Talk:Associated state

message: Should British dominions be included as examples of associated states from the Statute of Westminster 1931 until patriation of their respective constitutions? JDM1991 (talk) 14:36, 6 February 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Patriation is a Canadian doing and the former dominions are not a good example to use within the context here. Those prior to the Statute may have been, but it would be hard to find a source to state they were in such of an agreement. That-Vela-Fella (talk) 19:24, 27 June 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  British dominions 

message: The article List of sovereign states with affairs controlled by others was voted to be merged with this. I started the process. Please contribute with it improving (not undoing) the work. Thanks. 187.36.138.78 (talk) 02:21, 16 July 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Merging 

message: according to the dutch consitution, the relasionship bettewn the netherlands, Aruba, and the other dutch carribean islands is one of a free assosication. Therefore should it not be inculded on this list?--74.60.232.185 (talk) 04:27, 29 July 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Already are listed, but will be updated after the 10/10/10 date (unless some unforeseen event occurs beforehand).That-Vela-Fella (talk) 10:06, 12 August 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: The relationship between the Netherlands and the Dutch West Indies IS NOT that of free association. The islands are autonomous but integral parts of the Dutch kingdom. The free association option was included in the status referendums but was not selected by any of the 6 islands that comprise the Dutch West Indies (Aruba, Curacao, Bonaire, Saba, St. Estatitus, and Dutch St. Martin). 24.46.236.67 (talk) 16:32, 30 September 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Aruba and Netherland Antillies (soon to dislove by 10/10/10) 

message: Should these two be listed in the 'other comparable relationships: A dependent and a sovereign state' table? Alinor (talk) 14:55, 23 August 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm sure a lot of places should. It's highly incomplete, and I question it's value at all on this article. Chipmunkdavis (talk) 15:00, 23 August 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: OK, I agree. I suggested these two in particular, because of their large degree of internal self-government. Anyway, you are right that starting such debate is like opening a can of worms... Maybe we should first have an established continuum with clear rules for integral-part/autonomy/dependency/associated/non-self-governing/etc. - and only then start to populate lists, etc. Alinor (talk) 19:17, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

text: I also think giving this treatment to French Polynesia and New Caledonia would be offensive to French readers. An important principle of their constitution is that the French Republic is "one and indivisible". If we start listing parts of it as associated states we would be challenging this. For reference, note that the French Wikipedia article on Tahiti specifically states that its relationship to France is not like that of the Cook Islands to New Zealand. Ladril (talk) 15:58, 10 September 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: No-one thinks that Tahiti is an associated state, and no-one is saying it is. The proposal is that it is on the table of dependent territories, of which French Polynesia is one. (Although it has the official title of Overseas country) Chipmunkdavis (talk) 16:09, 10 September 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Sorry, but what's the point of listing it in page where it doesn't belong? Unless substantiated by reliable sources, comparing Tahiti's political status to that of Micronesia or Niue would constitute original research. Ladril (talk) 16:26, 10 September 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, that's a problem with the section. The inclusion of other idea is probably useful for the article, but there is a lack of sources discussing political situations (though there must be hundreds out there). I've questioned the use of the tables before, but the main problem is the old List of sovereign states with affairs controlled by others was merged into this article, and I disagree with completely deleting information. Chipmunkdavis (talk) 16:36, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

text: I problem I see (rereading) you noted in that discussion! Chipmunkdavis (talk) 16:38, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

text: You see? In the merge discussion I was pointing out that the merger would result in an incoherent page. Not that I advocate keeping a page of sovereign states with affairs controlled by others (I think it should have been either heavily reformulated or deleted). However, that decision left us with a mess of a page here. As in the Cook Islands/Niue case, this has shown why the wisdom of crowds often produces disastrous results. Ladril (talk) 16:46, 10 September 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: I've gone ahead and deleted the dependent territory section. Chipmunkdavis (talk) 17:00, 10 September 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  New Caledonia and French Polynesia 

message: RFC opened on their status here: []. Editors are invited to participate. Ladril (talk) 17:25, 3 August 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  RFC opened on Cook Islands and Niue status 

message: I think this page needs more balance to accurately describe what an associated state is. For example, the claim that "Free associated states can be described as independent or not, but free association is not a qualification of an entity's statehood or status as a subject of international law." This may be true for the associated states of the U.S. and New Zealand, but does not necessarily apply to other entities. It is unclear the extent to which this applied to the West Indies Associated States or those states considered associated as part of the French Union. The page definitely needs a facelift in this respect. It generalizes too much. Ladril (talk) 00:09, 10 August 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: Less technical wording too perhaps. Leaving the lead to the side for the moment, we should probably break up all the states in formal association into their own sections? Perhaps grouping FSM/Palau/Marshalls and CI/Niue as lv3 headers under a lv2 header for their country, and then another section for historical ones, perhaps also subdivided into lv3, and the last section for that comparable relationship table (which I don't really know what to do with)? CMD (talk) 09:19, 10 August 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: Not a very practical solution for this page, as the number of entries is quite small. Besides, the topic of the page is those states that are in an association relationship,  not sovereign states, so I don't see the point of bringing in a division from List of sovereign states that better serves the purposes of that page. If you want to write more details into the Marshall Islands, Micronesia or Palau entries about how they are UN members that's fine, but that should not be the primary focus of the article, in my opinion. Ladril (talk) 16:42, 10 August 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: I wasn't suggesting anything to do with the List of Sovereign states, or divisions thereof. Currently, this article mentions 5 states as being in formal association, the Cook Islands, the Marshall Islands, Micronesia, Niue, and Palau. I was suggesting giving each of those their own detailed (sub)section. CMD (talk) 17:38, 10 August 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: Sorry, I misread you. Yeah, it might be a good idea to do that. Though as you say, the third section is a mess. For starters, I don't see many sources to justify calling many of those entries "associations", and it's missing several historical cases (Iceland had a status of "associated state" of Denmark during 1918-1944, for example). I think that's a result of a decision to merge a rather bad page with this one. I would suggest focusing on the main table first, then pruning/complementing the second one as much as possible. Ladril (talk) 17:46, 10 August 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: The third section was a rather bad page. Interesting info, but hard to justify a list. I think historical cases that were officially associated states should be included in this page; it's not like this is a very long article. CMD (talk) 18:09, 10 August 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Overall comment on page 

message: What regional variety of English is this article written in?  I suggest that it either be tagged as New Zealand English or American English.  I noticed a reference that the United States provides defence for its three associated states.  That is a function of the United States Department of Defense.  Either we should change the spelling to American English or should tag this article as being in New Zealand English.  Robert McClenon (talk) 19:09, 17 January 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[WP:ENGVAR|Regional variety of English]] 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified  on Associated state. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20160121015618/http://www.niue.de/index.php?did=niueabstracts.pdf to http://www.niue.de/index.php?did=niueabstracts.pdf
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130527152705/http://www.cook-islands.org/files/nz-cki.pdf to http://www.cook-islands.org/files/nz-cki.pdf
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110728142815/http://untreaty.un.org/ola-internet/Assistance/Summary.htm to http://untreaty.un.org/ola-internet/Assistance/Summary.htm
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120305064608/http://www.upf.pf/IMG/pdf/12-RJP15-Pacific-Constitutions.pdf to http://www.upf.pf/IMG/pdf/12-RJP15-Pacific-Constitutions.pdf
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20160129075739/http://www.cookislands.de/index.php?did=cookisstatus.pdf to http://www.cookislands.de/index.php?did=cookisstatus.pdf
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 03:41, 20 October 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 3 external links on Associated state. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120121100604/http://unyearbook.un.org/1960YUN/1960_P1_SEC3_CH4.pdf to http://unyearbook.un.org/1960YUN/1960_P1_SEC3_CH4.pdf
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20160304000423/http://www.mfai.gov.ck/attachments/068_WELLINGTON-1129712-v1-CookIslands%20%20Constitutional%20Status%20and%20International%20Personality%20%20informationpaper.pdf to http://www.mfai.gov.ck/attachments/068_WELLINGTON-1129712-v1-CookIslands%20%20Constitutional%20Status%20and%20International%20Personality%20%20informationpaper.pdf
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20131019223055/http://legal.un.org/repertory/art102/english/rep_supp8_vol6-art102_e_advance.pdf to http://legal.un.org/repertory/art102/english/rep_supp8_vol6-art102_e_advance.pdf
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 21:46, 10 July 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: What about member states of the European Union? The European Union was a 'sui generis' supranational organisation which had 12 (later 15) member states. The member states had transferred a measure of their legislative, executive, and judicial powers to the institutions of the EU, and as such the EU had some elements of sovereignty, without generally being considered a sovereign state. The European Union did not claim to be a sovereign state and had only limited capacity for relations with other states.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.96.37.1 (talk) 08:51, 24 March 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: I think the part about the EU not being a sovereign state means that the member states aren't associated states of the EU. Clarinetguy097 (talk) 15:11, 24 March 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  European Union 

message: It simply doesn't. It doesn't list any "Principle VI", nor any "principle" whatsoever. 152.115.85.150 (talk) 08:49, 13 September 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  UNGA Assembly resolution A/RES/1514(XV) does not discuss "free association". 

message: Denmark and greenland are not mentioned on this page? is there a reason for this 92.3.37.93 (talk) 17:01, 14 November 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: Greenland and the Faroe Islands are self-governing territories of Denmark, not independent states. Vif12vf/Tiberius (talk) 23:49, 14 November 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Denmark and greenland