Jump to content

Talk:Self-determination/Archive 4

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1Archive 2Archive 3Archive 4

Crimea and Eastern Ukraine

Article has Eastern Ukraine paragraph considering it not self-determination. So why does it exist in the list of examples?!
If controversial cases are meant to exist in article, then Crimea also should be mentioned!
Amitashi (talk) 06:44, 5 June 2016 (UTC)

Your edits weren't even close to representing a neutal point of view, which is why they were reverted. Your removal of another section was simply editing wikipedia to make a point, this is simply vandalism, which is why they were reverted. Your sourcing is simply awful, either you choose a source that is unreliable and partisan such as RT, or we find that the source doesn't verify the claim you made. You need to use reliable sources, write in a neutral manner, stop edit warrring and use the talk page. If you don't you'll be reverted by people who care about what this project is about, which is building an encyclopedia not to right great wrongs. Now I've given you a number of pointers, stick to them and you might get somewhere. WCMemail 09:40, 5 June 2016 (UTC)

Intro section needs to be rewritten

The intro section starts out by stating "The right of nations to self-determination (from[citation needed] German: Selbstbestimmungsrecht der Völker) is a cardinal principle in modern international law (commonly regarded as a jus cogens rule)...." but fails to define what it is in the opening sentence. For most article on Wikipedia, the proper format for article is the have the first sentence briefly define what the subject of the article is in a simple sentence. Examples:. "Static electricity is...", "The Boxer Rebellion, Boxer Uprising or Yihequan Movement was...", etc. There are exceptions to this format guideline where it make more sense to no reason this articles subject can't be summarized in a single sentence to open the intro. Another potential problem is that the focuses on "The right of self-determination" as outlined under international law and the U.N. chatter. But the concept of self-dertemination also is used to refer to the belief that some people hold that racial and ethnic groups have the right to self-determination including the formation of new countries including breakaway countries. Thus, for example, people endorsing this definition of self-determination would hold that the Kurds deserve there own country by splitting off the Kurdish dominated part of Iraq too form a new Kurdish countries country. This of course is in conflict with the international law concept of "territorial integrity". The intro and the main article should try and address this broader definition of self-determination too. . Notcharliechaplin (talk) 10:18, 19 August 2016 (UTC)

Why is there no Palestine section.

I don't understand. Why isn't there any Palestine section? Is it because it's a separate article? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.198.175.0 (talk) 16:00, 19 January 2017 (UTC)

Chagossians

The Chagossians are not in this article because nobody added them or because it was removed? Carol Castro pepeca do mal (talk) 00:58, 26 January 2017 (UTC)
And how can I check for myself if they were in previous versions of this article? (besides checking the previous versions one by one of course) Carol Castro pepeca do mal (talk) 01:05, 26 January 2017 (UTC)

  • Go to the Article.
  • Click on the View history tab.
  • Click on Revision history search.
  • Put the term "Chagossians" into that page's search box.
I just did that and it appears that the term has not been added to or deleted from this article in the past. There is, however, an article about Chagossians that delineates their struggle to regain their homeland at Chagossians. Shearonink (talk) 01:12, 26 January 2017 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 8 external links on Self-determination. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 05:15, 24 May 2017 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 6 external links on Self-determination. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 19:03, 26 July 2017 (UTC)

Palestine

Section "Notable cases" Why is Palestine not mentioned? It is 1 of the most, if not THE most, notable cases. Paranam Kid (talk) 06:49, 13 August 2017 (UTC)

Nordic identity in Estonia

Would the Nordic identity in Estonia, pursued by the estonian government and it's society as a whole, but not officially recognized by the Nordic Council, fit under this topic? SørenKierkegaard (talk) 17:06, 18 September 2017 (UTC)

Territorial integrity or self-determination?

According to the Helsinki Final Act of 1975, the UN, ICJ and international law experts, there is no contradiction between the principles of self-determination and territorial integrity, with the latter taking precedence.

