Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 21:56, 16 May 2013

- -

		The Modest Barnstar
		For tweaking the Infobox template in a way that unambiguously states the results of the dissolution of the Soviet Union

 Robert McClenon (talk) 21:56, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

Some notes on sovereignty for future use

The Concise Oxford Dictionary of Politics (3 ed.):

Sovereignty is the claim to be the ultimate political authority.

Are you keeping track which specifically mention conflicts in the official Russian sphere of stomping about? So, historical = Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania; current = frozen conflict zone = Transnistria, Abkhazia, South Ossetia, Nagorno-Karabakh? VєсrumЬа ►TALK 01:43, 12 February 2013 (UTC)

Not at the moment, but I should do. I'm currently looking at the concept of sovereignty itself. --Nug (talk) 09:12, 12 February 2013 (UTC)

Bibiography

• Sovereignty: The Evolution of an Idea, By Robert Jackson

• Democratic Sovereignty: Authority, Legitimacy, and State in a Globalizing Age, Matthew S. Weinert

Publisher Taylor & Francis, 2007 ISBN 0415771684, 9780415771689

• State Sovereignty: Change and Persistence in International Relations, By Sohail H. Hashmi, definition

• Problematic Sovereignty: Contested Rules and Political Possibilities edited by Stephen D. Krasner, some definitions:

Sovereignty as a Theory of Legitimate Authority

• Revolutions in Sovereignty: How Ideas Shaped Modern International Relations, By Daniel Philpott

• Law, Power, and the Sovereign State: The Evolution and Application of the Concept of Sovereignty By Michael Fowler, Julie Marie Bunk

• Bodin: On Sovereignty, By Jean Bodin

• Globalization and Sovereignty: Rethinking Legality, Legitimacy, and Constitutionalism, Jean L. Cohen, Cambridge University Press, 2012

• Outline of what Hobbes' idea was in "The case for absolute government" in Modern Politcal Thinkers and Ideas: An Historical Introduction by Tudor Jones:

"By thereby establishing a legitimate basis for political authority, he could then proceed to define the rights and powers of the sovereign, as well as the limits to the sovereign's right to rule. These were to be the central concerns of Hobbe's theory of absolute sovereignty", "In tracing the origins and legitimate basis of the sovereign state, Hobbes argues that these lie in a contract or 'covenant' between the people. Whether instituted by a formal contract or agreement or acquired by conquest, legitimate political rule thus rests, in his view, on the voluntary agreement of the ruled. Specifically, that entails a willingness on the part of the people to give up their right of governing themselves to a sovereign authorised in his actions by every individual who has helped to form the original contract"

Soviet Union

I won't revert you again, but I suggest you get a consensus for your changes there before implimenting them. If those guys return & are still opposed, they'll be a tad annoyed with you having made changes, while they were away. Don't make the mistakes I've made. GoodDay (talk) 00:44, 7 April 2013 (UTC)

Lead edits to Soviet Union

I noticed your edits to the infobox at Soviet Union and was quite curious — how do you get it to include →‎Lede in the edit summary? Do you type it, or have you done something to make it include that portion automatically? Please reply at my talk page or leave a talkback. Nyttend (talk) 02:05, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

Seeing the message above this one as well as the article history, I now realise that you've been in a dispute on the subject. I'm not at all trying to bother you regarding that case: I would have left the same message if this were an obvious spelling fix on any page whatsoever. Nyttend (talk) 02:07, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

There is a "edit" link at the top of the page, got to look really carefully as it is easy to miss. It allows you to edit just the lede like any other section. --Nug (talk) 02:19, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

Reviving Eurohockey.net discussion

I came across your post questioning the reliability of Eurohockey.net and ensuing discussion, which I missed out on. I re-opened it here:

http://en.wikipedia.org/Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard#Reviving_Eurohockey.net_discussion 

. . . because I have some information about the site--namely that it's inactive. I think that's evident from visiting it and seeing that the latest updates were in March 2011. I know the creators of the site and they no longer have anything to do with it. They now operate Eurohockey.com, its successor site, which I mention in the re-opened discussion. Just thought I'd let you know. Cheers. Djob (talk) 16:37, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

Baltic Republics in Soviet Union infobox

Nug, you state that you have become tired of the battleground, but your insistence on a technical point of international law with regard to the content of the Soviet Union infobox rather than the uncontested fact that the Baltic Republics were occupied by the Soviet Union from World War Two until 1991 is why the Soviet Union talk page is a battleground. Your claims that other posters are engaging in original research are particularly tendentious. It isn't original research to look up the fact of the occupation of the Baltic republics and the fact that they had governments as Soviet republics. Robert McClenon (talk) 12:42, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

Well if you accept that the Baltic states were occupied as an uncontested fact, as you appear to do, then it follows that the Baltic states restored their independence rather than seceded as new states. So I'm scratching my head wondering what exactly you are contesting. --Nug (talk) 12:57, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

I am contesting two matters. First, I am contesting the idea of leaving the Baltic Republics completely out of the infobox based on an interpretation of international law. I agree that they restored their independence rather than becoming new states, but it appeared that you were saying that they should not be listed at all in the infobox, and I was contesting leaving them out of the inbox. I have now suggested that we also list them as predecessor states to the Soviet Union? Would that be satisfactory? Second, I am strongly contesting your allegation that other posters are engaging in original research. They are not. They are citing sources. They just aren't your sources, and the real difference appears to be interpretation rather than fact. Therefore, your claim that other posters are engaging in original research is insulting and condescending to them. You can disagree with them without accusing them of original research. Please be civil, and be aware that, to Wikipedians who know the rules, the accusation of original research is uncivil and rude if they just have different interpretations. Robert McClenon (talk) 02:01, 1 May 2013 (UTC)