saskatchewan and Alberta, however...Skookum1 (talk) 22:23, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, it's on English GoogleMaps also....I'm going to comment out that section, unless someone would care to rewrite it to the effect that it's only an apparent quadripoint; the actual difference between the MB-SK boundary and the NU-NT one is about 1000'.Skookum1 (talk) 22:39, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

removed material

Somone put this back in:

Manitoba, Northwest Territories, Nunavut, and Saskatchewan meet in a multi-point in Canada.

A map highlighting a quadripoint of Canada, where the borders of four Canadian provinces and territories intersect.

And I've taken it back out; it's a nonsensical claim based on poor-resolution maps and does not warrant inclusion in this article which is near-entirely original research to start with. The MT-SK and NU-NT boundaries do NOT coincide, there is no so-called quadripoint. It's also original research to brand the fictional/illusory point in Canada as "Four Corners", as that's not a proper name, nor is it in any site/citation than the one that coined the term (and the false claim).Skookum1 (talk) 23:25, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

You can see it in ACME Mapper too (which includes a topo map view, although apparently predating Nunavut): http://mapper.acme.com/?ll=59.99761,-102.00694&z=14&t=T&marker0=49.00000%2C-101.36139 -- most survey lines based off different points of origin fail to precisely align unless the surveyors force them too by jogging the lines, which there's rarely a reason to do. The US four corners of NM AZ CO and UT precisely align because Congress specifically defined the western boundary of Colorado to start at the already surveyed northernmost point on the NM-AZ border. On the other hand, Google Maps's boundaries are not always correct, so one should not depend on them too much. ACME Mapper's topo maps are probably better (but lack Nunavut). Still, this case seems pretty clear to me. Just for fun I'll ask a boundary geo-oddity fan I know online about it. Pfly (talk) 00:40, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

Hmm, now I'm not sure. The boundaries of Nunavut are precisely defined in the Nunavut Land Claims Agreement, online here and here. The relevant bit reads: "..thence southwesterly in a straight line to the intersection of 60E00'N latitude and 93E22'W longitude, being a point approximately 50 statute miles east of the Keewatin coast; thence due west along said parallel to its intersection with 102E00'W longitude, being the intersection of the Manitoba, Northwest Territories and Saskatchewan borders; thence due north to the intersection of 64E14'N latitude and 102E00'W longitude, near the south shore of the Thelon River; .." (emphasis added).

But then, this page describes the Sastchewan-Manitoba border in some detail. It says that the northernmost portion of the border "follows the 2nd meridian (approximately 102°W) to the 60th parallel." According to Principal meridian the 2nd meridian in Canada would be 4 degrees west of the first meridian, established at 97°27′28.41″. So the Manitoba-Sask border's northernmost point would be at 101°27′28.41″..in theory anyway. So who knows? Gotta go. Pfly (talk) 02:02, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

Ok, after browsing through survey documents at Canada Lands Survey System, Natural Resources Canada, it is clear that the northernmost portion of the Sask-Manitoba boundary was run due north as a "true astronomical meridian" from a survey monument established during an earlier survey. This northernmost part of the boundary was kept very close to due north, but the baseline survey monument was not placed at exactly 102 degrees east longitude. Nunavut's boundary was later defined to be 120 east longitude and not the slightly displaced monument placed at the end of the Sask-Man. survey in 1961. So, yea, not a true "quadripoint". And hey, there is nothing like browsing through survey field notes and reports from earlier times. What a job that must have been. Pfly (talk) 05:25, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

One final note on this. Check out the ACME Mapper topo map link above. At the Manitoba-Saskatchewan-NWT border there's a square symbol labeled "157". This is the northern terminal boundary monument, No. 157, placed by the Manitoba-Saskatchewan Boundary Commission in 1962. The commission's monuments, whatever their precise coordinate locations, were proclaimed as the boundary in force in 1968. You can see boundary monument 156 (unlabeled but shown) on an island to the south. To the west there's a boundary monument labeled "190". This is one of the monuments placed by the Saskatchewan-Northwest Territories Boundary Commission in 1957-58 or 1962. The triangle monument symbol is the same commission's monument No. 191. The left edge of the gap in the topo map coverage coincides with 102° east longitude, which is what Nunavut's boundary in this area was defined to be. So you can see that boundary monument 157 is about a half a degree minute (30 seconds), 400 meters or so, west of Nunavut's defined boundary. All of this can be confirmed by reading the many many dry dry survey reports at Canada Lands Survey System, linked above. In short, Manitoba shares a 400 meter or so boundary with the NWT, and Saskatchewan does not touch Nunavut at all, even at a point. Alright, I am done. And I admit I have a problem with this kind of geotrivia. It's so unimportant and yet I enjoy it, to a fault. Pfly (talk) 08:21, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

As you may have gathered, t h MB-SK boundary is not a straight line, though it looks like it is on the map; one of my long-ago geography teachers was from Manitoba and mentioned it in a demonstration of the difference between what a map shows and what the curvature of the earth requires. It's a series of "jogs" where every so many miles there's little E-W segments of the boundary...I haven't found any maps detailed enough to show that though.....another boundary that looks like a single line on a map (and is anything but straight) but is actually full of mutual irredentisms, like "bubbles" in each other's country, is the Bangladeshi-Indian border, though that's for different reasons...not sure why exactly, but possibly because one cluster of villages was Muslim, the other Hindu - little "islands of faith" translated into geopolitical boundaries.....Skookum1 (talk) 12:32, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

