Talk:Self-determination

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

You have new messages (last change).
News This page has been cited as a source by a media organization. See the 2005 press source article for details.

The citation is in: Arvind Lavakare. "Catch up on history, Mr Aziz", Rediff.com, April 5, 2005.

Zuni girl; photograph by Edward S. Curtis, 1903 This article falls within the scope of WikiProject Ethnic groups, a WikiProject interested in improving the encyclopaedic coverage and content of articles relating to ethnic groups, nationalities, and other cultural identities. If you would like to help out, you are welcome to drop by the project page and/or leave a query at the project's talk page.
NB: Assessment ratings and other indicators given below are used by the Project in prioritizing and managing its workload.
??? This article has not yet been assigned a rating on the Project's quality scale.
Top This article has been rated as top-importance on the Project's importance scale.
After rating the article, please provide a short summary on the article's ratings summary page to explain your ratings and/or identify the strengths and weaknesses.
WikiProject Ethnic groups open tasks:

duplicate with Self determination

Contents

[edit] Resolution to Problems?

I have spent quite a bit of time on this page, adding the theoretical principle and editing some of the previous text to make it appropriate only to geographically binding political groups, avoiding some of the problems highlighted bleow re. ethinc minority groups. I am unwilling to attempt to remove or rewrite the exisitng work re. Woodrow Wilson as I think this provides an interesting aside to the argument, furthermore the articulation of the theoretical principle, apart from its more recent political usage, adds a greater degree of balance to this article. Following these changes is the neutraility of the article still disputed? If so could people please highlight which sections and or references which are disputed? Muppet317 11:59, 05/12/2005

This isn't true.....

The UN Charter has been invoked to help resolve a myriad of conflicts from Kosovo to East Timor and in cases of ethnic strife or genocide, the oppressed are usually granted a reprieve from the oppressors and the right for self-determination out weighs the right to national integrity.

No.....

Despite the intervention, Kosovo is still nominally part of Yugoslavia and this legal situation exists precisely because because self-determination does *not* overrule the right to territorial integrity. The fact that Yugoslavia *still* is considered the sovereign power over Kosovo despite having absolutely no administrative control over it illustrates how seriously people take territorial integrity.

In the case of East Timor, the UN was involved only after Indonesia consented to a plebiscite on East Timorese independence, and again it illustrates how the right to territorial integrity outweighs self-determination.


Correct me if I'm wrong, but East Timor was never part of Indonesia in the first place. It's annexation was never internationally recognized, and thus East Timor was never seen internationally as a question of territorial integrity vs. self-determination. Same as with Western Sahara. Arre 23:39, 2 November 2005 (UTC)


You can also list a whole bunch of other cases, Somaliland, Northern Cyprus, the Kurdish areas of Iraq, North Ossetia, etc. etc. etc.


oops..my bad...but I'd say territorial integrity oughtweighs self determination when the government claiming integrity is the acting authority of the region in question.

Self-determination is an absolute and inalienable right. The principle of territorial integrity can only apply to prevent the cessation of integral parts of a state, e.g. to stop Liverpool from declaring independence from UK. It has no application in any other circumstance, but it is often used by "bully governments" to try and annex smaller neighbours.

Quebec hasn't been denied a request to have a plebiscite, there have been three referenda on some form of independence already and they've all failed. There are some interested issues regarding self-determination which the Canadian Supreme Court has ruled on.

An interesting example of an ethnic and cultural minority denied the right to self-determination is the French Canadians of Quebec. Quebec has repeatedly requested a plebiscite on independence, but has been denied. The law is in Canada's favor as Quebec currently, and has historically been subordinate to the government of Canada.
No -- Quebec has held two plebiscites on independence, and rejected the idea on both occasions. The contrary assertion is curious.

[edit] Independence?

