What about Wallis & Futuna the French territory in the south pacific??? Shouldnt that be included??? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 60.234.197.21 (talk) 08:20, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

In 2003 it went from being a overseas territory (France) (territoire d'outre-mer, or TOM) to being an overseas collectivity (collectivité d'outre-mer, or COM). I think this is analogous to Puerto Rico's transformation into being a commonwealth, which is not quite a state. That is when I believe it had achieved sufficient self-determination to be removed from the list. :)--Thecurran (talk) 22:55, 11 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I've renamed this page to reflect A) the actual name of the list, and B) a more NPOV about their status. Tverbeek 01:39, 30 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. That was actually on my list of plans for today.  :-) Tomer ^TALK 17:57, May 30, 2005 (UTC)

I added the names of other countries that claim some of the territories (for Gibraltar and the Falklands/Islas Malvinas) - I think it is of merit - if you don't, delete it - please add if there are any other disputed territories....--Pysproblem 16:01, 20 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Good work. :-) I just wikilinked "Spain" and "Argentina". Tomer ^TALK 23:12, August 21, 2005 (UTC)

I followed the link here from the article on the Falklands in the expectation that this article would explain what the list is, but instead it appears merely to present its contents. As this is an encyclopedia, might it be appropriate for someone who knows about this to add a sentence or two explaining the criteria on which the list is compiled and its significance in world politics?

Can anyone provide citations for where this list is regarded as "extremely controversial" (or even mildly controversial)? Tomer ^TALK July 1, 2005 02:23 (UTC)

France in the 1950's (Algeria), Portugal through the 1970's (various overseas deparments), Morrocco in 2005 (claims & occupies Western Sahara, while lots of Third World nations recognize the would-be Sahrawi Arab Democratic Republic), Britain (Falkland Islands, Gibraltar, other territories). There is some controversy about what is not on the list in certain quarters, like: the United States (some native Hawaians perceive statehood as a way of denying them their independence), Turkey, Iraq, Iran, Syria (Kurdistan), Northern Ireland, the Basque country, Sri Lanka, Northern Cyprus. Many people have seen fit to committ terrorist acts like bombing storefronts or even to fight outright wars, conventional & guerilla (Falkland Islands War, Kurdish insurgency etc.), over territories on the list or perceived as belonging on the list, so I think the issues of inclusion/disinclusion has in fact, risen to the level of "extremely controversial."

Google is rife with matches for "United Nations list of Non-Self-Governing Territories" and "controversy". The top match, is of course - this article!--Jpbrenna 08:41, 13 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Isn't the "Extremely controversial" moniker an NPOV issue?

What about Puerto Rico? Isn't it on the list?

(1) Why would it be? It's self-governing. (2) did you actually click on the link? Tomer ^TALK 03:31, August 14, 2005 (UTC)

And yet Bermuda is on the list and is self-governed. Nitjanirasu 01:22, 17 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Puerto Rico was on the original list, but after the vote to assume Commonwealth status in 1952, the United States lobbied for it to be removed, and in 1953 the General Assembly (still then largely under Western domination) agreed Newyorkbrad 00:07, 5 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Neither Bermuda nor any UK overseas territories show up on the List of United Kingdom Parliament constituencies, so while they may have some autonomy they have no federal representation; not even an observer appears on the list. As such, Bermuda and the UK's other overseas territories are ultimately ruled by a parliament they have no entry into, neither hearing nor speaking. This means Bermuda is not self-governing. :)--Thecurran (talk) 02:55, 15 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Nor indeed the Isle of Man, Jersey, Guernsey, Alderney and Sark. Sark has a dreadful political system (I've seen it first hand), which looks cute to tourists, but is rotten in many ways (e.g. there is no obligation for reciprocal healthcare, no proper fire service, no emergency helicopters etc(--MacRusgail (talk) 18:18, 15 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Who does consider it controversial? (other that plain wikipedians, I mean). Ejrrjs | What? 23:15, 18 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Please review above. Tomer ^TALK 00:24, August 19, 2005 (UTC)

