Talk:Federated state

message: I've overhauled the article as it stood.  However, it still needs an articulation of what a federal state is, how it bother differs from and is similar to a sovereign state, and how it relates to the federal/national level.  Silverhelm 14:19, 25 September 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Untitled 

message: i.  state vs. province: The "states" (i.e. supra-national entities ) are not provinces in the sense of province as a division of a centralized state for the purpose of administration (even though the term "Province" may apply, e. g. in Canada), but, as a rule, they were historic units that joined to form a nation state while retaining some of their sovereign rights. 
A centralized state's province may actually have been equipped by the central government with greater admin. powers and more autonomy  than some 'states' in fact still  possess, but this appears irrelevant. Thus the term province  should not appear in the definition of "State"
ii.  strong vs.strongly: Germany's federal constitution is not a strong constitution, but the constitution is strongly federal. --Marschner (talk) 13:46, 8 February 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Re: Revert of Jan.8, 2009

message: Which are which? john k (talk) 21:05, 10 July 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  sovereign vs. creatures of the national government 

message: The US recognizes the sovereignty of 310 tribal reservations as well.  Should this be referenced?  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Political_divisions_of_the_United_States#American_Indian_reservations  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 204.128.192.34 (talk) 18:21, 31 July 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  sovereign tribes in the US 

message: The title of the article has been moved from State (administrative division) to Federated state. The former title did not adequately reflect the subject of the article. States, as the term is used in this context, are not administrative divisions of a larger government. On the contrary, the federal government is an administrative conglomeration of smaller states.
Of the sovereign states that subdivide their country into so-called "states", only Palau is unitary rather than federal--Which means the appendix "administrative division" is only relevant to this one individual country. The rest of such sovereign states don't fit under that heading. The article itself addressed this technicality, but the title pertains only to states as administrative regions or provinces, which there is only one case of. Palau is perhaps the exception rather than the rule.
Therefore, I moved the page State (administrative subdivison) to Federated state to better incorporate the subject that we're trying to address. Night w (talk) 12:59, 3 October 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I support this change to the article name.  Good work Night w!  I am quite certain that this article (Federated state) will evolve over time as other editors add to it, I think the general direction is great, and will be much less of a muddle to build on than was the old State (administrative subdivison) moniker.  Thanks for being bold. N2e (talk) 20:56, 3 October 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks N2e! I was beginning to get nervous regarding what other editors might feel about this move. Thanks for picking up on that last notation--I hadn't meant to leave that out. I hope you don't mind, but I moved it to the paragraph that addresses the formation of a federation. I think it better fits in with the context there...Night w (talk) 06:50, 4 October 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm fine with that change too.  I think it reads better now with the earlier placement. N2e (talk) 12:51, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

text: Let's think on it for a while and allow some time for other editors to weigh in who may have interest.  One other possibility might be to, on this page, have disambig-type-top-of-article-links to the "non-federated states of Paulau and Burma", then remove the links from those pages that come to State (administrative division). N2e (talk) 12:51, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

text: BTW, over time, we are going to need to make this a much better article by adding the requisite verifiable, reliable secondary source citations for the many claims of the article (as it is today), as well as for the substantive claims of the explicitly non-federal nature of Paluau and Burma.  N2e (talk) 12:56, 4 October 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Article Moved

message: I just came across this article stub: Constituent state. It's badly written, uncited and very vague. It needs substantial work, but I'm also not sure about the subject it's referring to... Has anyone ever heard the term constituent state used? The text on the article seems to be referring to a multitude of different kinds of polities. I was going to propose its deletion, but I think it might be able to provide the solution to the Palau problem I talked about in the above section.
So...if it is a viable term, can it refer to states as administrative divisions? Or is it used as a more general term that can also include federated states? I also like the reference to the Somali states and Cyprus, altho the use on those could be controversial. I thought I'd check to see what others think about this before I make a move on it... Night w (talk) 02:28, 31 October 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Constituent state 

message: There's a problem with this article in regards to the terms various governments use. This article should refer to federated political entities--whatever terminology they choose to use. The division on this page between the governments that use "state" and those that use something else is not conducive to what I had intended the article be about. Surely state is the correct term to use for federated units, but obviously not all of them use it. So is the title "federated state" a problem--should it instead be "federated unit" or something similar? I'm inclined to stick with state, and just combine the two sections into one regardless of what terminology they use. Night w (talk) 04:50, 1 November 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: "Federal subject" might be a better alternative. Night w (talk) 13:26, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

text: Agree with "Federated unit"Gvogas (talk) 18:08, 11 July 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Terminology used 