The last two clauses are not supported by the sources. For example, the Helsinki Accords does not claim that territorial integrity takes precedence. In fact, the topic of self-determination vs territorial integrity has been debated ad nauseam by legal scholars and there is to the best of my knowledge no definite answer. Certainly, it is not a consensus opinion that there is no contradiction involved. It is also likely that the jurisprudence is evolving. The Scottish and Quebecois referendums and the secession of Kosovo, can be seen as arguing in favor of self-determination. This question is getting attention due to Catalonia's bid for sovereignty and it will be very interesting to see how scholars analyze it. ImTheIP (talk) 18:52, 5 October 2017 (UTC)

Recentism

Per WP:RECENTISM I would suggest that recent events in Catalonia aren't pushed into the article. This is especially the case concerning newspaper articles as sources, since in many cases theses are subject to bias and, in some cases, ill-informed analysis. We should look to reliable secondary sources and ideally favour academic sources. WCMemail 12:16, 7 October 2017 (UTC)

I've tagged the section as the editor responsible is not engaging in talk and has now reverted for a 3rd time. I won't be edit warring but I hope another editor will consider whether this is improving the article. WCMemail 16:21, 7 October 2017 (UTC)

The editor making the change misses the point. The text added is far too sweeping - to the point of inaccuracy - and as such I have removed it. Kahastok talk 17:49, 7 October 2017 (UTC)

I don't agree with WCM's view that academic sources should be favoured in this case. Had the UN authorities not explained their official position, it might indeed make sense to ask academicians to speculate on what the priorities should be. But in this case, Miroslav Lajcak, the President of the UN General Assembly has spoken out to clarify the priorities of the UN charter. His statement was made in the wake of an illegal referendum by Iraqi Kurds and then another similar ballot by Spain's Catalan minority. Thus, it has been established in practice that the territorial integrity of member states takes top priority. For people who wish to use the Wikipedia as a reference, this piece of information will be very valuable, the recent nature of the statement notwithstanding.

I also disagree with WCM on the number of reverts. By my counting, he has three reverts and I have just one. How are we going to talk on the contribution if he keeps erasing it so that nobody can see what was there? Dos360 (talk) 17:51, 7 October 2017 (UTC)

Please note, that the editor Dos360 has not posted in a chronological order per WP:TPG. He has inserted his comment above mine giving the impression he started the talk page discussion. His arithmetic is incorrect also. I also note that he is not addressing the reason, namely the type of sources he is using and WP:RECENTISM. WCMemail 17:55, 7 October 2017 (UTC)
I've just moved it. WP:TPG does allow us to fix layout errors, which I assume this to have been. Kahastok talk 18:04, 7 October 2017 (UTC)
Responding to yet another message left on my talk page - please note further posts there will be ignored. I have no problem with people posting on my talk page, with the exception of when they begin to make personal accusations. So I have asked you to stop.
WP:BRD I would suggest Dos360 reads it. You make a bold edit, if reverted, discuss. We don't restore the edit because you demand it, while we discuss whether to keep it. The basic reasons for reverting you:
  • WP:RECENTISM People seem to have a tendency to push recent events into articles, this is usually a bad idea for an encyclopedia since ideas are rarely fully formulated.
  • Sources. You're relying on newspapers, which are rarely neutral and for fast moving events often ill-informed.
  • NPOV. You're clearly writing from a personal belief, using language labelling events as "illegal" .
  • Accuracy. Your text is far too sweeping, to the point of being inaccurate.
  • WP:POINT You've tagged the article in retaliation for not getting your way.
Now as I said at the start, what is required is a neutral academic source to discuss all aspects of international law. Do you have that? WCMemail 18:13, 7 October 2017 (UTC)

(ec) You both have three reverts within the past 24 hours now by my count. As WCM notes, the edit is in the history, we can all see it, it doesn't need to be present on the page to be discussed.

Per WP:PSTS we prefer secondary sources such as academics, as opposed to primary sources such as the statements of the President of the UN General Assembly. The President of the UN General Assembly may have his own interpretations, which may or may not reflect academic or legal consensus, and are not legally binding. It appears to me that you are thinking - and the newspapers are writing - specifically in the context of the recent referendums in Catalonia and Kurdistan. Wikipedia takes a longer view. Kurdistan and Catalonia is not the only instances where conflict between claims of self-determination and territorial integrity arise, and many of the other situations where such conflict arises are not at all parallel or similar to these two cases. Your proposal purports to apply to those cases as well.

Also, please describe what WP:POV issue you are attempting to raise here. WCM added the {{POV-section}} tag because he contended that your new text was inaccurate and biased. Why have you added the {{POV}} tag? Kahastok talk 18:16, 7 October 2017 (UTC)

dos360 starts here.