Yea, it mostly follows range lines of the Dominion Land Survey, which have to jog now and then via correction lines. The principal meridians run due north, but the parallel range lines diverge from north as you go poleward. Borders with correction line jogs are common in the US too, although not for state boundaries as much. There's some extra story about the jog at Flin Flon, iirc (or maybe the extra oddity is the name Flin Flon). Re India and Bangladesh, oh yes: There "are 106 exclaves of India within Bangladesh and 92 exclaves of Bangladesh within India, including numerous exclaves within the exclaves", at least according to the blog http://www.howderfamily.com/blog/ Twelve Mile Circle], which is full of tales of these kind of geo-oddities (for example, what is the shortest US-Canada border segment, between survey monuments? Apparently it is a mere 18 inches--the two survey monuments are set on the same base; tale told in this post. Pfly (talk) 21:04, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

Yeah I think I've heard of that one. The 49th Parallel boundary is wildly off in spots, by as much as a half-mile. I think along Point Roberts/the Lower Mainland it's in Wsshington's favour, I know Point Roberts is off by over a hundred yards....on balance, the discrepancy is in Canada's favour when the acreage is totted up all the way to Lake of the Woods. Deal is the treaty is worded "the border as surveyed [along the 49th Parallel]", it doesn't say "the 49th Parallel is the border", similar to the SK-MB technicality you've noted.....not sure if you've seen Boundary Peaks of the Alaska-British Columbia/Yukon border; it's missing some boundary monuments I think (despite the "peaks" title)....or its companion piece on the BC-AB border (not sure its name just now) which I made; the N-S sequence isn't right because at points the border "horseshoes" back north, I've never tidied that aspect of it since making it......Skookum1 (talk) 14:30, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

Fred Beckey has a newish book that describes in great detail (maybe too much detail!) the surveying of the 49th parallel through the Cascades. At the time the area was mostly unexplored, even the rivers, and of course ridiculously rugged and glacier-bound in places. The Fraser gold rush was full on too. The surveying tale alternates between exciting and very very tedious. Pfly (talk) 16:19, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

I once read a magazine article with a footnote that went, more or less: The author is a lawyer, currently litigating a case relating to the difference of about a hundred yards between the northern border of Washington and the northern border of the United States. Of course I never learned any details! One can readily imagine a jurisdictional dispute (or tax dispute) if Wash law defines the border at 49. —Tamfang (talk) 21:50, 20 March 2010 (UTC)

Curious, didn't know it worked its way into US domestic law; the Oregon Treaty says something like "the border as surveyed along the 49th Parallel" rather than "shall follow the 49th Parallel"; the charter of Washington State is of later date and maybe that's where the discrepancy/different wording comes from....the border varies back and forth between US and Canada (i.e. in favour of one or the other) at various places between the Strait or Georgia and the Angle in Minnesota at Lake of the Woods; through teh Lower Mainland quite a bit of what should be Canada, I think, is in the United States....the court disupte you're talking about would effectively mean, if resolved, that land between the 49th Parallel and teh actual surveyed border, which I think is to the north, would be federal and not belong the state.....there's similar though different legal cases in Alaska dredging up legal documents from the time of Russian America, mostly to do with marine/subsurface rights.....point is if a US court decides that the 49th Parallel is the boundary and not the line as surveyed in 1846, then the landfs in question should go to (ahem) Canada, rather than to either Washington or the US federal government. Fat chance of that working out, but a curious legal point for sure...Skookum1 (talk) 23:48, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

Why do you keep removing the section? People are going to keep coming here to read about it, so you may as well have a few sentances explaining why it isn't a quadripoint even though it looks like one. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 205.193.96.10 (talk) 18:25, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

No marker like this at the Canadian "four corners".

The section is back. We figured it out better. It's better referenced now, plus a note about the not-quite-resolved nature of the point, due to the lack of a Nunavut boundary survey to date. I didn't think it was a "real quadripoint" myself, but further research changed my mind. It is real "by decree" even if not "by survey"--that is, there is nothing like the survey marker at the US four corners.

BY WHOSE "decree"?? - A wikipedian's?? Thats' rank original research, as is this whole page....Skookum1 (talk) 20:08, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

Egull, don't flatter yourself; I'm not an "enthusiast" and am still opposed to the existence of this very-original research page in all its glorious vagueness and synthesis; your rationalizations of "less than a minute of longitude" and the like are part of the overall fuzziness, compounding the original-research nature of hte concept of the title even further. I'm juust monitoring this page, and happened to comment on the immobility of Canadian interprovincial/interterritorial boundaries and the associated political complications; it was in NO WAY an endorsement of this page or the "people who come here to read it".Skookum1 (talk) 20:06, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