Puerto Rico has no say in international affairs and the laws that are passed there cannot go against or beyond those in the U.S. constitution which they are powerless to change since they have no voting members in Congress.Add that to the fact that it is a territory that is under the plenary powers of congress, so there never was really bilateral pact between the U.S and Puerto Rico

The Resident commissioner of Puerto Rico is a non-voting Puerto Rican delegate in US congress. Puerto Ricans may also vote in presidential primaries but not presidential elections. Puerto Ricans seem to have been split between moving to statehood and maintaining the commonwealth status for decades. As such, Puerto Ricans have their own congress, influence presidential selection, hear sessions of congress, and have been allowed to vote for different levels of self-determination. This seems to be the UN's baseline for self-government. It seems that this status quo will continue until Puerto Ricans swing strongly towards independence or statehood or they find a way to get congress to upgrade the rights of a commonwealth. :)--Thecurran (talk) 03:11, 15 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

PALESTINE- Not List one of the clearest examples of a territory being dominated by another unfairly is not on the list controversial yeah I would say so. Puerto Rico is self governing it has had votes about what to do and if they wanted to split they could another thing is the US has more Puerto Rican then Puerto Rico so the links are huge families go back and forth they are PROUD PEOPLE and you do not need to tell them hey the USA sucks they want to dominate you i've never been to Puerto Rico or talked to Puerto Rican but the USA suck so you should break away because bush sucks .non-voting Puerto Rican delegate in US congress and no federal taxes its almost like they are not a state? They are not self governing in respect to foreign affairs or military because they are not a country. The UN has no non-western countries listed Tibet, Tuva , East Turkistan , Kashmir, the list is not done in an independent manner . —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.67.176.172 (talk) 01:44, 29 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I've noticed several countries listed here have a link to this article in their headers (e.g. "The United Nations Committee on Decolonization includes Anguilla on the United Nations list of Non-Self-Governing Territories[2]."). Given the controversy about places that have been included and / or excluded from the list, is this appropriate? As I understood it, headers were meant for very broad and neutral facts that were largely agreed upon (e.g. "The French Republic or France (French: République française or France) is a country whose metropolitan territory is located in Western Europe, and which is further made up of a collection of overseas islands and territories located in other continents."). Weltall

This is an interesting point with valid arguments. I'd like to see more publication of the list but it is not in the header now. I compared the current version to a reverted one in June and found few differences here http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Anguilla&diff=238177947&oldid=217734142 . As such, it seems the will of editors there has been to keep it out of the header. Until I learn more, I will not change it back. :)--Thecurran (talk) 03:18, 15 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Is there any material on the history aspect of this list, for instance, when was it first compiled, and which countries were on the list? — Instantnood 11:58, 20 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I can't seem to create a permalink, but visit the United Nations website at www.un.org and search for the Decolonization page Newyorkbrad 00:07, 5 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks so much. — Instantnood 17:52, 15 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Unless several good external books/papers/official statements etc are quoted, the "controversy" is but original research. User:Ejrrjs says What? 22:41, 16 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

http://theroyalgazette.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20050318/MIDOCEAN/103180143&SearchID=73235873091248.

One notable quote from it is:

"As far as the role of the UN in Bermuda's self-determination goes, I can't see where it has any role at all. This is a matter to be settled by the people of Bermuda and the United Kingdom government.

"We're a sophisticated jurisdiction that has already gone through this process as recently as ten years ago without the assistance of the UN."

Yesterday Dr. Gibbons said he had "no wish to get into the ring" with Bishop Lambe, but expressed concerns about the role of the UN committee.

"By definition, the UN Decolonisation Committee has a mandate to take colonies towards Independence," Dr. Gibbons said. "I'm concerned about the issue of balance.

"I have not seen invitations going out to groups that may have a different approach."

Dr. Gibbons also cited concerns about the message that that UN committee's visit would send to the world.