message: Obviously somebody has put a lot of effort into this, so I apologise for being picky, but I had to remove the flags because the table format did not allow for them. It looked messy and was incredibly awkward to read. Night w (talk) 21:33, 11 July 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Hey, I was the guy of the effort. I made the table on the pattern of other related articles, like List of autonomous areas by country and I think that the confusion is just because of some countries having many federated units. I think that with a better format (like spacing the lines), we could use the information. The symbols of a subnational entity may not be relevant on articles about a sovereign state, but it is on a article about themselves. That's why I reverted your move for discussion. Regards.Gvogas (talk) 21:44, 11 July 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: A possible solution would be to display the federated units divided into 4 or 5 columns. Salut, --IANVS (talk | cont) 21:50, 11 July 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Agreed. With a better format we can use this information without looking messy. Salut.Gvogas (talk) 21:59, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

text: Really nice. That looks good for me.Gvogas (talk) 22:12, 11 July 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: That looks great. Night w (talk) 02:49, 12 July 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Nice job. Problem is solved for me.Gvogas (talk) 10:53, 12 July 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  New table 

message: How important is this? As it stands it seems to be confused, with no idea of what it is meant to do. Why in this article do places like the Belgian communities need to be recognized? Why do we need to know about the municipalities of Brazil? 
I think that all irrelevant data should be removed. I believe the column should be used for places like the autonomous cities, which are currently in the main column. Chipmunkdavis (talk) 17:39, 24 July 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: It is not irrelevant data at all! Federations are not always of similar constitutive units. The "Other Units" columns account for those that are considered part of the federated state, yet have a different legal status than the "standard" federated units. Salut, --IANVS (talk) 19:52, 24 July 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Ok, taking a second look to the actual contents of the others column, I'm not so sure it is that important in the context of this article. In fact, most "different" federated units are listed in the main column, while the second is reserved mostly to dependencies and autonomous territories. let's wait for more opinions. Salut, --IANVS (talk) 19:57, 24 July 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree that it is useful IVANS, just agree with your second point about bad current usage :) Chipmunkdavis (talk) 20:55, 24 July 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Agree, get rid of it. Night w (talk) 07:54, 25 July 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Why don't we leave it, but blank what is in there and move places like autonomous federal cities into it? Chipmunkdavis (talk) 13:18, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

text: Actually, this article is about federated units, referencing which states form part of which federation. It's not about how one federation divides its territory. Since the U.S. territories are not one of the 50 states in the union, they're not relevant here. I'm still thinking this column should just be blanked. No mention of dependencies seems necessary in this context. Nightw 07:24, 22 August 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: I dunno. It might be useful to show that some areas can belong to a federation yet not to one of its constituent states. Chipmunkdavis (talk) 09:04, 22 August 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, Federation makes the distinction between entities that have some inherent authority, and those that are delegated power from the federal government.  The chart there showing which units are major and which are minor makes more sense that what this chart currently shows, so I'm going to fix this one.  (I'm halfway wondering whether this chart puts some minor entities under the major column due to simple HTML layout errors, anyway.) -- Beland (talk) 16:17, 22 August 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Other Units column.  

message: I agree with the last opinion of the previous discussion: there is a distinction between entities that have some inherent authority, and those that are delegated power from the federal government. But the table make a mistake when it put all the entities that have a common name in the same position. I can't talk about the federal cities/districts on other countries, but the Brazilian Federal District (Brasilia) has the exactly same self-ruling of a state (only exception being that it can't be subdivised into municipalities), making it a main federal unit. Some reasons predcted on our constitution (relation compared with the states):
*Equal number of senators;
*Equal right of deputates representants (the number is proportional to its population, with a minimum of 8 and a maximun of 70)
*It has its own state government with legislation, governor and court (only the name change to district legislation), in other words, the duties that are designated for the states are not done directly by the union;
*For all these reasons, it is very common to hear people saying that Brazil has 27 states.
The constitution presents a minor federal unit type, the federal territories (with fewer congressmen and governor apointed by the president), but this division is not used since 1988, when 3 of the last 4 territories gained statehood (Amapá, Roraima and Rondônia) - the Territory of Fernando de Noronha was incorporated as a municipality of Pernambuco.Zé Carioca (talk) 16:04, 8 October 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Brasilia 

message: I see some overlap here. However, I see that this article, Federated state, was formerly titled State (administrative division). --JBrown23 (talk) 23:57, 4 January 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Merge with [[Federation]],  [[Federacy]] 