By whose decree? You mean my statement that it is real "by decree"? I just meant the Nunavut Act and Nunavut Land Claims Agreement. The boundary has been "decreed"--defined, described, proclaimed, whatever--in the words of those documents. That's all. Pfly (talk) 22:13, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

hahas kookum why do you think i am flattering myself & indeed why shouldnt i if i do & moreover what is rank about originality & enthusiasm

i ask because i truly dont understand but am tickled pink

am also curious if when you abolish quadripoint & enthusiasm & originality will you be killing tripoint too or just combining everything into larger articles on multipoint & or trypointing etcEgull (talk) 23:17, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

Delete this article

I'm too non-plussed by process to launch the AFD myself, but it's time this rank and overweeing pile of original research was tossed to the circular file where it belongs. "Quadripoint" is an invention of the original page-author and is not a term in topology, geography or in any actual field of study, and many entries are not "real" but "probably" or "near misses" or just, well, downright irrelevant to anything useful or meaningful. It's an assmebly of geopolitical trivia, and as with what I removed here much of it is purely speculative or false-claims or just so wishy-washy as to be laughable. Long overdue for an AfD, imo....Skookum1 (talk) 23:48, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

hi friend

i agree with you about near misses & have tried to eliminate those that are farthest from being near

if you will check the footnotes to the quadripoint article you will find the term has been in scholarly use since 1979 or earlier

i would also add that the original research can be checked on large scale maps if anyone cares to invalidate it but please dont arbitrarily disallow it for lack of scholarly citations

it is after all original research & carefully done & checked

soviet topos are generally best for the third world

also the canadian quadripoint is established by law in the nunavut enabling act

if you dont appreciate it or the topic in general it may just be time to focus on a different topic

best regards Egull (talk) 01:48, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

Hi Egull, could you point me toward the Nunavut Enabling Act. A google search on that phrase had zero results. From what I could determine, earlier (see above discussion), Nunavut's boundary was defined both as the Manitoba-Alberta-NWT point and as 102E00'W longitude. As far as I can tell this is contradictory since the established survey point is not precisely on the line of longitude. I got the sense that this is a discrepancy that has simply not yet been resolved. In other words, there may or may not be a quadripoint as the exact boundary has not been determined by survey. If there is an authoritative source saying the boundary is to use the surveyed marker as a base, then great. I wasn't able to find one though. Put a different way, the sources I found said the boundary would touch that point but claimed that point was 102E00'W, which it isn't. Pfly (talk) 02:37, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

Actually, thinking back on this further, I think Nunavut's boundary is defined as being, simply, 102E00'W longitude. No boundary surveys have been done as far as I know, nor did I turn up any legislation providing for boundary surveys. Maybe I missed something, but from what I could find the current legal boundary of Nunavut is 102E00'W, even though there are no survey monuments on the ground to mark it. Someday, perhaps, a boundary survey commission will be established and the line marked on the ground, and it may or may not use the existing Manitoba-Saskatchewan-NWT marker (sorry I wrote Alberta instead of Sask. above). Until there is an official statement on the matter one cannot assume there is a quadripoint here, right? Perhaps there is an official statement and I missed it. But in any case, if the existing marker is not used it is a "near miss"--quite close, but not, strictly speaking, a point. (also, I understand your points about this page, Skookum, but I don't think it should be deleted--I doubt it would pass a deletion review anyway) Pfly (talk) 04:11, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

hi friend & thanx good points

the lowercase enabling act i meant is the one quoted in boldface above

& the mbntnusk quad may or may not only be hypothetical in any case

& i dont know if we want to get into the range of possible distinctions that can be drawn in the evolution of multipoints but in law & boundary art an existing demarcation supplants & trumps its verbal delimitation & the ntnu delimitation convergent with the quadripoint is inherited from the previous federal subdivisional boundary terminus within the earlier nwt which was effectively demarcated my mbsk at least in 1962 & probably with federal participation at that time or at least with federal acquiescence ever since

so in view of that the bold citation may or may not really be self contradictory

yet i would still agree a hypothetical quad perhaps but at least a highly presumptive one

& it is just a question of whether this article wants to get into all that

bestEgull (talk) 15:04, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

"Scholarly use" - what kind of scholarship? Cartography? What scientific or academic purpose does such scholarship have? And the reason i watch this page is because of the old Four Corners (Canada) page, which asserted that that name was in use and went on to mumbo-jumbo the supposed NT-NU-MB-SK joint border (which as Pfly explains is only illusory because the MB-SK border isn't defined the same way as the NT-NU border is). BTW that's a potentially very expensive discrepancy, given the escalating value/known supply of kimberlite-related diamonds in teh Great Barrens, might make for an interesting court fight between the two territories some day. But borders tend to be very difficult to change post-facto. In any case, there's way too much "near misses" and "probably this and maybe that" wording on this page, and also the notion that a country "enjoys" having a quadripoint - as if there were some kind of prize or benefit. And Tripoint, well, that's just topological/cartographical reality, nothing remarkable about it. Wikipedia is not supposed to be a collection of trivia, and that's all this page is....Skookum1 (talk) 07:37, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

thanx good points

i mean for starters sir ian brownlies 1979 african boundaries a diplomatic & legal encyclopedia in which he devotes 10 pages to what he calls the quadripoint issue

unless you consider law & international relations beneath our scientific & or academic dignity