  • Recent-ism claim: How long does WCM want to wait before a key statement made by a key UN official can be included in this section? The recent nature of the ballots and the reaction from a top UN official does not make these events irrelevant to understanding of the UN's priorities.
  • Newspapers: It is very common to use newspaper articles as sources in Wikipedia.
  • Legality: It was the governments of Spain and Iraq which used the epithet illegal to describe the ballots in question. In the case of Spain, at least, this view was held up in the country's highest court. Whether WCM concurs is beside the point. The word illegal need not appear in my text. (Did it?)
  • Accuracy: The statement to which WCM attached the epithets 'inaccurate' and 'sweeping' is a statement made by the President of the UN General Assembly. It may be inaccurate but even so, doesn't it belong in a discussion about how to settle conflicts between the principles of territorial integrity and self-determination? I can't see any benefit in studying academic articles and muddying the case with an untold number of conflicting opinions when the UN itself is telling us how its charter must be interpreted. If members states want to put territorial integrity before self-determination, that shouldn't come as a great surprise to anybody.
  • Tagging: If WCM feels that including a UN statement is wrong, then I say that excluding it would be wrong. Is there any particular reason for me to defer to his authority?
  • Revert count: My first edit was not a revert. It was my contribution to the article. In the second edit, I have politely addressed WCM's recent-ism complaint by removing the direct references to the illegal ballots in Iraq and Spain. Since WCM's complaint was addressed, that wasn't a revert. When he saw fit to erase my text once again, I did post exactly the same text, that being my first and only revert so far. By making three deletions in a row, WCM has reverted the article to its original text a total of three times. That is how I kept the tally. It is very irritating, too.

dos360 ends here Dos360 (talk) 19:12, 7 October 2017 (UTC)

A) The general guide line I always use for recentism, is to ask myself whether if you were looking back in 10 years time would this "quote" be seen as vital to include in this article. I would say on balance at this point, no. Were it a learned opinion from the Chief Justice of the International Court of Justice that would be a different matter. The person you're quoting is not an expert on International Law.
B) Yes newspapers are used as sources but their use is not encouraged and they're not generally used for matters of academic opinion.
C) Accuracy, the President of the UN General Assembly has in fact no powers to say how the UN Charter must be interpreted. Were he to require such an opinion, the procedure in the UN is for the GA to request an advisory opinion from the ICJ. The opinions upon the balance between the two is not as clear cut as your edit suggests, in fact for example the Kosovo judgement is diametrically opposite to what you claim.
D) Tagging: if I get your argument correctly, because I tagged your POV edit, inviting other editors to comment, you are making it plain you did so in retaliation?
E) Revert count, however irritating having your edit reverted may be, you didn't address my comment at all. You simply reverted putting the text in different places. That a second independent editor also sees them as reverts should tell you that.
Now, please address the argument, do not attack the person making it. WCMemail 19:41, 7 October 2017 (UTC)
WCM is correct. But I would add: if this were intended to be a statement by an individual it would be placed in quote marks and it would say who it was quoting. Your text does neither of those things. I also feel it misrepresents what the sources actually said: it is clear from the articles that Lajcek's spokesman was speaking in context; your text takes the quote out of that context. You imply that these are the sole requirements and that they apply in all cases. It is clear that Lajcek's spokesman intended to suggest that these were among the requirements in these cases. And he's still simplified in a way that we shouldn't be doing on an article on the subject. Ultimately the only argument that leads to your text being acceptable holds that Lajcek's spokesman has the power to define international law on his own. He does not. Kahastok talk 20:45, 7 October 2017 (UTC)

dos360 starts here. From my point of view, it is acceptable to insert Lajcak's statement in quote marks. It is clear that Lajcak was not giving his personal views on this matter but rather speaking on behalf of the UN. He wasn't speaking in a pub. His statement was released by the Assembly Spokesman Brenden Varma. Also, remember that the statement came shortly after the separatist ballots in Iraq and in Spain. Therefore the statement is official and its timing is not accidental. Therefore, it isn't an opinion that can be dismissed lightly. Bear in mind that there are many separatist groups in the world and some of them are conducting terrorist campaigns to achieve self-rule. The Tamil Tigers, the IRA, the PKK and Spain's ETA are among them. Members of these groups are brainwashed to believe that they are fighting for their rights. And yet the UN statement, while confirming self-determination as a right, is also restricting it as well. In effect, the UN is telling us that a velvet divorce as in Czechoslovakia is a basic right, but the separatist campaigns in Iraq and Spain are not justified by that right. That should not be omitted from a section that discusses conflicts between territorial integrity and self-determination. I would like to re-insert the statement with quote marks as suggested. I would also like to mention, in passing, the two ballots in Iraq and Spain because the timing of the UN statement coincides with these events. dos360 ends here Dos360 (talk) 10:34, 8 October 2017 (UTC)