The article is about two divergent views - both by high-ranking political figures - on the on the UN Decolonisation Committee and its activities. Nitjanirasu 00:28, 17 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

A few other articles, again, they mostly focus on the UN Decolonisation Committee itself (and with some of the more relevant quotes posted):

http://www.gibraltarnewsonline.com/2005/10/07/caruana-seeks-calls-for-un-resolution-to-reflect-reality/

In his address Mr Caruana rehearsed the traditional legal and political position he has presented to the Fourth Committee in the past: that it is absurd that Gibraltar is still a colony; that all want this resolved; that the modern realities should be judged by the C24 (UN Special Committee of 24 on Deconolization (C24)) in a visit to the Rock; that self-determination is the principle that applies not territorial integrity and; the overriding principle of democracy.

Mr Caruana asked the democracies represented how many of them could believe that Gibraltar should be decolonised in a manner other than that chosen by its people. In a striking phrase he even appealed to non-democratic regimes saying that this view should not be “anathema only to countries governed in accordance with the principles of democracy. Simple adherence to basic principles of human dignity and common sense would suffice to find that approach to our decolonisation equally contemptible.”
::::To go against this and hand over Gibraltar’s sovereignty was compared by Mr Caruana to slavery. Such “recolonisation” would “constitute a modern form of trafficking in human beings.”

http://www.gibraltarnewsonline.com/2005/10/07/bossano-rounds-on-moratinos-‘keep-your-nose-out’/

“However since you (the UN) do not in our case show the remotest interest in participating in the decolonisation process currently under way we will have to settle for second best,” he said adding that when the negotiations are finalised and a decolonisation referendum is held “we shall hold UK to its word” for delisting.

Mr Bossano compared the UN Fourth Committee(on Decolonisation) to the three wise monkeys – neither seeing, hearing nor speaking.

http://bizoffshore.com/blog/_archives/2005/4/17/590283.html

The remaining members of the Special Committee of 24 are: Antigua & Barbuda, Chile, China, Ivory Coast, Cuba, Ethiopia, Fij, Grenada, India, Indonesia, Iran, Iraq, Mali, Russia, St. Kitts & Nevis, St. Vincent & The Grenadines, Syria, Tunisia, Tanzania and Venezuela.

Imagine that - Bermuda is being advised on how to go independent by the likes of Cuba, Iran, Mali, Russia and Syria!

There are, of course, pro-UN Decolonisation Committee views as well. This would all, perhaps, be more suitable on a "UN Decolonisation Committee" article, but this one seems to be adopted such a role. Nitjanirasu 01:08, 17 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

http://theroyalgazette.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20050719/OPINION/107190147&SearchID=73235877091122

The United Nations Committee on Decolonisation’s report on its visits to Bermuda demonstrated that the group brought very little to the table with regards to the debate.

The committee inaccurately stated that the Island has not been informed about its options outside of outright Independence or remaining as a largely self-governing overseas territory.

In fact, most Bermudians who have paid any attention to the debate at all over the last few years have been aware of the options.

But they are also aware that the United Kingdom has ruled out either having the Island become a “metropolitan” part of the UK or holding “associate” status which would see virtually no change from the current set-up and has never been anything more than a stepping stone to Independence.

The committee also felt Bermudians were uninformed about the possibility of its joining UN-affiliated organisations. Again, this is not exactly true. Bermuda has joined some of these groupings, notably the International Labour Organisation, and is aware that it could join others.

Finally, the committee stated the glaringly obvious when it said that Bermuda has historic racial divisions, which frequently came up at the public meetings the delegates attended.

http://theroyalgazette.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20050708/MIDOCEAN/107080130&SearchID=73235877091122

They also concluded that Bermudians had little knowledge of their political options under international law or of the international organisations the island could join right now.

The report states: "The Governor also expressed the view that the UK does not regard Bermuda as 'non-self-governing'. That point was questioned by several members of the delegation, who pointed to the relevant provisions of the Bermuda Constitution Order, which places significant power in the hands of the UK-appointed Governor, rather than the elected Government.

"The Governor emphasised that his powers, while extant and statutory, are not routinely exercised and, in a number of areas, have been delegated to the elected Government.

"It was the view of the Special Mission that such reserved powers are not consistent with a fully self-governing political status, as defined by international principles."

The Governor also told the Special Mission that the UK would not be offering the political options of free association or integration to the island.

That's all I've grabbed for the night. Nitjanirasu 01:31, 17 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I just found this amusingly ironic quote: "In 1968, Bermuda was granted internal self-government " from the Committee itself. http://www.un.org/Depts/dpi/decolonization/docs.htm Nitjanirasu 15:44, 17 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Copied over from the talk pages of User:Nitjanirasu and User:Ejrrjs:

In response to your request for external links to support the "controversy" mentioned in the article, I've dug up a few newspaper articles on the subject. Most of those describe more of a "we want to UN to butt out of our business" approach than people complaining that non-self-governing places aren't being included. They are also mostly aimed directly at the UN Decolonisation Committee than the list itself (though it is occassionally mentioned). And, of course, they aren't universally-held opinions.

In that case, it stands as original research as defined in Wikipedia and should be removed. User:Ejrrjs says What? 00:42, 18 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

How is it original research?

From the Original Research guidelines:

Original research that creates primary sources is not allowed. However, research that consists of collecting and organizing information from existing primary and/or secondary sources is strongly encouraged. In fact, all articles on Wikipedia should be based on information collected from primary and secondary sources. This is not "original research", it is "source-based research", and it is fundamental to writing an encyclopedia. Nitjanirasu 01:04, 18 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

P.S. I would prefer to continue this on the article's talk page itself, so that everything is compiled in one place and it isn't just a debate between us two (especially considering that I never started the "controversy" section) so I've copied all of this over there.

Should we make any note on the fact that the on-line version of the list - on the website http://www.un.org/Depts/dpi/decolonization/trust3.htm - contains some false information? For example, the population of Bermuda has been listed as 10% of what it actually is. Nitjanirasu 15:44, 17 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The official site show that the data is dated so although I find such a remark unnecessary, I understand it could be helpful. :)--Thecurran (talk) 04:58, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Brokencords recently added the text:

(West Bank,Gaza strip)occupied territories by Israel.

under the new subtitle, Middle East

I reverted the edit, as I cannot find any sources on this (including on the Committee's webpage). Nitjanirasu 15:39, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Whether or not Puerto Rico is a non-self-governing territory, it is not on the official UN list, which is the subject of this article. I suggest that P.R. be removed, and perhaps an explanation of the controversial nature of the list be added. Thoughts?

I agree. · rodii · 15:12, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I was wondering why Scotland has been excluded from the list.

Scotland is not fully self-Governing, being banned from having an army, finance ministry, defence policy and foreign policy.

The majority of the voters in Scotland voted Yes to self-Government in 1979, but the British Government ignored the result. (But when they voted for it in the 1990's it was duely grantedSouthEastLad 18:43, 27 June 2006 (UTC))[reply]

Surely Scotland counts as a non-self-Governing territory?

===>I'll guess The list is for colonies and Scotland, as a home country, is an integral part of the United Kingdom. -Justin (koavf), talk, mail 05:44, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The article addresses this to some extent: "It is worth noting that territories which have been annexed and incorporated into the legal framework of the controlling state ... are considered by the UN to have been decolonized, since they then no longer constitute "non-self-governing" entities, but rather their populations are assumed to have agreed to merge with their former parent state." Obviously some people might differ on whether this is the correct analysis of Scotland's status, but that's the way the UN sees it, so that's the way this article sees it. If you look at the actual list, you'll note that the territories there, for the most part, lack a complete governmental apparatus and are really run from the colonizing country, something I don't think is true of Scotland (or, arguably, of Bermuda, Guam or New Caledonia, but the UN hath spoken). · rodii · 15:20, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Late reply: Aye, and "Tibet is an 'integral' part of China". The hypocrisy of this list is extremely revealing. None of Russia or China's MANY colonies are included, nor Quebec, nor the Palestinian territories, nor Kurdistan, nor the Isle of Man, Faroes, Channel Islands, Basque Country, Catalonia, Corsica etc --MacRusgail (talk) 19:53, 14 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

First off, "In My Defens God Me Defend". I love Scotland. I kilted up for my wedding. I have a family full of redheads and a huge influence in my childhood was my Scottish Grandma Sugar who was raised by teetotallers but helped me teethe with whiskey. Nonetheless, there is a vast difference between Scotland and the members of this list. Scotland finally has its own parliament and has for some time had representation in the UK parliament. I am glad that the UK is finally getting rid of its mostly English hereditary members parliament but I wished it would go so far as to have a senatorial style system where that which offends Scotland, Wales, Northern Ireland, and smaller units like Cornwall, the Channel Islands, and the Isle of Man, etc. would not be passed. As unlikely as it sounds, I think it is still possible for motions to pass if they appease England but offend the rest. I like systems where votes are counted both per capita and per first/zeroth-level administrative division. Under ISO, Scotland is on a zeroth level. These other countries do not all have their own parliament/congress or federal representation, so although Scotland's situation has some way to go, it is light years beyond Western Sahara, which was half-conquered over 3 decades ago, or even Indo-European Kurdistan whose territorial integrity is split mostly between Turkic and Afro-Asiatic countries but also Iran and Armenia, Palestine, whose late leader, Yassir Arafat, was put under siege by its occupation power, Tibet, whose federal government persecutes its leader, the Dalai Lama, and has taken away the Tibetans right to choose his successor. I think it would be wrong for the UN to add Scotland, but I do see areas for improvement. :)--Thecurran (talk) 02:30, 15 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The omission of territories in Europe (other than Gibraltar) is a glaring one, whether they are controlled by the UK, Denmark, France, Spain or Russia. China too. China and Russia are still massive empires. The Channel Islands and Isle of Man are in a very similar position to some of these territories, e.g. Bermuda and Gibraltar. Both places have come to be English speaking within comparatively recent times, and French and Manx have never gone away as official languages. Norman has never gone away as a spoken language in Jersey, Guernsey and Sark.

Scotland's situation has improved in the last ten years, but it is still denied basic say over broadcasting etc.--MacRusgail (talk) 18:13, 15 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

And the purpose of maintaining this list is?... 205.174.22.28 00:06, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You should ask the UN, it's their list. If you mean the purpose of maintaining this article, it's because the UN list has been deemed notable enough to have an encyclopedia article. It's not some sort of politically-motivated effort on the part of Wikipedia, in case that's what you're thinking. · rodii · 15:12, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Article XI of the U.N. Charter provides that administering countries have certain responsibilities toward the non-self-governing territories they administer. As indicated in content I just added to the article, the list was originally compiled to allow the U.N. to assess compliance with those responsibilities. In later years, the U.N. has pushed hard for "colonial countries and peoples" to be granted independence, and the list has been used for that purpose. Newyorkbrad 01:35, 15 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

"According to this criterion of pertaining to the process of decolonisation, criticism from many activists, most notable of which are pro-Tibetan activists, is found groundless."

I can't figure out what this is trying to say. Additionally, it appears that Wikipedia itself may be passing judgement on the activists, rather than reporting on what the UN has determined. -- Tmhand 16:53, 1 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The "is found groundless" part is no longer in the article. :)--Thecurran (talk) 03:22, 15 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I am not certain but there may be an issue here with the names of the pre-Independence French African territories. I believe "French West Africa" and "French Equatorial Africa" included some of the regions listed separately (FWA ultimately became 8 countries and FEA 4). But I do not want to modify unilaterally because the names given (e.g. Ubangi-Shari, Guinea) are correct also. Thoughts?

