This article is within the scope of WikiProject Politics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of politics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Countries, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of countries on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
This sentence, "An example of an occupied territory is Palestine after the Nakba of 1948 ..." does not meet Wikipedia's standard of neutrality. The UN does not consider Israeli territory pre-1967 to be an occupation. The use of "nakba" to refer to the 1948 Arab-Israeli war may indicate that the author advocates a partisan narrative. I will edit this sentence to replace this example with a less controversial one. Jprg1966 (talk) 06:30, 10 January 2011 (UTC)
The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.
Support as country is ambiguous and the proposers suggestion is more encompassing. Zarcadia (talk) 07:40, 16 November 2012 (UTC)
Suggestion. Since it could be either country or political (or maybe something else), make it "Territory (subdivision)"? 22.214.171.124 (talk) 08:28, 16 November 2012 (UTC)
That would work as well. Zarcadia (talk) 16:45, 16 November 2012 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.
Good idea. I suggest you go ahead. Apuldram (talk) 15:29, 27 April 2015 (UTC)
Done. I have added a proposal to merge Territory (subdivision) here also. It is another short and long-undeveloped article, and I really can't see any point of distinction between these articles. bd2412T 15:49, 27 April 2015 (UTC)
I removed the following from the page because it is really a separate topic:
Territory was formerly regarded as the natural jurisdiction of a political unit. Over the past three decades this position has been widely revised in social scientific theory. Robert Sack conceptualised human territoriality as a powerful political strategy and theorised political territory as one such instance of this type of strategy. In the field of International Relations, John Ruggie argued that territoriality was the organizing principle for modern international politics and could be contrasted with medieval heteronomous orders. Following Ruggie, a number of works have sought to explain how territory became the dominant principle of European international relations and/or question his broadly Westphalian chronology of the modern territorial order. Stuart Elden's work on the 'Birth of Territory' is the latest example of an attempt to critically interrogate the historical foundations of 'territory' as a distinctly modern idea
However, this is good material that should be preserved somewhere in Wikipedia where it is relevant. bd2412T 14:36, 25 June 2015 (UTC)
^Sack, Robert David. Human territoriality: its theory and history. Vol. 7. CUP Archive, 1986.
^Ruggie, John Gerard. "Territoriality and beyond: problematizing modernity in international relations." International organization 47.01 (1993): 139-174.
^Spruyt, Hendrik. The sovereign state and its competitors: an analysis of systems change. Princeton University Press, 1996.Teschke, Benno. The myth of 1648: class, geopolitics, and the making of modern international relations. Verso, 2003.Vigneswaran, Darshan. Territory, migration and the evolution of the international system. Palgrave Macmillan, 2013.
^Elden, Stuart. The birth of territory. University of Chicago Press, 2013.