& you must know enjoy can mean to take pleasure but also just to experience as a condition

myself i confess i rather enjoy quads not to mention quints sexes etc

& know the usa at least does take pleasure in azconmut

& i also confess seeing as utterly final determinations are so elusive i am guilty of presumption all the time in scouting & determining the pluripoints or megapoints or however you might like to name & characterize & regard or disregard conjunctions of more than 3 entities

but i only continue to presume if the best available evidence really looks good

& i agree we should be quick to drop all interest in near misses or else collect them in a whole nother article if indeed anyone cares to

cheersEgull (talk) 15:04, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

I added some text explaining how Canada's possible quadripoint may or may not actually be one. I'm not sure I understand the things you wrote above, Egull, but it sounds like you are saying the point is "close enough" to count. If so, I would counter by saying that a page on an esoteric topic like this should be quite strict in what is or isn't claimed. The people I've met, online, who are into this topic find it important whether there is an actual, zero-dimensional boundary point. A boundary line segment doesn't cut it, even if it is only a hundred metres or so long. I admit it is trivial to find sources that claim there is a quadripoint between "mbntnusk", as you so succinctly put it, but there are many sources that describe political borders as if they followed precise lines of latitude or longitude, even though almost none do.

yes thanx if i might insert this here to clarify immediately & then follow below as well

for i dont just mean close enough geographically since that must be an exact fit or its a no go

the close enoughness that is really operative here is purely technical

maps & texts of canada have indicated these 4 corners since 1902 if not earlier

your finding of fault in the latest documentation over the apparent discrepancy between stated geocoordinates & stated geopolitical boundary convergency is vacuous tho both in the absence of geodetic datum & in the presence of monumentation

also it is hard to imagine a ntnu boundary commission not using the established nwt mbsk marker for its point of beginning since it is the only real point on the ntnu boundary at this time

you are just trying to create a technical case or space for the quad not to positively exist within & i appreciate that

but the discrepancies between textual delimitations & demarcations on the ground are common & well known & dont need to be belabored

your latest change in the article text seems to me to carry on a great deal over not much of real significance

yet maybe all this really does need to be made explicit every time it comes up or even potentially arises Egull (talk) 17:05, 27 October 2010 (UTC)more below

Obvious example: the bulk of the western US-Canada border is regularly said to be the 49th parallel. A great many otherwise reliable sources make this claim. But the actual, legal border runs along short line segments from survey monument to survey monument. It does not ever precisely follow the 49th parallel. These points may be insignificant to most people, but to those who care about boundaries, surveys, and precise coordinates, it does matter. I think Wikipedia should take care to point out the underlying reality of borders, despite the common perception. In short, the true reality of political boundaries is not so much in the terms of the establishing legislation (which often cites whole number lines of latitude and longitude), but in the survey markers placed on the ground, for better or worse. Those markers are what carry enduring legal weight. They are what really count, when you get down to it. Pfly (talk) 11:39, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

yes precisely & here you have made my point above i think

with your permission & after a decent interval for reflection i think i will offer a compromise draft that reflects our discussion bestEgull (talk) 17:05, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

well i have followed thru now a few hours later & hope you like it or can rerevise it to your likingEgull (talk) 22:32, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

fwiw both google maps & google earth are now showing the boundary quadriconvergency at exactly n60d00m00s00h00 w102d00m00s00h00 wgs84

& converting the presumably empirical nad27 coords given in degminsecdec at the corner corner site into wgs84 would place the marker roughly 1000 feet due west of the point google shows

& the variability of an empirical reading in degminsecdec is probably on the order of 100 feet

but coords expressed only in integral degmin without datum as these are in the enabling act could vary & shift on the order of up to 10000 feetEgull (talk) 23:58, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

Hi, I just wrote a lengthy reply before realizing you had edited the article. I was about to post anyway but had an edit conflict. I'm out of time right now, but will post later. Quick point: Google's boundary info is quite generalized and should not be trusted for things like this. Along the US-Canada border there are many places where you can see the actual boundary monuments in the imagery. Google's boundary is often quite off, frequently by hundreds of metres, if not more. And that for the international boundary! More later. Pfly (talk) 00:09, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

thanx & yes of course i understand & agree wholeheartedly

hence the fwiw above

the respective orders of discrepancy or fudge factors of roughly 100 & 1000 & 10000 feet which i computed & mentioned are evidently still applicable tho

& my apologies for inadvertently forging ahead

i will gladly & patiently wait for you now that i realize your revision is coming

cheersEgull (talk) 03:02, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

Well, I spent way too much time researching this tonight and have ended up more not much wiser than before! I will probably try to trim down your edits to something more terse, maybe tomorrow. It does seem that this is at least a de facto quadripoint/four corners, as things currently stand. The applicable laws all seem to conflate the MT-SK-NWT boundary point with 102E00' longitude, so we might as well go along with it. The level at which these legalities were hashed out was likely far above survey boundary monument concerns. If the border is eventually surveyed it seems that the decision about how to handle details like this will fall to the Surveyor General of Canada, who would apparently be free to decide whether to run the line north from the existing monument or establish a new one nearby. Also, it seems that a survey would only be run if something important came up requiring one--like a valuable natural resource discovery right along the boundary. For all we know it could turn out that large amounts of money would be in the balance of a boundary 100 metres this way or that. But all this is idle speculation. Ill try to write something simple about the point being "essentially" a quadripoint, or something better worded ("pending a final ground survey"? I dunno, I'll think about it). Maybe the whole matter would be best mentioned in a footnote instead of the main text. Anyway, let me post some links here, just to remind myself later in case I lose them: Nunavut Act, Nunavut Land Claims Agreement, Canada Lands Surveys Act, Surveyor General. ...oh and btw I did find the official survey monument database for Canada. Ours is MON 157, ID 674002, rechecked several times, with the latest coords given as N59° 59' 57.98511" W102° 00' 27.24027" (NAD83). According to my calculations, that's just under 500 metres west and slightly south of the point described in law. Pfly (talk) 10:31, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