Hmmm...yeah...I wondered about that too, when I saw the assertion that FWA was dropped from the list when Dahomey [now Benin] became independent. I'm not sure of the dates, but Dahomey was, by that name even, a part of FWA prior to independence...is it possible that Dahomey was the last area of FWA to gain independence, and that it remained on the list as FWA rather than Dahomey prior to independence? (Either because the list wasn't updated between the time the penultimate sector of FWA gained independence and Dahomey did, or because Dahomey was considered coextensive with FWA in the last stages, perhaps?) I don't have the list in its previous incarnations at my fingertips, but I noticed that one of the former inclusions was Sarawak, but I see nothing about Sabah. Is this an oversight, or was Sabah really never on the list? Tomer^talk 00:00, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sabah is listed under "North Borneo." As for the French African territories, I have figured out that the ambiguity originates in the version of the list on the UN's own website decolonization page listing the formerly non-self-governing territories (see: http://www.un.org/Depts/dpi/decolonization/trust2.htm ) in which some of the countries are listed as subheadings under FWA and FEA. Not sure whether we should do cleanup on the list on this page or let it stand. FYI, I believe that with the exception of Guinea (1958) all of FWA and FEA attained independence within a span of a couple of months in 1960. Newyorkbrad 01:35, 15 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Tokelau is currently described as "self-governing" on this list of non-self-governing countries. The article on Tokelau begins by saying it is "non-self-governing". There may be a sublety or complication here, but this should be clarified. Bwithh 21:33, 25 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Fixed -Justin (koavf)·T·C·M 21:52, 25 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Within New Zealand, it's considered self-governing (almost though not quite to the same extent as the Cook Islands and Niue). The United Nations, however, still has it on the list of non-self-governing territories because the Tokelau self-determination referendum, 2006 did not ratify the proposed change of status by the required majority. I think the best solution, which I have implemented subject to comments, is to omit the adjective here and leave any debate for the Tokelau article. Newyorkbrad 02:20, 26 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

According to New Zealand general election, 2005#Results_by_electorate, Tokelau has no federal representation. No internal government is mentioned on Tokelau. Despite a measure of autonomy, this falls short of being self-governing. :)--Thecurran (talk) 05:37, 15 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

How is the Republic of Ireland, which obtained independence in 1919 according to this list, on a list created in the 1940s? 62.25.106.209 09:54, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Because User:Gurrelliaprophet has been vandalizing the page. I have added a warning on his talk page. -- (Shocktm | Talk | contribs.)

Should there be a section on this entry for places, like the northern counties of Ireland or Palestine, that are still under occupation but not on the list? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.148.94.200 (talk) 13:07, 28 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Should not get into speculating what is or is not to be added to what has already been recognized by the U.N. itself. Unless there was a credible source given to discussions done within the U.N. about this topic, only then could there be a section done on it. That-Vela-Fella 05:30, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Northern Ireland has its own parliament and federal representation in the UK parliament. As with Talk:United Nations list of Non-Self-Governing Territories#Exclusion_of_Scotland_from_the_list, I think feel Northern Ireland deserves a more senatorial representation in UK government, but it is much more self-governing than territories on the list. Having Irish Diaspora on both sides of my family, preferring neutrality/pacifism, and preferring the Catholic Church over the Church of Ireland, it pains me to say this but Northern Ireland has it better than most of the world and further agitation has little to gain and could cost more bloodshed. With the growth of the EU, I hope to see Northern Ireland become just another part of Europe like the rest of the counties of Ireland. Apart from UK's intransigence from converting to euros, sporting events that separate Northern Ireland from the Republic of Ireland, and lower Gaelic education, Northern Ireland is kind of just a special part of the Republic of Ireland. Its citizens have the right to both Irish and British citizenships and thus can vote to influence both governments. :)-Thecurran (talk) 03:52, 15 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Northern Ireland has an assembly, but it is basically an example of British divide and rule, and a religiously sectarian state was maintained there for a number of years. People in the rest of the UK are well aware of the violence, but not the inherent religious discrimination, or the fact that the British government has played its part in stoking things up, not just the IRA. It should have never been separated from the rest of Ireland, IMHO.--MacRusgail (talk) 18:21, 15 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Surely voters in Gibralar didn't reject being a condominum of Spain and Britian? (from the headding "The Lost"). I assume this is vanalism that needs to be adjusted. It probally refers to the referendym in which voters there rejected shared soverignty. Jordanus maximus 23:16, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have fixed the vandalism but I really don't know if that information is necissary. Any input? Jordanus maximus 23:25, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think detail on a specific referendum belongs here, though of course it belongs in Gibraltar and related articles. Newyorkbrad 23:26, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Gibraltar is a funny point. I wish there was some international accord to uphold the basic premise of the Monroe Doctrine. Many nations are archipelagic in nature and cross the sea to nearby islands (cf. UK into the Channel Islands, the Outer Hebrides, Northern Ireland, and the Isle of Man, or Indonesia, or Japan). Something seems wrong though about the UK keeping continental territory like Gibraltar in Europe to itself when there are continental countries that span that gap. It also seems wrong that France should keep French Guiana in South America or territory in the non-adjacent Pacific and Indian Oceans like the UK does. It is easier to geographically justify Spain keeping Ceuta and Melilla in Africa but it defies the spirit of decolonization. Those two are the only colonies left in Africa. One might raise qualms about Equatorial Guinea with its capital on a nearby island but it doesn't span such great divides of total wealth, culture, language, religion, and race, despite its low development index.(Comment from 2008-09-15T12:35:58) :)--Thecurran (talk) 10:12, 25 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The main text says that they were removed from the list on request of the PRC in 1972. The "Former entries" list says that they were removed on change of status (as far as I know, they didn't change status until returned to the PRC, which is not 1972) and specifically gives the date of 1997 for Hong Kong, which is the correct date for change of status but inconstent with the main text. Ken Arromdee 18:33, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