message: Why is Republika Srpska shown as of equivalent status to Bosna-Hecegovina?  Is this a 'de facto' recognition? If so this should be made clear, as 'de jure' this statelet has no formal international recognition, nor does it 'contribute' in any meaningful sense to state of which it geographically- speaking forms a part. 86.184.202.67 (talk) 17:00, 21 February 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: The country of Bosnia and Herzegovina has a constituent state named the Federation of Bosnia and Herzegovina. CMD (talk) 18:14, 21 February 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Republika Srpska 

message: Shouldn't the (post-WWII to present date) Italy be in this article? They have the US-created and american-modelled three-tiered constitutional system, 20 regions, circa 110 provinces, and circa 8100 municipalities (comune). Regions, like Veneto are very much independent of Rome. 87.97.104.118 (talk) 14:34, 9 September 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  La donne e mobile. 

message: For Nepal should be listed the seven new provinces.----Bancki (talk) 13:14, 19 October 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Nepal 

message: If Brasilia belongs to the 'states' column because there are so little differences between the 'distrito federal' and other sates, so should be Buenos Aires City (internal autonomy, representation in the federal senate equivalent to other states)----Bancki (talk) 13:19, 19 October 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Buenos Aires and Brasilia 

message: There should be a horizontal line between Bosnia and Brazil. Perhaps an editor with experience could add the line. Eagle4000 (talk) 14:47, 3 April 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: It's there on my browser, if I understand you correctly. Have you tried a different browser, computer or tablet to see if it's there or not? - BilCat (talk) 14:55, 3 April 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Horizontal line is missing between Bosnia & Brazil  

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links on Federated 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/20070309052417/http://www.gpoaccess.gov/constitution/html/amdt10.html to http://www.gpoaccess.gov/constitution/html/amdt10.html
*Added archive https://www.webcitation.org/6Irrm56u6?url=http://unpos.unmissions.org/LinkClick.aspx?fileticket=v067edqd7a8= to http://unpos.unmissions.org/LinkClick.aspx?fileticket=v067edqd7a8%3D&tabid=9705&language=en-US
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) 07:04, 29 September 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: What about Myanmar on the map?  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.96.37.1 (talk) 20:37, 14 March 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Myanmar 

message: The file  on Wikimedia Commons has been nominated for deletion. View and participate in the deletion discussion at the . Community Tech bot (talk) 06:21, 27 May 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  A Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion 

message: Argentina is missing from the map at the header
186.141.133.244 (talk) 15:02, 19 June 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Map - Argentina Missing 

message: The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion:
* 
Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 16:22, 3 April 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  A Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion 

message: The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion:
* 
Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 22:08, 15 May 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  A Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion 

message: The following Wikimedia Commons files used on this page or its Wikidata item have been nominated for deletion:
* 
* 
* 
Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 16:25, 15 April 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Commons files used on this page or its Wikidata item have been nominated for deletion 

message: The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:
* 
Participate in the deletion discussion at the . —Community Tech bot (talk) 06:53, 7 September 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion 

message: The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:
* 
Participate in the deletion discussion at the . —Community Tech bot (talk) 23:24, 4 October 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion 

message: The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:
* 
Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 04:52, 25 October 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion 

message: The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:
* 
Participate in the deletion discussion at the . —Community Tech bot (talk) 05:07, 9 November 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion 

message: The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:
* 
Participate in the deletion discussion at the . —Community Tech bot (talk) 11:54, 17 December 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion 

message: The following Wikimedia Commons files used on this page or its Wikidata item have been nominated for speedy deletion:
* 
* 
* 
* 
You can see the reasons for deletion at the file description pages linked above. —Community Tech bot (talk) 10:25, 7 January 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Commons files used on this page or its Wikidata item have been nominated for speedy deletion 

message: The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for speedy deletion:
* 
You can see the reason for deletion at the file description page linked above. —Community Tech bot (talk) 10:37, 7 January 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for speedy deletion 

message: The following Wikimedia Commons files used on this page or its Wikidata item have been nominated for deletion:
*  ()
*  ()
*  ()
*  ()
*  ()
Participate in the deletion discussions at the nomination pages linked above. —Community Tech bot (talk) 05:40, 9 January 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Commons files used on this page or its Wikidata item have been nominated for deletion 

message: The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:
* 
Participate in the deletion discussion at the . —Community Tech bot (talk) 06:38, 13 January 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion 

message: The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:
* 
Participate in the deletion discussion at the . —Community Tech bot (talk) 15:32, 2 March 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion 

message: The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:
* 
Participate in the deletion discussion at the . —Community Tech bot (talk) 00:38, 11 May 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion