Instantnood (talk | contribs) |
Instantnood (talk | contribs) |
||
Line 127: | Line 127: | ||
::I agree the most commonly used established terms for this meaning - "dependencies" and "dependent territories" - are a little bit English-centric, since in most case it's used to talk about the British and American possessions. I am open on having a better term, as long as it's not going to be neologism. :-) (Nunavut does not belong to the group, by the way.) — [[User:Instantnood|Insta]][[User_talk:Instantnood|ntnood]] 20:43, 28 October 2005 (UTC) |
::I agree the most commonly used established terms for this meaning - "dependencies" and "dependent territories" - are a little bit English-centric, since in most case it's used to talk about the British and American possessions. I am open on having a better term, as long as it's not going to be neologism. :-) (Nunavut does not belong to the group, by the way.) — [[User:Instantnood|Insta]][[User_talk:Instantnood|ntnood]] 20:43, 28 October 2005 (UTC) |
||
:::<cite id="Re:_Danish_.22dependencies.22_reply_4"> </cite>Bring this up to the relevant talk pages. :-) — [[User:Instantnood|Insta]][[User_talk:Instantnood|ntnood]] 17:32, 29 October 2005 (UTC) |
|||
Just wanna drop a line to tell you that I will turn greater attention to this issue in due course. I am presently tied down with too many issues, as well as those in the real world. :D--[[User:Huaiwei|Huaiwei]] 20:30, 28 October 2005 (UTC) |
Just wanna drop a line to tell you that I will turn greater attention to this issue in due course. I am presently tied down with too many issues, as well as those in the real world. :D--[[User:Huaiwei|Huaiwei]] 20:30, 28 October 2005 (UTC) |
Revision as of 17:32, 29 October 2005
Talk Page
Funny
Oh it did make me laugh reading the section about Danish myths, i certianly laughed about how you corrected people about Ikea being the Capital. I certianly like Denmark alot!
Odense Yard
Hallo Valentinian, thanks for corrections of the Odense Yard article. I'm DEF, born and stay in Berlin,Germany and i'm fan of the A.P.Möller Maerk group since mid 1970's. I've wrote the new article about Odense Yard and wrote mostly new the article about A.P.Möller Maersk group. Greets from Berlin to Odense, DEF , July,21.2005
IDRIVE
subst:
You helped choose {{subst:IDRIVEtopic article}} as this week's WP:ACID winner
Thanks!
Thanks very much for your reply on Talk:Faroe_Islands#Dependency.3F. Very interesting and informative. Denmark is a place I know little about - the closest I've been is Malmo! Sorry for not repling sooner. Seabhcán 15:52, 11 August 2005 (UTC)
Thank for correcting
the article about Skåne. We in Sweden often forget that old Scanian things are often Danish. I have made this mistake several times myself, in writing about Malmö and its old church there. So you'll probably encounter it again -- but don't take offense , no harm intended :-)
--Fred-Chess 14:28, August 13, 2005 (UTC)
Greek Royal Family descends from Byzantine Greeks
If you happen to be interested in Byzantines and royals, have you observed that the Prince William of Denmark who as George I of Greece was elected King of the Hellenes 1863 following the deposition of Otto. He thus became the monarch of the country whose territory had been under dominion of his ancestors, Emperors of the Romans who ruled in Constantiople (cf Talk:Alexandra of Greece/Ancestral data), such as Emperors Constantine IX, Alexius I, John II, Isaakios II, Alexius III and Theodoros I. Arrigo 09:23, 14 August 2005 (UTC)
That wasn't me who created that long geneaology. I just moved it from the Talk:Alexandra of Greece page to that subpage to get it out of the way. Noel (talk) 01:44, 17 August 2005 (UTC)
Replied at my talk page. Please visit. 217.140.193.123 07:11, 19 August 2005 (UTC)
IDRIVE
I just wanted to let you know that at Wikipedia:This week's improvement drive the incomplete signature you provided for Constantinople was removed by User:Mallocks as a proper vote. Since I'm not in the place to tell if it was your intention to vote, I'll leave it as it is now. Please go there and vote again if that was your intention. --Laisak 11:00, 18 August 2005 (UTC)
Danish municipalities
Hej Valentinian! Thanks for checking up on my work as I am trying to upgrade all the municipality pages. It's so easy to make typos, and other mistakes (let alone the big mistakes, like facts). As for the new Assens municipality after the merge of 2007... it appears that actually the name of the municipality will not be Assens, but rather New Assens (Ny Assens)! See my note on Talk:Tommerup municipality. This might mean I revert the a --> the again with this name change. If you have any problems with this, or any of the general language I am using, please let me know. I am trying to keep the language as standard as possible, after all there are 271 articles, plus the new future municipalities. I don't think either you or I want to start changing words here and there with all the followup work that entails. But please, let me know if you mean there could be improved language, and we'll work it out. Thanks again. Sfdan 15:11, 24 August 2005 (UTC)
- Hej Valentinian. Since you are my "kommune ekspert" on Wiki I'd like you to confirm this-- is Æblerød a fictive kommune? It's had an article since Jan. 12, 2004, and is on the Municipalities of Denmark list, but I see no outside evidence of its existence (listed website does not connect, not on kommunekort, not on my spreadsheept over borgmestre, osv.). Its history also seems a bit suspect, started by an IP address, and a different IP address tried to delete the text out of it, which was of course interpreted as a vandalism and restored. I'd like a second opinion before acting on having it deleted, if that should be done. Thanks! SFDan 14:08, September 8, 2005 (UTC)
- Thanks for the quick action. SFDan 21:17, September 8, 2005 (UTC)
Responding
Hi.
Glad you liked the image of Trefoldighetskyrkan, it came from Swedish wikipedias "Projekt kyrkobyggnader" There are more image on this church on wikimedia commons at http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Heliga_Trefaldighetskyrkan , and of the project.
Fred-Chess 20:45, August 26, 2005 (UTC)
Flag of Denmark, et al.
Hello! I hope you're well. Thanks for your note and praise; I appreciate it. I first revised images of the Danish flags (and others) out of uncertainty--or lack of authoritative sources--as to the precise red on the flags and out of a desire for accuracy. Users Haabet and Twthmoses seem(ed) unsatisfied with this and I got into a bit of a sparring match with the latter about what was authoritative. Ah well; what's done is done. Now, that the naval flag has been redrawn in accordance with the cited colours, Haabet keeps reverting. This is extremely frustrating, but I will no longer fret. In any event, my thanks for your commentary and diligence; keep up the good work! E Pluribus Anthony 17:14, 31 August 2005 (UTC)
By the way, I just read your response to Haabet's assertion of your 'vandalism'; he has also accused me of such. Perhaps we should investigate taking collective action? Thoughts? In any event, good luck! E Pluribus Anthony 00:15, 1 September 2005 (UTC).
Hello again! It seems like there is a perpetual struggle now for the Danish Naval Flag (with another user), and it is being replaced with what I believe is a lighter version of the legitimate version. Precluding an edit war (and further activity from said uers), I'd think to keep it cool for now. I'm sure information on ameliorating name-callers exists on the main and related pages. Thought? A bientot. E Pluribus Anthony 06:08, 12 September 2005 (UTC)
Kondia
From http://rgo.newmail.ru/history/khr_tit.htm Кондийский означает область реки Конды, впадающей в Иртыш, в Тобольской же губернии. Kondia is the region of river Konda flowing into Irtysh in Tobolsk gubernia. abakharev 22:57, 9 September 2005 (UTC)
Bagrat 4
Instead of bothering to make an AFD for Bagrat IV, you could have just made it a redirect to Bagrat IV of Georgia. I'd do it now, but that'd be tampering with the AFD process. Unless you, the nominator, change your vote - that'd qualify it for a speedy redirect.
Remember - redirects are cheap. DS 14:05, 30 September 2005 (UTC)
Barnstar
FireFox 20:25, 7 October 2005 (UTC)
Misconceptions
Hi. Regarding those misconceptions about Denmark - I've never encountered any of them. However, there's one serious misconception that's not on your list, but which I am fed up with - namely, the misconception that all Danes are racists. We are not! I am not, at least, and most other Danes I know aren't either. I don't know how you feel about this misconception, but it really p****s me off that we've gained such a reputation around the world.
Here's another misconception: A lot of people think Denmark's adjacent to Belgium and that we speak Dutch.. now that's weird, innit?
By the way, it's good that you corrected 'foerebunkeren' to 'foererbunkeren' in the article on Odense University.
KEJ 15:20, 10 October 2005 (UTC)
I like your note on "not leaving people to die in the streets", though this does not only happen in Communist countries.KEJ 10:16, 11 October 2005 (UTC)
Why did you list this image as "Unknown copyright status"? The disclaimer on the original source of the image begins with the words: "This official website of the “Ministry of Railways, Govt. of India” "... etc. [[1]]
That sounds pretty much like a government agency to me (although the web page looks rather crappy.) The description of the "PD-Indian Gov"-tag primarily deals with photos but states that "Information published by Indian government websites are in Public Domain under the Right to Information Act." Would you please elaborate why this image should not be PD under this definition? --Valentinian 16:36, 16 October 2005 (UTC)
- See {{PD-IndiaGov}}'s tfd. —Cryptic (talk) 16:50, 16 October 2005 (UTC)
Christian X editing.
Thanks for the tip. Unfortunately, I am a typical monoglot American. I'm literate in Spanish and can muddle through Portuguese, but that's where I fall off. However, I was able to find a history professor who knew of the book and was able to give me what I needed based on that, so it's still much appreciated.
-- Tom Lillis
Re: Danish "dependencies"
Hello Jesper. I understand that under the Danish consitutional arrangements Greenland and the Faroe Islands are part of the Kingdom. Yet very often being an integral part of the sovereign state or not is not the only criteria to determine whether a territory is a dependency. Dependent territories can be defined by the degree of separation from the motherland or proper of the sovereign state, such as law, immigration policies, customs (trade), etc. In fact I have been using the Danish, as well as the Dutch arrangement to demonstrate that dependent territories can be integral parts of sovereign states.
Thanks so much for the illustration of the Danish system.. learnt something new from that. You may think about expanding the existing articles about the Kingdom of Denmark, the Community of the Realm, the Constitution, Greenland, and the Faroe Islands. Cheers. — Instantnood 15:15, 22 October 2005 (UTC)
- Thanks so much for the reply. I understand the English word "dependency" may not have a direct equivalence in some languages, and for some languages the nearest equivalence would possess some undesirable connotations. Yet when we have to study these non-sovereign-but-possess-much-power-like-many-other-sovereign-states territories of different sovereign states horizontally, a term has to be used to refer to them. No single word is the best, and different sovereign states use different terms. Certain conventions have been established among people who study them that some are considered to be belonged to the group, and some do not. In my opinion, the Faroe Islands, Greenland, as well as Åland, Aruba, Jan Mayen, Netherlands Antilles, Svalbard, certainly belongs, although they are not as separate with the corresponding sovereign states as the British overseas territories do with the UK. — Instantnood 16:03, 26 October 2005 (UTC)
- Hmm.. I prefer calling them "self-governing territories with certain degree/substantial level of international representation and separate law/legal system". But that's obviously far too clumsy. What about "countries that are not sovereign states" or even "non-sovereign countries"? Sounds like we're on the edge of neologism for the sake of NPOV and pleasing everybody... Gotta headache to exclude Scotland and Wales by the way, while including all the other non-sovereign self-governing countries. :-) — Instantnood 18:39, 26 October 2005 (UTC)
Dependencies
Hi, I refer to the message you left in [2], and I am indeed glad to see some definitive contributions to this topic. Please feel free to be bold and make corrections, but of coz do explain them with relevant citations. For example, if it is deemed that the Danish "dependencies" should not be as such, then it may be better to move them to the Dependent_area#Notes section of List of dependent territories.
Do exercise some caution in interpreting the text in that page. I am not sure who came up with its definition, but I definitely can guarantee you that it is not definitive nor binding. If you may refer to instantnood's comments, above, he believes that "state intergration" is not the only criteria. On the other hand, I believe it is the only sole and feasible distinction, as there is no such thing as utilising the "degree of seperation" as a crtieria, nor that of the "degree of intergration". There is no single standard the world over, nor is there any authoritative source stating that a territory must have X level of seperation for it to be deemed a "dependency".
Rather, most texts will show, that the political status or an entity is almost always purely in the hands of the one in power, and I find it difficult to find exceptions. If a country considers an entity part of its primary territory (or any other word/phrase it deemed fit), then this should be taken into greater consideration, because an attempt to claim that an entity is a dependency when the motherland do not deem it as such, is posing a direct challenge to the motherland's sovereignty over these territories, hardly an issue to trifel with. Past disagreements over the status of HK has led to direct correspondance with the HK government, before a solution could be found. As it is clear, it is the government's views which takes precedence, and it is not wikipedia's business to claim that a territory is a "dependency" just because it "appears to be one". When is it feasible to assume that self-administrative systems across countries are directly comparable for such assumptions to take place?
I would certainly like to hear your views on this issue, and I look forward to greater clarifications over the Danish territories.--Huaiwei 20:08, 22 October 2005 (UTC)
- Thank you for your reply. ;) I read through the text related to the Faroe Islands, and I am quite curious to know if the arrangement with regards to the Danish territories has anything in common to that of the UK's England-Scotland-Walse scenario?--Huaiwei 18:54, 26 October 2005 (UTC)
- From what I learnt from Jesper's comment at my talk page, I'd say it's more like the Dutch arrangement, although the Kingdom of Denmark does not have a super-level government above the governments of its three constituent nations as the Kingdom of Netherlands do. It's like halfway between the Dutch and the Norwegian ways. England itself does not have its own government and legislature, by the way. — Instantnood 19:26, 26 October 2005 (UTC)
- I was asking Valentinian, if you dont mind.--Huaiwei 19:46, 26 October 2005 (UTC)
- From what I learnt from Jesper's comment at my talk page, I'd say it's more like the Dutch arrangement, although the Kingdom of Denmark does not have a super-level government above the governments of its three constituent nations as the Kingdom of Netherlands do. It's like halfway between the Dutch and the Norwegian ways. England itself does not have its own government and legislature, by the way. — Instantnood 19:26, 26 October 2005 (UTC)
- I've just skimmed the Dutch Statue on the Dutch Wiki / Wikisource [3]. My Dutch is not perfect, but I can read some of it. Instantnood, your analysis is basically correct, but the systems seem to be closer related. The Kingdom government and the Dutch government are almost identical. Had that been the case, the two systems would be virtually identical. The legal form used in the Netherlands may simply be a result of a different legal tradition (Roman Law vs. Germanic Law). I'm not sure that's the reason but we follow different legal traditions. A few similarities, however: 1) The Dutch government is represented in the Overseas Territories by a governor. Denmark has the same system, only we call him a Rigsombudsmand (High Commissioner). 2) The Dutch government has a Ministry of the Interior and Kingdom Relations. [4]. In Denmark, that task is part of the Prime Minister's portfolio [5]. The main difference, in my view, is that the Netherlands have passed a statute which looks pretty much like a constitution, regarding the joint affairs of the Kingdom. §7 of it states that the Kingdom Government has a representative for each of the minor provinces. Well, in Denmark we consult the Premiers of the Faroe Islands and Greenland, but they don't sit in the Danish Cabinet. Denmarks has not passed such a law. Our Constitution [6] is valid everywhere in the Realm. The last time we had such a super-national construction was before 1864. Until then, we had a constitution regarding the joint affairs of Denmark, the Duchy of Slesvig and the Duchy of Holstein. When we passed a joint democratic construction for both Slesvig and Denmark in 1863, that action immediately prompted an invasion led by Prussia and Austria, which jeopardized the very independence of Denmark. In the peace of 1864, the combined Danish-German state was forced to hand over half of its territory to Prussia / Austria, including a large segment of my people. That in turn almost let to the complete fall of the Danish democracy. Our new anti-democratic Revised Constitution of 1866 was not repealed until 1915. My point is that since the biggest crisis in Danish history, the Danish political system hasn't really fancied the idea of having more than one constitution. On the contrary, an often quoted statement in Danish is Ingen over og ingen ved siden af Folketinget (No-one above and no-one next to Parliament.) The same sentiment applies to the Constitution. The Danish Parliament has delegated a number of issues to the local authorities on the Faroe Islands and Greenland. Period. If you're interested, the full text of the Home Rule agreement is here:[7]. Note §1 Greenland is a distinct community within the Kingdom of Denmark. Within the framework of the unity of the Realm, the Greenland home rule authorities shall conduct Greenland affairs in accordance with the provisions laid down in this Act. That makes it pretty clear that Greenland is a community but completely integrated in the Kingdom. One of my other posts contained a factual error. Danish laws normally contain the phrase 'Denne lov gælder ikke for Færøerne og Grønland (This law does not apply to the Faroe Islands and Greenland). But that is NOT inscribed in the Constitution, it's just legal tradition showing respect for the two smaller communities. The only thing the Constitution does specify is that Greenland and the Faroe Islands are both entitled to two seats in the Danish Parliament. This is stated here, because under normal rules, the areas would barely be entitled to one each, being so sparsely populated (a typical Danish constituency has around 50,000 - 60,000 people. The Faroes and Greenland both have around 50,000 inhabitants).
- Back to the comparison between the Danish and Dutch examples: In Denmark, we don't have a constitution / statute for the affairs of the entire Realm. If doubts arise - no question about it - all sovereignty ultimately rests in Copenhagen, in the Danish Cabinet and the Danish Parliament. Regarding a comparison with the United Kingdom, I don't have enough expert knowledge regarding the British system. Of course there are obvious similarities. 1) Scotland is a historical, geographical, and political entity which has been independent for most of its existence. 2) Scotland, Wales, and Northern Ireland do not conduct a foreign policy (so when Scotland and the Faroes argue over which country owns the fish near Rockall, that means London and Copenhagen argues on their behalfs.) 3) The local parliaments in the UK have legislative powers, so has the Lagting (Løgting) on the Faroes and the Landsting on Greenland. So Huaiwei, I'm afraid I am not properly qualified to assist you regarding the broard picture regarding the UK, but if you have a more detailed issue which I can compare to the Danish system, I'll be glad to help. Feel free to send me a mail.