They were removed from the list in 1972, and the official designation/euphemism used within the United Nations was "change of status" (when the fact that they were formerly on the list is not omitted from the record altogether). What actually happened is that the People's Republic of China requested their removal and the British acquiesced. The actual change of status, as you point out, came much later. Newyorkbrad 00:01, 19 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Gibraltar and Ifni vs Ceuta and Melilla --MacRusgail (talk) 18:36, 15 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ceuta, Melilla, and Gibraltar are mentioned above in Talk:United Nations list of Non-Self-Governing Territories#Gibraltar. I understand your comments but please remember that this is not a "Wikipedia list" but a "Wikipedia article" on a "UN list", so your comments should be addressed at the UN level before changing the article here. BTW, some of the things you talk about go beyond the scope of democratic representation to the "tyranny of distance" and are things that can only be expected in an economy of scale. These are global problems that hamper self-determination but effect almost every country on this planet to some degree and as such would make such a list nearly pointless. As technology increases though, expectations are sure to rise but please do not forget countries with low population densities or low development indices beforehand. :)--Thecurran (talk) 10:22, 25 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I want to congratulate the editors for this comprehensive list and the info it provides. I've not had much experience working with lists myself, so I'm going to ask WillowW to have a look – she's a sorceress with lists (and other things). Hopefully she can provide more thoughtful feedback than I. Here are some quick thoughts as I go through it.

• A set of criteria for determining whether a territory is to be considered "non-self-governing" was established in General Assembly Resolution 1541 (XV) of 1960. ... Also in 1960, the General Assembly adopted Resolution 1514 (XV), promulgating the "Declaration on the Granting of Independence to Colonial Countries and Peoples" These two sentences are referring to the same resolution, right? Should they be combined? (Also, is that hidden comment needed? Seems very obvious to me.)

• The Criticism section is desperately in need of citations. We need reliable sources demonstrating that these criticisms are common and as described in the article. I recommend at least one citation for each paragraph, and probably more, since most paragraphs contain several different criticisms. I don't think we need citations for each of the items in Independence, since those are in general easy to verify.

• For future reference: Any number less than 10 should be spelled out as a word.

Good luck with this; sorry I couldn't be more helpful. Let me know if you have other questions. Scartol • Tok 18:09, 24 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'd like to move this section to Wikipedia:Peer review/United Nations list of Non-Self-Governing Territories/archive1 and plan to do so next week. I've responded with kudos to you on my talk page. :)--Thecurran (talk) 10:08, 25 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The image Image:ReunionFlag.gif is used in this article under a claim of fair use, but it does not have an adequate explanation for why it meets the requirements for such images when used here. In particular, for each page the image is used on, it must have an explanation linking to that page which explains why it needs to be used on that page. Please check

• That there is a non-free use rationale on the image's description page for the use in this article.
• That this article is linked to from the image description page.