wow nice we seem just about totally in agreement

& yeay for footnotes

i would only add it seems to me the survey general would not be free to decide whether to honor the existing & presumptive monumentation

on the contrary

i think he would be quite constrained by many convergent realities to begin nowhere but at monument 157 & to not even think of contemplating any possible alternative

& expect at least a virtual demarcation sooner rather than later because the land is valuable & exploitable whether it holds diamonds or not

in fact such a vast expanse & long frontier is practically bound to include at least a few things of value

so happily i dont think we will remain in any suspense much longerEgull (talk) 13:56, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

Heh, yea, I appear to have had my opinion switched around. On the Surveyor General, I didn't see anything that suggested new surveys ought to tie into existing monuments (unless it was a resurvey of a line previously monumented). One of the surveyor's responsibilities is to be as accurate as possible, which would suggest not using a point so obviously off the line proclaimed in law (technology has come a long way since the 1960s!). But then the law also mentions the "tripoint". So it seemed to me a choice between which part of the law to follow to the letter--the meridian or the "tripoint". And if the tripoint monument was used the question arises as to how to shift the line east to the meridian. A sudden jog at some point? A straight line all the way that tilts slightly east? I can imagine a surveyor avoiding those problems by establishing a new monument for base control. But, I don't know, and it's not relevant. Anyway, perhaps I'll get to editing the article later today. Pfly (talk) 16:09, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

great & i am glad of our mutual understanding

& would answer your question that the jog may be more illusory than real

or more mental than physical

for any expressible meridian is technically not a sharp line but rather the band sometimes quite narrow of the delimitation of its own expression

so a meridian expressed as crudely as just some integral degree of longitude like say the hundredth meridian could be understood & until recently preferred to be understood as a band of longitude with a width of 1 degree or say many km even in northern canada

& if you express your meridian in degminsecplus5 youll get a submillimetrically wide or rather truly narrow band which is for all practical purposes as thin as a line yet still is not a line but a band at the bandwidth of your command

but coarsen your expression to degminsecplus3 & your band will be fatter than a tape measure

& if you express it in just plain degmin then your band is a mile wide

& if you do that without giving a datum then your mile wide band is roughly redoubled in width

& thats precisely or imprecisely what the enabling text creates

it stipulates noncontradictorily a marker that stands within the stated bandwidths of longitude & latitude & it doesnt pretend to any more exactitude than to say something very clearly in two distinct but equally clear ways albeit that one of these ways could have been misunderstood to contradict rather than confirm & be reaffirmed by the other

so since marker 157 does indeed fall within that nicely & not at all clumsily stated neck of the woods we already have a lock on a de jure quadripoint whether ntnu is ever surveyed or not

nor is this text unique in expressing the location of a monument so apparently crudely

far from it

this happens all the time as you yourself have remarked in several ways

& the only jog that is needed in such a case is to jog the mind into realizing that the stated terms actually are a perfect mutual lock & no miss at all

& yes technology has come a long way but only a very short distance in survey art since the 1960s

i would guess about a millimeter in geodetic accuracy

anyway i hope this helps or at least amusesEgull (talk) 20:32, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

To reply to these points, I agree that a simple statement of a line of latitude or longitude could refer to the entire width of the degree, minute, etc, and that historically this was not uncommon. But I doubt that sense was meant in the Nunavut Act. What was meant, I'd argue, and what has been meant in boundary decrees in Canada and the US since colonial times, was that the boundary should be marked out on the ground as closely as possible to the precise line stated in law, assuming zero minutes, seconds, etc. Certainly that was the goal surveyors have aimed for (with mixed results!). The US PLSS instructed surveyors to take extra care to get the main baselines and corners as close as possible to an ideal point, for example. I think we can assume the Nunavut Act meant 102 degrees exactly, to the best of future surveying abilities. Also, you are quite right about the lack of a specified datum. For that I think it is assumed to be Canada's current official datum for surveys: NAD83CSRS (a Canadian version of NAD83), or at least NAD83. The Nunavut Act does not state the datum, but it does not need to. NAD83CSRS is Canada's official federal datum for surveys--by law at the time the Nunavut Act was implemented. At least that's my understanding. Oh, one last bit. The older tripoint monument 157 was never supposed to be exactly at 60N x 102W. Its location was based on the Dominion Land Survey. From my research last night I think the monument's location was intended to be: Township 127, Range 01, (Dominion Land Survey) Meridian 2 (west), Section 01, NE corner. Whoosh! Meridian 2 is often said to be the 102nd meridian longitude, but it is slightly off. It was created based on the 1st meridian, which was established in Manitoba based on the "westmost settlement" of the time! And anyway, the meridians were marked out by surveys, so don't exactly follow the meridians's ideal. Ok, really gotta run now! Pfly (talk) 23:55, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