You can't put quote marks around the whole thing because it isn't a quote as a whole thing. The placement of quote marks in the sources is deliberate, and we don't know what the full original quote is. Also, note that both sources attribute the comment not to Lajcak but to Varma. Varma speaking in an official capacity, sure, as Lajcak's spokesman. But still Varma. Most likely he was responding to a question.
You accept that the comment was made in the context of the vote in Catalonia (though note not the context of Iraqi Kurdistan, which neither source even mentions), but then in writing your text completely remove that context. You attempt to apply your understanding of Varma's logic to other situations, but this is original research, which is not allowed on Wikipedia articles.
Remember not every instance of a claimed conflict between self-determination and territorial integrity is parallel to Catalonia. For that matter, not all the situations you list are even claimed to be conflicts between self-determination and territorial integrity, let alone parallels to Catalonia. Another reminder that secession and self-determination are not the same thing.
Note further that by this comment, the UN is telling us precisely nothing. If the UN wishes to express an opinion it will do so through a resolution of the General Assembly or Security Council. A press conference by the spokesman for the UNGA President is nothing more (or less) than a press conference by the spokesman for the UNGA President. I believe the difficulty with your position in this is demonstrated by the fact that you are insisting that the UNGA President's spokesman's comment is vital, but not the comment by the UN Secretary-General, a significantly more senior figure, also given by the CNBC source. Kahastok talk 11:45, 8 October 2017 (UTC)
Kahastok is correct. The only organs that can speak for the UN are the General Assembly or Security Council. So whilst an official statement, it is not on behalf of the UN. And again, it seems you're missing the point. The digital position you assert to be true is such a simplification as to be positively misleading - for example the Kosovan declaration of independence directly contradicts it. [1] As noted above, the statement you attribute to Lajcak was in fact made by Varma. Since, we don't actually have what was said, only a summary we can't quote anyone. WCMemail 12:32, 8 October 2017 (UTC)

I have trouble following your pattern of reasoning. What, in your view, does it take to include the UN statement in this article? How about a petition to the UN requesting a transcript of the statement? Perhaps a request for information from Spanish (or Iraqi) diplomatic missions? But after going to the trouble of making such enquiries, I don't want to come back here with an anwer from an official source only to hear more excuses and exceedingly complex objections. Dos360 (talk) 13:35, 8 October 2017 (UTC)

Once again, it isn't a "UN statement". It's a comment by the spokesman for the President of the General Assembly.
Getting a full transcript might help - we can't use a full quote without knowing the full quote - but it's probably a waste of time, because no-one is suggesting that Varma did not say what is attributed to him. Rather, that he said it in a particular context, that your proposal removes that context, and that your proposal fails to attribute the claim properly. I'd add that I struggle to see that a comment by the spokesman for the President of the General Assembly discussing a particular instance during a crisis is necessarily relevant to the article in the long-term.
If this is to go into the article, you need to demonstrate is that it belongs where you want to put it according to our policies and guidelines. We do not create articles by just shoving pieces of information together randomly without paying attention to what they say. And sometimes, a piece of information simply does not belong in a particular article or even anywhere on Wikipedia. Kahastok talk 14:14, 8 October 2017 (UTC)

In a recent panel aired on CNN Turk, Gen (Retd) Ilker Basbug has said exactly the same thing as the UN authorities. He has emphasised that (1) the principle of territorial integrity takes precedence over self-determination and (2) there must be a consensus. The entire panel lasts three hours but I can extract the relevant section add English subtitles and offer that as an additional source. The General in question was Turkey's Chief of the General Staff and is an expert on questions of international law. Dos360 (talk) 16:56, 11 October 2017 (UTC)