The article currently says, "In most cases there is an ethnic or religious minority seeking independence from a majority to escape prejudice or persecution." I do not think this is accurate. Ethnic and religious minorities seek varying degrees of autonomy, and they often seek some kind of recognized status, but they do not necessarily seek independence. For example, the Roma seek (and in many cases have received) recognition in most Eastern European countries, but I am unaware of any movement to form an independent Roma state; many, perhaps most, Catalans prefer cutural autonomy within Spain to Catalan independence; Native American nations living within the U.S. are all concerned with sovereignty and recognition, but very few seek complete independence from the U.S. federal government. I'm sure I could pile on the examples, if needed, but my point is simply that self-determination is not necessarily about independence, it's about democratic choice and recognized status as a people. -- Jmabel | Talk 06:10, Apr 10, 2005 (UTC)

Disagree, there is a very strong Catalan independence movement. I have heard of moves to start a Romany state (kind of Romany Zionism), but none of them are really notable, their S-D is of a different kind. --MacRusgail 21:56, 31 October 2005 (UTC)
As a Catalan myself I find this argument by Jmabel totally out of scope. The issue that Catalans, as a majority prefer one thing over another is precisely the issue of self-determination. What is the current political status? Illegalization of self-determination. Only the preference of cutural autonomy is legally accepted, while Catalan independence is illegall, albeit political parties whose goal is independence are legal. Enric 20 February 2006.

[edit] A bit of a hash

This article seems to me to be a bit of a hash: more like notes for an article than an actual article. I get the sense of two (or more) subtly warring points of view and not much actual research. This would be a good one for someone with serious scholarly skills and some time on their hands to revisit. -- Jmabel | Talk 06:14, Apr 10, 2005 (UTC)

Now its less of a hash, but it's still uncited, quirky, and wrong on quite a few points.
Just to point to one of the most obvious problems: "Borne in the wake of World War II…": "Borne" makes no sense here: borne by whom? Perhaps "born"? But then that is simply wrong: the concept developed gradually, and if there is any one time when it can said to have been "born" it would presumably be in the wake of WWI, not WWII, in that it was the principle invoked in splitting up the Austro-Hungarian and Ottoman Empires.
I really have no great desire to work on this article, but it is still very problematic. - Jmabel | Talk 16:16, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] POV Disputation

The passive voice of so many critical phrases is the first clue that this article has serious POV problems. Another clue is that "the principle" of self determination is distinct from the phrase "self determination" or its articulaton as such but all those are conflated. The history of the principle of self determination is objectively as old as human social organization itself. Finally, Woodrow Wilson's "southern heritage" being addressed at such length -- amounts to little more than an ad hominem attack on the concept and principle of self determination. The fact that all of these violations of clarity and accuracy point to a devaluation of self determination makes a strong case that the article needs a complete rewite. --Jim Bowery 18:47, 12 Jun 2005 (UTC


This is true, but, when the new page is created, or reconstructed, please make a general definition section at the very begining to build upon durring the rest of the sectons, one i have found to be relable is the one from dicitionary.com.

[edit] On applying the self-determination principle

I've changed a sentence that was very biased and biasing, for a sentence that I think is more balanced:

"Hence, self-determination has been held to be an example of an advancement of the fundamental political rights of politically bounded 'peoples' at work, but also as an example of an abstract theory that has been implemented in contexts with sometimes severe political and national conflict."

The previuos version indicated that "sometimes" applying the self-determination principle was *causing* the conflict; may be the conflict included a party claiming the right of self-determination, but clearly this is not true in *applying* it as a possible solution for the conflict. My new sentence focuses on the issue that is shared in *all* situations, namely that the application of the self-determination principle is very often in contexts where conflict *exists*. Analysing whether applying the self-determination principle solves the conflict or keeps the conflict is a matter of historical study, not of personal opinion as could be interpreted from the previous version. Enric

[edit] Fourteen Points

Why are the Fourteen Points given so much prominence in this article? Reading through the points [1] I do not see self-determination or any conteporary equivalent mentioned once. I see three instances of territorial integrity, (a conflicting aim) and a requirement for Serbia to be accorded free and secure access to the sea.

Autonomous development is mentioned twice. This is a very different concept from self-determination. Over all the declaration sounds more like something produced by the Congress of Vienna, with the Great Powers deciding the fate of small peoples. -- Petri Krohn 19:41, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] THis needs disambiguation

THis is not hte only meaning of self-determination, there is the right of the individual to self determination or political freedom.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Mrdthree (talk • contribs) 25 July 2006.