Just posted my attempt. Out of time right now. Bbl. Pfly (talk) 23:21, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

very nicely done indeed & thank you

it inspires me to continue to contribute improvements elsewhere in the article

regarding the above i think we might agree to disagree if need be so i will only offer this hopefully final observation

for tho i read you loud & clear about everything else i still find it strange & inconsistent that you are able to follow & grasp the delimitation of mbnu along the 60th parallel westward from hudson bay to mbntnusk157 notwithstanding that the inherited demarcation might be said to be technically a few seconds offline while in the case of the ensuing 102nd meridian leg of the delimitation you suddenly reject the inherited demarcation point for ntnu within mbntnusk157 as being somehow less good than all its mates to the east & than its own latitude component & somehow subject to being rejected & supplanted by some higher order of truth

for why not accord all the other inherited mbnu markers the same reserve as you hold for number 157 & expect their locations to be adjusted too

it seems to me you should be equally fastidious or aloof about previous demarcations of both stripes whether of latitude or longitude

& the text does expressly equate 60x102 & mbntnusk as being one & the same point

it even uses the word being

being means which is the same thing as

& it is used repeatedly in this sense in the delimitation

so if n60 is considered the same as mbnu how can w102 not be considered the same as ntnu

i dont get it but can certainly leave it beEgull (talk) 02:47, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

Thanks. And yea, no need to continue going over this. But! Ok, I'll bite just a little. Yes, "the text does expressly equate 60x102 & mbntnusk as being one & the same point", but they are not the same point. I mean, putting aside Nunavut and NWT for a moment, Manitoba and Saskatchewan have established several joint boundary commissions, sent surveyors into the field, placed boundary markers, etc etc, and then more than once enacted laws, affirmed by the federal Canadian government, that the true binding legal boundary forever is the one marked by those survey monuments, whatever their exact location. The northermost is #157. It will always be the boundary between Manitoba and Sask. That boundary is settled and will not be adjusted in any way as a result of Nunavut being split off from the NWT. The new boundary between Nunavut and NWT is a whole other thing. A new boundary commission would be set up if it is to be surveyed on the ground--a commission not involving Manitoba or Saskatchewan. The monuments established by the Man-Sask. commission need not be "inherited". Those monuments are a Manitoba-Sask. issue. Nunavut and NWT do not need to abide by a Man-Sask. agreement. I would expect NWT to fight for a boundary closer to 102W and Nunavut perhaps for running a line from the Man-Sask boundary. After all there must be many thousands of acres at stake in such a choice. On the other hand, Nunavut and NWT are territories, not provinces, so they may not actually have much say on boundary issues.

Anyway, my main point is that I don't think either Nunavut or NWT have inherited the boundary markers set by the Manitoba-Saskatchewan boundary commissions and laws. Perhaps the northern boundaries of those provinces have force for the two territories, but the boundary between the provinces should not. But yes, we can agree to disagree--and I could easily be wrong! Pfly (talk) 04:42, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

While it's true that the territories have less clout in Canada's federal structure than provinces do, boundaries are still a federal matter and are not negotiable once established, i.e. once they have been surveyed. Too much bureaucratic and political inertia. Both SK's and MB's boundaries have changed over time, but they are not likely to again, and there is no reason for the federal government, in subdividing the old Northwest Territories into Nunavut and teh "new" Northwest Territories, to "harmonize" that boundary with the provincial boundaries....in fact I htink the boundary in question, at least the longitudinal part of it , is the old Keewatin District-Mackenzie District boundary, though I'm not sure about that. And despite the lesser status of the territories within Confederation, the aboriginal aspect to the respective governments is very powerful, and between the Denendeh and the Inuit the territorial division very much reflects their ethnic division and is meant to be such, although of course the 102 boundary is somewhat arbitrary . But shifting it by 400m would mean, also, one hell of a lot of diamonds and other as yet unknown mineral deposits. Not something that's like to change just to keep "quadripoint enthusaists" happy....Skookum1 (talk) 05:05, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

ok great & glad you are still with us enthusiasts

what would be a real shift tho & a total novelty is the idea that ntnu & mbsk might not be in communication with each other

the above ntnu delimitation text is primarily concerned with & most explicit about this absolute geopolitical conjunction

only secondarily does it remark that the point of conjunction happens to fall within or coincide with a certain minute of longitude

not with any certain second of longitude but only with a certain minute & very round minute at that

& it does this with the intention of clarifying rather than obfuscating the turnpoint it has just stipulated

moreover this expressly inherited demarcation point has indeed been found to lie within the stated minute by any definition

so there is no intrinsic problem here

but even if there had been some mistake or technical lapse within this delimitation there would still be no basis for the belief that a new mbnt or nusk boundary of any length could ever be demarcated unless it too had first been delimited

no such delimitation presently exists nor is one even conceivable unless existing laws are first rescindedEgull (talk) 12:15, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

Maritime boundaries

Just did some copyedits. Removed this paragraph about maritime boundaries:

• Likewise beside the point: Some political maps of the South Pacific enclose many island nations within straight lines drawn along parallels of latitude or meridians of longitude, often with a maritime quadripoint indicated for Solomon Islands, Tuvalu, Kiribati, and Nauru. This is not a meaningful quadripoint, as the lines are simply cartographic conveniences to indicate which country the islands within it belong to, and are thus merely allocational lines rather than actual international boundaries of territorial waters or Exclusive Economic Zones.

