Talk:List of irredentist claims or disputes

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

I would like to put forth an open challenge to anyone to show how "United North America" qualifies as "irredentist" any more than would the European Union. It simply is not appropriate for mention in this article, or at least it is no more appropriate than is the European Union. Dogface 17:34, 9 April 2006 (UTC)

Can you show us where it is listed as an irredentist state?--Zereshk 05:34, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

Can you show how it is any more appropriate as a "see also" under the article "Irredentist State" than would be the European Union?Dogface 17:21, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

What should be linked in a WP article:

"Major connections with the subject of another article that will help readers to understand the current article more fully. This can include people, events and topics that already have an article or that clearly deserve one, as long as the link is relevant to the article in question." [1]

So for your case, for example, by looking at United North America, as a linked article, people can see the differences that exist in concept between the former and the latter, and hence learn more about the current topic.--Zereshk 21:02, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

You have evaded my question, which I expected. How is "United North America" specifically more appropriate than the European Union?Dogface

I actually gave you a direct simple reply. Appearing on a "See also" list doesntnecessarily make UNA an irredentist state.--Zereshk 22:51, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

You would have a lot more credibility if Wikipedia didn't preserve a history of edits. You are the user who [added] "United North America" explicitly as an irredentist state. Therefore, it is reasonable to presume that you want it to remain mentioned in this article to at least provide guilt by association. Dogface 15:46, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

And you are the one who erased it from a "See also" list for no good reason, as if trying to hide something. What are you afraid of?--Zereshk 18:11, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

I'm not trying to "hide" anything. You are the one who intentionally misrepresented "United North America" as an "irredentist state". Since it was quite obviously not one, you had to find some other way to sneak it in. United North America is no more appropriate as a "See Also" than is the European Union. Nevertheless, you magically managed to never put the EU into the article as a "see also". Given that the EU is equally as valid, and far better known, it is reasonable to presume an agenda on your part. Dogface 19:46, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

Fine. We can put EU there, as well as a bunch of other related article links.--Zereshk 20:57, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

From irredentism: Irredentism is an international relations term that involves advocating annexation of territories administered by another state on the grounds of common ethnicity ... United North America certainly fits the bill - the website doesn't include the northern provinces of Nunavut because of different culture, and presumably doesn't include Mexico because of cultural differences as well. The FAQ makes it pretty clear that a merge of the U.S. and Canada is possible due to shared culture and history. That's irredentist. SouthernComfort 21:52, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

Do not use Wikipedia as an infallible source. Its definition of "irredentism" leaves out some very important matters, specifically the idea of "restoring" territory that "rightfully" belongs to one country or another. There is no such attitude to "United North America". Dogface 00:25, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

Ah, so now WP is wrong, and you get to define what irredentism means.--Zereshk 12:48, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Ireland

This is an awkward description: 'The PIRA's claim that British rule in Northern Ireland hinders the prospect of a United Ireland. '

1) The PIRA is not a state. The Republic of Ireland is. Do we know if the Republic claims Northern Ireland? If not, we need to adjust this entry somehow.

2) We don't need to say that having another government control land that your goverment claims will 'hinder the prospect for a United' anything. That's pretty obvious, isn't it? MilesVorkosigan 19:31, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

I changed some names and titles. See if that fits better.--Zereshk 21:02, 11 April 2006 (UTC)