- Well, this exercise has been very interesting, but it's taking too much of my time. I fail to understand why I have to continue fighting in order to defend the constitutional principles of my country and why I have to insist that the feelings of my fellow countrymen be respected. Just for the record: I support the unity of the our three communities and I will resent anyone offending my fellow countrymen, for whatever purpose!
- I'm afraid nothing I have so say will convince Instantnood that he's in error. Sorry, but I don't feel the urge to waste any more of my time with idle debate. Instantnood, your position is POV and offensive to an important segment of my countrymen. It's that simple! POV is not allowed under Wikipedia rules! Why don't you take a good look at the talk pages of Jan Mayen, Åland, Template:Europe, Faroe Islands and a number of other talk pages. As you will see, the US notion of a "dependency" does not match the constitutional arrangements made in Denmark, Norway, and Finland. This in an option held by a vide number of editors; surprise, they are all Scandinavians or Finns. Why? Because the Nordic Countries have have similar historical and legal traditions. If you could read any of our languages, I might be able to provide you with sources that would convince you, but at the moment, I'm think further debate is pointless. And please don't say that the lithmus test is the "definitions" in the World Fact Book. The World Fact Book stated - until a just few years ago - that Denmark became independent in 1849. We became independent around AD 700 (well, what's 1,100 years between friends?) Unfortunately, that's not the only error in that book. If any list like this does not adhere to the constitutional and legal definitions, then a "list of dependencies" will be nothing but a political tool. In other words, a perfect opportunity for a never-ending revert-war between editors wanting to make bogus allegations about separatism in an arbitrary list of countries, while removing references to countries which they support. For that reason - and because use of the word is POV to some users / nationalities - my self included - I insist that any such list has to be based on the legal definitions and the legal / constitutional arrangements. And it must use a choice of words which are not offensive to the populations in question. Whenever a Danish politician is stupid enough to state that Greenland or the Faroes might be less than equal to the rest of Denmark, there's an outcry in both communities and support for independence rises dramatically. And I don't blame them! If that's not good enough to qualify as POV, I don't know what is. If objectivity and NPOV is not followed, the list will merely be a propaganda tool. --Valentinian 10:46, 27 October 2005 (UTC)
- I understand the meaning of the same term may vary in different legal systems and traditions, and the picture is further complicated by different languages. When we have to compare the more or less similar territories in different parts of the world, a term has to be used, and the term may not satisfy everybody. Although the term may be debatable, certain territories are usually, if not always, grouped under this category according to the established conventions. — Instantnood 13:17, 27 October 2005 (UTC)
- As I've said before, I don't mind the grouping of the territories. By any means, include Nunavut, Hong Kong, Macau etc. if they haven't already been included on the relevant page (I haven't checked). No skin off my nose. What does offend me is a description which is not only inadequate but can cause offence. Constitutionally speaking, the only thing all these territories have in common is that they all have "a close relationship with another territory". Anyway most of them; Jan Mayen was awarded to Norway by the International Court in the Hague as a small compensation when Norway lost a case arguing for sovereignty over Eastern Greenland around 1930 (what the Norwegian called Eirik Raude Land). Until then, the rock had just been a disputed and completely irrelevant place on a map.
- But the definitions of what constitutes "home rule" / "dependencies" / "special administrave regions" / "dominions" / "crown territories" are far from identical all around the board. The English word "dependency" appears to apply more correctly to some of the territories (formerly) belonging to the United Kingdom / British Empire or the United States. I hope that we agree this far. My main interest is to awoid a reference which will offend some of my fellow countrymen. That's why I suggest terms like "autonomous territories" (again, I can't see how Jan Mayen fits into that one), "overseas territories" or something similar. --Valentinian 13:56, 27 October 2005 (UTC)
- I agree the most commonly used established terms for this meaning - "dependencies" and "dependent territories" - are a little bit English-centric, since in most case it's used to talk about the British and American possessions. I am open on having a better term, as long as it's not going to be neologism. :-) (Nunavut does not belong to the group, by the way.) — Instantnood 20:43, 28 October 2005 (UTC)
Just wanna drop a line to tell you that I will turn greater attention to this issue in due course. I am presently tied down with too many issues, as well as those in the real world. :D--Huaiwei 20:30, 28 October 2005 (UTC)