I rewrote the section to say that this article does not address maritime boundaries and quadripoints at sea. But I have to wonder, why not? The reason given in this text I removed doesn't seem quite right. First, some maritime boundaries are as real as political boundaries on land. I cited a couple on the page. Two, the bit about "not a meaningful quadripoint" makes me want to ask, "says who?" I understand the "mere allocational lines" idea, but I'm not convinced that makes the quadripoints "not meaningful". Maybe not meaningful in terms of political jurisidiction. Even then I'd like a reference explaining just what power such lines do have. Then again, there are obviously many kinds of maritime borders. Maybe some of them are "meaningful" enough to warrant inclusion on this page. I think there are at least two quadripoints at sea on maritime international borders of sovereignty, by treaties. Pfly (talk) 20:06, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

ok good

there actually are no sovereign territorial quadricountry points on land or sea

the mentioned allocational lines & polygons are not agreed boundaries at all but only cartographical conventions

& since the spurious allocational quadripoint or imaginary line intersection is so often confused & mistaken for the real thing & proclaimed as such perhaps that is a good reason to include some caveat or disclaimer about it

agreed eez boundaries on the other hand are real boundaries tho they dont actually delimit sovereign territory

they only delimit the portions of the high seas over which certain sovereign rights may be exercised

the law of the sea provides that fully sovereign maritime territories extend only up to 12nm seaward from coastal baselines

still there is no reason to exclude & every reason to include eez quadripoints so long as they are characterized & distinguished as such

right onEgull (talk) 21:10, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

There is no such thing as a "meaningful quadripoint", much less "eez quadripoints". The original research/synth/vague mumbo-jumbo doodoo just gets deeper and deeper....Skookum1 (talk) 21:30, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

Oop, I just noticed your series of edits today, Skookum. I had actually been thinking the page was becoming better, with less OR and SYN. But I wouldn't think of working against you, of all people. I'll take a break from the topic. I'm sure there are plenty of better ways I could be spending my time! Pfly (talk) 22:17, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

Ok, ok, one last bit. The maritime boundary text was deleted but I'd like to at least leave a mention of it here. Two/three specific treaties, United States – Venezuela Maritime Boundary Treaty and 1993 United Kingdom – United States Maritime Boundary Treaties. As far as I can tell these defined true international boundaries of sovereignty (treaty texts: http://www.state.gov/documents/organization/58824.pdf and http://www.un.org/Depts/los/LEGISLATIONANDTREATIES/PDFFILES/TREATIES/GBR-USA1993MB.PDF). The first resulted in a so-called "tripoint". The treaty uses the term "trijunction". The US-Venezuela treaty apparently created a "quadripoint", although the treaty only defines the "turning points". Alrighty... Pfly (talk) 22:29, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

ahh much better now great thanxx to both of you

& skookum happily i believe you are right about there not actually being any punctilious eez quadripoints

& pfly for my money & for all i can tell your time has been very well spent

& just one lingering question

seeing as the great international law professor & jurist sir ian brownlie devoted 10 pages of his globally renowned legal & diplomatic encyclopedia to the inherent question & intrinsic focus of this article & since he & it have just been deleted by our own diligence in the very year of his own demise dont we perhaps owe him & his quadripoint dissertation & landmark boundary bible at least a sideways glance say in a bracketed parenthesis to a footnote or somethingEgull (talk) 13:29, 30 October 2010 (UTC)

ahh thanx pals for the corrections & admonishment & the evident consideration

i knew my little essay would not last long & was actually hoping for & inviting editorial attention so no harm done i assume

for whatever use it might be the deleted portion under review was as follows

after or while resolving the conflicting delimitations & disputed interpretations

official political discussions have been proceeding fitfully for the past decade because some & at times all 4 of the parties have been collaborating in the creation of a bridge that is projected of necessity & by chance to span the immediate boundary quadriconvergency directly between the present ferry slips at kazungula zm & kasane bw

indeed this critically important bridge link has been delayed for 10 years less for lack of vision or funding than for lack of boundary clarity

zw pres mugabe in 2004 did officially concede that a short bwzm boundary does exist between zw & na rather than any nazw boundary at all

& incidentally bwzm does exist de facto & in widespread belief not just because of the visible existence of the ferry connection but also owing to the unique prestige of the international boundaries research unit which has led academic speculation about the net effect of the various de jure delimitations into this direction as well

yet the best available official cartography which also happens to be zimbabwean does not support this concession belief or speculation

indeed all the best maps appear to agree that there could not possibly be a bwzm border but rather only a nazw border because territory not of botswana & zambia but only of namibia & zimbabwe are what appear to meet in these studied depictions or opinions

moreover these territories appear to meet on these maps exactly where the existing verbal delimitations indicate a territorial overlap

brownlie who in 1979 lamented the lack of adequate cartography still believed in the possibility of a quadripoint however remote

nevertheless all present evidence including surface & aerial photography he also never saw appears to refute all claims & expectations not only of a quadripoint but of any bwzm connection overlap border or boundary at all

indeed both the hypothetical bwnazmzw & the hypothetical bwzm today appear to be equally & only imaginary by perhaps as much as a few hundred meters

change sexipoint to sexapoint perhaps if not also septipoint to septepoint

as the apparently responsible party for minting the coinages quintipoint sexipoint septipoint & octopoint all circa 2002 i would like to suggest that we take responsibility for quietly correcting at least the dog latin if now popular term sexipoint to the philologically more natural format of sexapoint

the following table is offered for guidance http://home.comcast.net/~igpl/NWR.html

from it you can judge i was only winging it thru the prefixes quinti sexi & septi by analogy or mimicry of tri & quadri til i hit a brick wall at octi & so finally decided only there to deflect from obvious outlandishness into a more natural sounding octo

& luckily octo is not wrong

but sexipoint now appears to be dead ignorant

& septipoint too may be less correct than septepoint but just easier to swallow

on the other hand quinti is technically no better than sexi or septi either except that we do have the precedence & relevancy of a strong preference for the fomatting of quintipartite sexapartite septipartite & octopartite

do we care about the putative sexanational undecipoint

frozen at the south pole by the antarctic treaty since 1959 yet still earnestly maintained by at least some of the 6 parties to it is the convergency point of their 11 partially conflicting sovereign territorial claim limits

these are not in any sense boundaries because they have not been agreed

& they are in fact more truly disregarded than merely frozen

yet an undecipoint of some considerable pretentions was there & if you believe in ghosts is still there today judging from how prevalent map depictions of it continue to be

prima facie quadrisecondary conjunctions with their admittedly slight substantiations

thanx to all for your care & attention & to metropolitan90 in particular for the very sensible suggestion

here are the makings for footnotes to the few that still survive in that section if anyone who knows how would like to add them

andorra http://article.gmane.org/gmane.culture.discuss.boundary-point/1124/

bulgaria http://groups.yahoo.com/group/boundarypointpoint/message/1701/

dominican republic http://www.lib.utexas.edu/maps/americas/dominican_republic_pol_04.jpg & the wikipedia articles for the 4 respective provinces

gabon http://groups.yahoo.com/group/boundarypointpoint/message/1703

jamaica http://www.lib.utexas.edu/maps/americas/jamaica_pol_2002.jpg & the wikipedia articles for the 4 respective parishes

libya http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Lybian_Shabiat_2007_with_numbers.svg

mauritania http://www.lib.utexas.edu/maps/africa/mauritania_pol95.jpg

uganda http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Uganda_Districts.png

vietnam http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:VietnameseProvincesMap.png

& one that even i consider too enthusiastic & original but which also could be added if anyone is so exuberant http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:ffCpWgpWKAMJ:en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bir_Tawil+halaib+quadripoint&cd=1&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=us —Preceding unsigned comment added by Egull (talk • contribs) 17:24, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

I'm waiting to see how the deletion process turns out before doing anything here. But let me say that even if the page survives it should describe notable quadripoints--ones that are famous and frequently mentioned in reliable sources (WP:RS), or at least are described with the word quadripoint in reliable sources (boundary treaties especially, I'd say). Famous "close calls", if described in reliable sources, would also be good, as I see it--with the point that some points are frequently said to be quadripoints but are in fact not. The obvious example would be the Namibia-Botswana-Zambia-Zimbabwe one. There's an almost point in England (counties) that appears relatively famous. My main point is the need to avoid a list serving no purpose other than being a list. I'm not up on the specific guidelines, but WP:TRIVIA should describe how and why Wikipedia should avoid trivia lists. Points mentioned should be backed up by reliable sources that describe them (and ideally why they are important), and should also be notable in some way other than simply being a quadripoint (see WP:N). By these criteria most of the points you list above seem like trivia to me (unless there are other, better references out there). The Yahoo group "boundarypointpoint" is not a reliable source, nor does it establish notability. A map may be a reliable source but does not establish notability. Just saying--if the page survives deletion, I suggest editors should not allow it to devolve further into trivia and original research. Pfly (talk) 18:00, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

yes yes great thanx & hilarious too that the punctilious boundary pointing crowd is as leery of wikipedia as wikipedia is leery of it

but i am totally with you on famous quadripoints & famous near misses

& you know i saluted your excellent 20th century history of bwnazmzw by continuing it with my sketch of the relevant & perhaps even more incredibly fascinating 21st century history of it

& which was justly disallowed & admonished & now decorates nay emblazons the very abolishment bill we are considering

so i understand you are sensibly idling & just waiting to see if we get any more wind for our sails

but if the article survives it will immediately beg to be enlarged & enhanced by the very exhibits 1 & 2 of the indictment

& i would submit this is actually not trivial

the inherent question of whether a particular border exists or not is not trivial inconsequential irrelevant nor unimportant

the tripoint articles yes & their lists yes are trivial yes certainly by comparison & even absolutely yes trivial literally

but quadripoints & the greater pluripoints are far more remarkable & rare than mere trivia & the world knows itEgull (talk) 01:39, 2 November 2010 (UTC)