In order for more neutrality, and to make the article more complete, this article should also contain the point of view of groups or persons that believe in right-wing politics, or from persons of minority (right-wing) groups. White (European) minority groups may fall in this group. There is often severe attack on any right wing points of view from the left-wing (political opposite to right wing). There should also be notice made of Minority groups (e.g. minority white groups) that want self-determination, but whom experience genocide. Left-wing groups may call such (right-wing)groups racists, ultra right, etc. whilst in reality they practice genocide against them. The genocide can occur in a democracy where the whites is a minority, but have to little voting power (by numbers) to form an effective opposition to the ruling party. The following is therefore included: "Ultra left-wing movements or individuals may be against self-determination of certain groups in an attempt to promote genocide of a specific group, or for own political gain or power. This is especially important when right wing groups request self-determination.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Jackes (talk • contribs) 19 August 2006.

Before Muppet317 hijacked the article, it was a serious article about the legal and international relations term "self-determination". No one is disputing that Muppet317 can talk about a million concepts from personal-determination to self-genocide. But that does not mean that he should rewrite the Genocide or Self-determination articles to list his thoughts on alternate uses of the article's title.
I also ask that you do NOT use revert before discussing the issue, although you may be lazy and wish to implement your snap decision with the flick of a revert button. You might FIRST consider the efforts of others and that people with expert knowledge who have their spent time adding to the article had a reason for editing out disrelated subjects that should have been put in a separate article such as Self-determination philosophy. Also, if you took the time to read John Mill's "On Liberty" you will find he dose NOT use the term self-determination and that Muppet317 had taken an insulting liberty against the earlier editors of the article.211.30.222.139 15:11, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

The Media-Citing of this article would refer to this [Self-determination] article edited on 21/Mar/2005. The article was created in December 2001 about the vital legal principle of Self-determination and after 39 edits by a host of people was cited in the media. It is a vital part of the Decolonization process around which the UN Charter and subsequent UN resolutions are based. / After being cited in the Media as a reliable reference on this subject, on 5/April/2005 somebody began vandalising and trying to delete the article. A few months later User:Muppet317 rewrote the introduction and rest of article in a manner that confused the reader and discredited the solid legal basis of the process.

It is a sadfact that most people wish to be apathetic and a lack of previous knowledge provides an excuse to leave obscure subjects to the bigots or other problem makers of the world.211.30.222.139 01:54, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

As useless as such comments as these are, it would be interesting if you 1) chose a pseudoname rather than just your IP, 2) explain in specific terms who you are calling "bigots or other problem makers of the world." We develop articles as best we can by consensus, not by reliance on previous versions, but on how to explain the concept based on the facts and on the context - in this case historical context. The only bigotry involved would be to claim that some high principle somehow implicitly favored one people over another. Because of its subjectiveness, this concept has been shown to be somewhat antiquated to a less globally integrated period. -Ste|vertigo 21:37, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Argumentation and counterfactuality

"Despite this, there had not been any Palestinian rebellion, intifada, or jihad waged against these countries." Sure reads like soapboxing to me. - Jmabel | Talk 06:19, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Undercited

There is quite a bit in this article that is weasel-worded and/or undercited. - Jmabel | Talk 06:06, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] "Puerto Rican Inter-nationalist group"

With reference to the Young Lords, "Puerto Rican Inter-nationalist group" is certainly clever (as a substitution for "Puerto Rican nationalist group") and has some basis in their ideology, but it seems to me that their Puerto Rican nationalism that defined them at least as much as any commitment to international struggle. - Jmabel | Talk 00:05, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Kosovo

There is a radical SELF-DETERMINATION! Movement in Kosovo (bearing exactly than name) which fights against the UN protectors of Kosovo and the Serbians, demanding that the Self-determination of the Albanian majority in the territory be accepted (independence from Serbia). --PaxEquilibrium 12:31, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Restructured article

I moved sub-sections to a more logical order, to keep the historical sections together, and place the currently active examples (US, Australia, Israel-Palestine) together. I removed the section on Wilson's southern heritage, if there is a serious source for this it can go back in the article. More work needs to be done to make the text coherent, and remove duplications. I removed this weaselish passage, until it can be clarified...

Given the rise of global transculturism and its effect on the concepts of nationality and nationhood, attempts have been made to reinterpret the "self-determination principle" in terms which do not rely on subjective or nationalistic definitions — typically reformulating the principle as an extension of Right to liberty, wherein a people ought not be subject to coercion, via the will of a non-representative form of government.

This seems to be the 'separatism invalid in liberal democracies' argument, if so, then it should say that clearly.Paul111 11:46, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../s/e/l/Talk%7ESelf-determination_d2ee.html"