Its still his opinion see WP:OPINION vs WP:FACT. Plus you would have to demonstrate that he is a recognised expert in the field. Really your best bet is an academic written source on the matter and you will have to give the range of opinion in the literature. You seem unable to grasp its not a question with a right/wrong answer. WCMemail 17:26, 11 October 2017 (UTC)
Is there anything under this topic that is not opinion? If you want to restrict the discussion to facts, then only treaties count and there is nothing to discuss. Dos360 (talk) 16:50, 13 October 2017 (UTC)
Sure there are facts available. But you're probably not going to get them out of the opinions of commentators on news channels.
You are still failing to take account of the context in which things are said. Ask yourself, what situation were they referring to when they said this? He was almost certainly putting an argument in a specific case. Given how you describe him, it's probably Iraqi Kurdistan but might be Catalonia. There is no reason to suppose that an argument that applies to Iraqi Kurdistan - well-founded or not - equally applies to Tokelau, which is a completely different situation.
I find also that you are still assuming that the right to self-determination means a right to secession. It can mean a right to secession, in some cases, but the two are clearly different in general. Kahastok talk 17:29, 13 October 2017 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 5 external links on Self-determination. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 08:33, 2 December 2017 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Self-determination. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 03:51, 13 January 2018 (UTC)

Alikat101 Kashmir Edits

New-user Alikat101 introduced an uncited paragraph to the top of the Kashmir section, in the process introducing some typos into the document. I fixed the typos, but I suspect there may be some NPOV issues with the added paragraph. I left it in and tagged it as it seemed to have some awareness of the history, and I'm not qualified to judge. Could someone more knowledgeable please take a look? This is the text he added:

Ever since Pakistan and India’s inception in 1947 the legal state of Jammu and Kashmir, the land between India and Pakistan, has been contested as Britain was resigning from their rule over this land. Maharaja Hari Singh, the ruler residing over Kashmir at the time accession, signed the Instrument of Accession Act on October 26th 1947 as his territory was being attacked by Pakistani tribesmen. The passing of this Act allowed Jammu and Kashmir to accede to India on legal terms. When this Act was taken to Lord Mountbatten, the last viceroy of British India, he agreed to it and stated that a referendum needed to be held by the citizens in India, Pakistan, and Kashmir so that they could vote as to where Kashmir should accede to. This referendum that Mountbatten called for never took place and framed one of the legal disputes for Kashmir. In 1948 the Untied Nation intervened and ordered a plebiscite to be taken in order to hear the voices of the Kashmiris if they would like to accede to Pakistan or India. This plebiscite left out the right for Kashmiris to have the right of self determination and become an autonomous state. To this date the Kashmiris have been faced with numerous human rights violations committed by both India and Pakistan and have yet to gain complete autonomy which they have been seeking through self-determination.

GretLomborg (talk) 18:18, 17 April 2018 (UTC)
Extended content
== Main Title ==

The concept of 'self-determination' applies morally to individuals and groups, and only secondarily to established 'nations' and bodies of law. Laws are tools of man, they do not determine man's actions or establish morality. In fact, this concept is a major conceptual defense against authoritative mentalities that want to control without reason or respect for basic moral individual rights. Thus, the main title of this article should be "Self-determination in International Law", otherwise it contributes to corrupting the world towards non-democratic authoritarianism by implicitly framing 'self-determination' as subordinate to laws, which it clearly isn't if you understand the subject properly.

Also, changing the title isn't enough. There needs to be an introductory paragraph explaining more thoroughly what I sketched above, and another more 'authoritative' base article title 'Self Determination' needs to be written that doesn't mention laws as a primary authority (implied or otherwise).

I realize that this may be hard for some to comprehend due to over-socialization and the belief that laws are the ultimate authority among humanity, and due to that this concept of self-determination germinated in the context of establishing world peace and international law, but it's extremely important that the concept isn't confused with laws or even peace efforts. People have the right to go to war. This concept is just another way to say that people are free, and efforts to restrain free people will always be met with conflict. When we hear the concept of 'self-determination' and look up the concept in an encyclopedia, we're not trying to determine if the law allows it, we're trying to find validation against tyranny or a rhetorical argument to maintain our control of others.

