Talk:United Nations list of non-self-governing territories

Hawaii voting to become a state

"Not really an accurate description of what happened there, is it? Should maybe be changed" Seeing as the Hawaiian monarchy was basically overthrown, a sham election was taken place and the entire country stolen by the USA to just say it voted for statehood is a bit misleading, no? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Idontknowanythingok (talk • contribs) 20:58, 4 February 2022 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

• Flag of Réunion (Local).png

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 20:20, 20 February 2021 (UTC)

POV

I think the article may lack neutrality. The section “criticism” is too long, almost longer than the rest of the article itlself. It also looks like the editors are trying to defend the disputed territories status quo. I believe in the good faith of the editors, but we can’t ignore this is the English Wikipedia, and most of the territories or dependencies referred on this article are British. Gonzaloges (talk) 03:32, 12 February 2022 (UTC)

Requested move 14 July 2022

United Nations list of Non-Self-Governing Territories → United Nations list of non-self-governing territories – MOS:CAPS Wallnot (talk) 00:03, 14 July 2022 (UTC)

• Support: Yep, that's what MOS:CAPS says. They are a kind of territory, hence, not a proper noun. SchreiberBike | ⌨  12:37, 14 July 2022 (UTC)
• Support and speedy close: This seems very clearly in line with MOS:CAPS. —⁠ ⁠BarrelProof (talk) 16:48, 14 July 2022 (UTC)

• Support: Per WP:NCCAPS and MOS:CAPS. Looking at the lead of the article, this appears to be a case of mistaken use of title case for the article title. Cinderella157 (talk) 00:07, 15 July 2022 (UTC)

  The lead was changed in October 2020, without objection; that would have been a good time to fix the title accordingly, but that got missed, so here we are. Dicklyon (talk) 05:07, 16 July 2022 (UTC)

• Oppose: It may not be so simple as the MOS. The UN capitalizes this phrase in English. I suspect that may be because "Non-Self-Governing Territories" is a bit of bureaucratic jargon. It would appear that not all de facto non-self-governing territories are UN Non-Self-Governing Territories. For instance, there are no uninhabited territories on the list, despite them necessarily being not self-governing, and 2 British territories are not on the list where we could argue the point (for the British territories in Cyprus, the residents don't count as residents, and in the BIOT the residents have been expelled.) Also, the French Non-Self-Governing Territories (New Caledonia, French Polynesia) actually are self-governing, with quite a bit of autonomy, arguably more than the French territories that aren't on the list (Wallis & Futuna, St. Pierre, St. Barts, St. Martin). French Polynesia has itself argued that it doesn't belong on the list. The capitalization shows that this is the name of a set category and not just a descriptive phrase where we can pick and choose membership. — kwami (talk) 01:03, 16 July 2022 (UTC)

  We don't capitalize bureaucratic jargon. See WP:SSF. Wallnot (talk) 01:30, 16 July 2022 (UTC)

  And I agree with SSF. I've been in plenty of those arguments. But I'm not saying we should capitalize "non-self-governing territories" because the UN does. I'm arguing that Non-Self-Governing Territories are not simply non-self-governing territories, rather like the United States are not just united states. I may be wrong, but I don't think this is a speedy close. — kwami (talk) 01:35, 16 July 2022 (UTC)

  Non-Self-Governing Territories is not a country or otherwise a proper noun. Even if UN’s definition of NSGT is distinct in some way from the generic usage of that term, the fact that the UN specific meaning is intended here is captured by fact that this article is titled “United Nations list…” Not to mention CAPS says we only capitalize things if a substantial majority of reliable secondary sources do so, and there’s no evidence that’s the case. Wallnot (talk) 03:23, 16 July 2022 (UTC)

  Agree that the diff is captured by 'list' in the title. Tentatively disagree that it's not a proper noun -- that what this discussion should determine. We could argue that "National Aeronautics and Space Administration" is a descriptive phrase and so shouldn't be capitalized. The distinction isn't always obvious. — kwami (talk) 06:03, 16 July 2022 (UTC)

  As I’ve explained, the distinction is determined by whether a substantial majority of reliable secondary sources capitalize the word or phrase. That is the definition of a proper noun for CAPS purposes. All sources capitalize NASA. As Dicklyon showed below, sources do not consistently capitalize NSGT. So it isn’t a proper noun for CAPS purposes. Wallnot (talk) 13:08, 16 July 2022 (UTC)

  This is a lot like Walrasiad's conjecture that I've refuted below, having studied the sources. If anyone uses the term to refer to uninhabited islands or other things not on the UN list, those are quite rare. Of the ones that refer to the UN list/definition/jargon, capitalization is quite mixed. Dicklyon (talk) 04:57, 16 July 2022 (UTC)

• Weak Oppose I understand the motivation. But for this list, this is really a proper term, not a descriptive term. It is used in capitalized form in UN documents and in referrals to it. It is a recognized official status, with legal implications. e.g. if I am in a Gaullist mood, I can say "Quebec is a non-self-governing territory" on the floor of the UN assembly, and that's how it is going to be printed, but I can't say (and it won't be printed as) "Quebec is a Non-Self-Governing Territory", as Quebec is not on the UN list. Similarly, the phrase "debate over non-self-governing territories" is different from the "debate over Non-Self Governing Territories". Only the latter is specifically about the UN list only. Walrasiad (talk) 03:38, 16 July 2022 (UTC)

  MOS:CAPS says, only words and phrases that are consistently capitalized in a substantial majority of independent, reliable sources are capitalized in Wikipedia. There is nothing in there that says that points like it is a recognized official status, with legal implications are relevant to the capitalization decision. For comparison, president of the United States is a recognized official title with legal implications, but Wikipedia lowercases it in most uses. Wallnot (talk) 04:15, 16 July 2022 (UTC)

  If what Walrasiad says is correct, that the capped and lowercase versions refer to different things, then the reference to the UN list members might be consistently capped in sources, and that distinction wouldn't be evident in n-gram stats. So I will try to understand if he's correct, by looking at sources, before I support or oppose. Dicklyon (talk) 04:24, 16 July 2022 (UTC)

  OK, I searched a bunch of the cited sources, and a bunch of books with the phrase, and it's clear that the capped and lowercase versions are most often interchangeable references to the UN definition or UN charter or UN list. Even the UN is not consistent; e.g. this doe has the phrase all lowercase in one usage, and caps "Non-Self-Governing" (without Territory) in another. So they're clearly making focused on any particular proper name distinction or style rule. Of books with the phrase, many use lowercase. A good example is this book that has a ton of capped instances in titles and headings, but also a ton of lowercase in sentences. This is pretty typical of books I found. Dicklyon (talk) 04:48, 16 July 2022 (UTC)

• Support lowercase per the study of sources I present above. Dicklyon (talk) 04:48, 16 July 2022 (UTC)

• Comment We would not cap this on the basis that the UN does this, since the UN is not an independent source for the purpose of determining caps (per MOS:CAPS). However, the UN isn't consistent in its capping and thereby a good indicator that caps are not necessary or conventionally used (per MOS:CAPS). Comparisons with United States and National Aeronautics and Space Administration to justify capping here are non sequitur. Since it is not a comparison of like with like. We universally cap names of countries businesses and organisations even if they are descriptive. We don't cap jargon or terms of art for emphasis, distinction or significance per MOS:SIGNIFCAPS. While specificity of referent is a property of proper names, it is not a defining property since common names can be specific by use of the definite article (the) and/or and the use of modifiers. Saying that this is the name of a set category is actually self-defeating argument, since common names are category names. The evidence we must rely on is consistent capitalisation in sources and we are not seeing this. Cinderella157 (talk) 23:24, 16 July 2022 (UTC)

British Overseas Territories citizen status

I figured one of the UN's criteria for listing self-governing territories as non-self-governing would be lack of political equality with the metropole. British Overseas Territories citizens, for example, who don't have UK citizenship, right of residency or right to vote. That's rather colonialistic. These days most have British citizenship as well, but that's not automatic (with the hypocritical exceptions of the Falklands and Gibraltar). Does the UN mention this as a factor in their evaluations? Or are they simply declared to be NSGT without any rationale provided? — kwami (talk) 19:56, 16 July 2022 (UTC)