Talk:Uti possidetis juris

message: There is no reason to use a capital 'u' in the title. I suggest it is changed to lower case. Roger 8 Roger (talk) 10:11, 18 August 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: For that matter, there's no reason Wikipedia has the article Cat (instead of cat), Dog (instead of dog) or Holomorphic curve (instead of holomorphic curve), except for the boring convention that, absent a special reason (e.g. eBay, iPhone), the names of encyclopaedia articles always start with a capital. Uti possidetis juris is not and never was a phrase in classical or medieval Latin, so we needn't get into that.Ttocserp 14:20, 18 August 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: The term is foreign, fixed, and stands outside normal rules of English, not unlike the terms you use as examples: iPhone, eBay. Look at  or  as two examples among many. If you wanted to start an English sentence with such a term you would use lower case, or more prudently you would rearrange the word order to avoid the problem. When upper case is used in sources it is when the whole phrase is capitalised, in full or in part with the first letter of each word. Roger 8 Roger (talk) 21:33, 18 August 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: No, the term is not "foreign" (bejasus!). Go and spend three or six years learning some international law, including the difference between Uti possidetis juris and uti possidetis; who invented the former, and how recently. I don't do freebies.Ttocserp 21:49, 18 August 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Title change 

message: This really needs to be a subsection of Uti Possidetis. The paragraph that exists there is already 50% of this article and has more references. Mcdruid (talk) 05:27, 22 August 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: I would say no because they are two different things.  This article doesn't describe UPJ at all well - Hensel at al is referenced and he is one of the better authors on the topic .  As a legal principle, it was a rough and ready agreement between South American states agreed at the Conference of Lima in 1848.  There a number of states agreed they would define borders according to the administrative boundaries of the Spanish Empire as it existed in 1810.  It has been extended to Africa by the International Court of Justice but only in cases where both sides agreed to it as a guiding principle.  Despite claims to the contrary it is not a general principle of Intl Law, nor does it offer a means of inheritance from the Spanish Empire as for example Argentina now claims (incidentally not a signatory to the Treaty).  The article needs a radical rewrite but I've hesitated to do so for a long time because I know from bitter experience that various nationalists will come out of the woodwork to press various nationalist claims and TBH life is too short. WCMemail 07:10, 22 August 2023 (UTC)
replies: text:  how did your rewrite go? WCMemail 07:13, 22 August 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: I was going to but felt discouraged.Ttocserp 07:18, 22 August 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: I can understand that, its an uphill struggle for editors genuinely interested in writing neutral prose, when faced with nationalist editing you often get labelled just because you're associated with it. WCMemail 08:00, 22 August 2023 (UTC)

text: I know the feeling. As I see it, this article adds almost nothing to the UP article and can easily be subsumed into it.Mcdruid (talk) 07:19, 6 September 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: The article does a poor job of explaining UPJ, however, it is a different topic.  So a merger makes no sense. WCMemail 08:19, 6 September 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Roll into Uti Possidetis