And, just to add to this complaint a little more, international laws themselves are a violation of the concept of 'self-determination'. The concept is not a legal issue, nor even a 'right' which requires a higher authority for the word 'right' to make sense -- it's a characteristic of individuals. The term 'birth-right' if often used, but in my opinion it too corrupts the essence of the domain of this concept of 'self-determination'.

In reality, all the language above is defense against centuries of multitudinous forms of belief in socialism over the individual, so we could establish a hierarchy of organization like this for an encyclopedia: 

   1.  Reality of the Individual
       a.  Consciousness in brain/body of individual.
       b.  Defacto freedom of action based on consciousness.
       c.  Constant needs of food, water, shelter.
       d.  Limited power that can be overcome by group action.
   2.  Ideas about society and social groups
       a.  Ideas and methods of control and organization
           1. Unconcious control
              a.  Children of adults
           2. Popularistic authority
              a.  Beautiful people's power
              b.  Big and strong people's power
           3. Traditional authority
              a.  Emperors and czars
              b.  Kings and Popes
           4. Democratic tendencies.

        b. Radical ideas, problems, and demanded rights
           1. The idea of self-determination.
           2. The idea of freedom.
           3. The idea of equality before the authorities.

Most over-socialized people, especially people outside the U.S., have a hard time recognizing that everything below main item 2 above is just thoughts in individual people's heads, while the reality is those under main item 1. And, laws are not reality either, just ideas written on paper (assuming modern 'rule of law' governments).

In conclusion, 'Self-determination' should not be explained in terms of laws, international, or otherwise, although the history of the concept in laws could be a subordinate section.

P.S. Wikipedia's insistence on citations is also a huge moral error, that closely parallels this specific argument. Is it the intention to only respect previously written paper documents and not live human intellect? Previously written documents aren't proof or validation of reason, only perhaps facts. Parallel to over-socialization is also the phenomena of false belief that books and written words are authoritative too. This, I believe is predominant and limiting in the Christian-Moslem mentality, and why people falsely believe that laws provide order. But, this is in the domain of 'social problems' apart from the 'individual' domain of 'self-determination'. Personally, I believe that the wikipedia is a threat to democracy and humanity due to this citacion issue. It appears to me that there is implicit bias against reality and reason in favor of dogmatism, if not explicit bias. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Alonzo Hogue 1 (talk • contribs) 08:51, 28 July 2018 (UTC)

Palestinian self-determination

It appears Palestine topic is not on the "current issue" of notable examples. It keeps being removed. There is clear bias here, in my opinion. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.18.99.105 (talk) 13:02, 28 December 2018 (UTC)

Extremely Loud and Incredibly Close

I think this paper [2] makes some excellent points about how self-determination is not a de facto pillar of international law, despite supposedly being a core principle of organizations like the UN. I'd like to add something about that, but I feel like my political views might create a conflict of interest as far as Wikipedia policy is concerned. Would it be okay to add something about this as long as I take care to keep a neutral point of view? If not, could someone else incorporate some of the concepts from that paper into the article (e.g. "It has been suggested that..." with that paper as a citation) if you agree that it is warranted?

Thank you.

flarn2006 [u t c] time: 23:25, 10 April 2021 (UTC)

The section on "Notable Cases" fails to mention the Palestinian people and their sought-after Palestinian state in violation of NPOV.

Since the effort to gain a state for the Palestinian people is very notable case it should be addressed in it's own subsection in under "Notable Cases" in order to be NPOVC comlient, not simply be a passing mention in the "After the Cold War" section. There is no legitimate reason I can think off for why a "Notable Case" subsection on the Palestinian cause is missing from the article and since no either one has responded in the past to multiple questions WP editors have asked on this article's talk page over the years or failed to provide a valid objections as as to why it's missing, I felt compelled to add the NPOV tag until this ommision is corrected or unless one can make a solid argument for why it should not be added per WP policies. Remembmber, such a notable case subsection is about whether their is a concensus that the Palestinians have a right to self-determination or whether addressing that requires them to be given a sovereign state, but simply to inform the reader about the fact that the Palestinians argue for such and their supporters back the argument that they have a right of self-determination. So the we should at least include a section that briefly mentions proposed Palestinan statehood and links to article on said topic/related topics, just as we currently do with the Israel subsection which includes links to articles on articles on Israel, Zionism, and Jewish history. --Notcharliechaplin (talk) 20:17, 28 July 2021 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Self-determination/Archive_4&oldid=1131380813"