This is an automated notice by FairuseBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. --07:20, 2 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This section seems pretty unclear to me, especially the last paragraph. What exactly is it trying to say? Someone with more knowledge on the subject needs to straighten it out. As for the rest of the section, maybe a couple of subsections might help; maybe one for NZ/Tokelau, one for France and it's territories? Miken32 (talk) 04:45, 2 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Was Taiwan ever on this list? I have some flimsy evidence that it was, but some confirmation (either way) would be nice. – Kaihsu (talk) 16:53, 18 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Never was since the UN was founded. That-Vela-Fella (talk) 06:36, 19 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That-Vela-Fella is correct. When the United Nations was founded, Taiwan was not a separate country from China. From 1949 to 1971, the Republic of China was recognized by the United Nations as representing all of China; since 1971, the People's Republic of China has been recognized and treated as representing all of China (including Taiwan). At no time has this been viewed as a decolonization question, and in any event, it is difficult to see who the putative administering Power would have been. Newyorkbrad (talk) 01:19, 9 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Friends,

We all know that that the territory of Goa of the Indian Sub-continent was colonized by Portugal in 1510, and was under rule for 450 years. Goa was declared as a non-self governing territory by the United Nations during the Portuguese rule. This status is given to all colonized territories which were sovereign and independent before the conquest by the colonial powers. Later the Indian Republic Annexed the said territory through Conquest in 1961, the action which was rightly proclaimed as illegal by the UN Security Council as per Chapter I Article 2 of the UN Charter (Ref: http://www.undemocracy.com/S-PV-987.pdf , http://www.undemocracy.com/S-PV-988.pdf ) , S/5030. Subsequently a peace treaty was signed between Portugal and India as regards transfer of Sovereignty of Goa to india.

Goa stands as a sovereign, independent territory of the Indian Sub-Continent, since times immemorial (existed as sovereign thousands of years before Portugal conquest and the Indian Union) and neither Portugal nor India have the right to claim sovereignty over Goa without the participation and self-determination of the indigenous people of Goa. Thus the treaty signed between Portugal and India is legally null and void.

So why has Goa disappeared from the list of non self-governing territories? Kindly look into the matter. --Gaunkars of Goa (talk) 11:37, 6 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia is not a soapbox, please take this elsewhere. -SpacemanSpiff^{Calvin‡Hobbes} 18:36, 8 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

To give a bit of a softer answer, the list of non-self-governing territories maintained by the United Nations is a specific list that the U.N. maintains. This article is about the actual list as it has existed over the years, not for discussion of issues such as which territories or areas should be on the list, or the obvious fact that there have been inconsistencies in how the criteria for listing have been defined and applied from time to time. The indisputable fact is that Goa, Daman, and Diu has not appeared on the list since 1961. If you like, I can try to check whether there was a specific resolution adopted to remove them from the list, but I think it was handled more quietly, as in the cases of Hong Kong and Macao, or (a less well-known example but one involving another Portuguese territory), São João Baptista de Ajuda. Newyorkbrad (talk) 01:23, 9 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, That is what we have been trying to tell him rather politely from the past few months, without any success. If I remember correctly there was a UN resolution(or request) in 1955(and also 56?) asking Portugal to determine the wishes of the people in its colonies which Portugal ignored. Ill update it as soon as I find it.--Deepak D'Souza 03:17, 9 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Any person having thorough understanding of the meaning of 'non self-governing territory' and the 'right to self determination' will not argue further. Somebody please make him understand. Because Portugal denied Goa that right, India took the opportunity and pounced upon it and deprived it its sovereign right, this is the whole point. The illegal peace treaty between Portugal and India was signed only in 1975, so Goa ought to figure in the list till at least then. Please do not argue with half knowledge. You can take this as a challenge.--Gaunkars of Goa (talk) 15:45, 1 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

[1] - page7 Alinor (talk) 11:15, 15 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]