Talk:Statelessness

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This article is a candidate for the Good Article Collaboration of the week. Please visit Statelessness's nomination to support or comment on the nomination.

Statelessness was a good article nominee, but did not meet the good article criteria at the time. There are suggestions below for improving the article. Once these are addressed, the article can be renominated. Editors may also seek a reassessment of the decision if they believe there was a mistake. Reviewed version: February 20, 2007

Statelessness has had a peer review by Wikipedia editors which is now archived. It may contain ideas you can use to improve this article.

	This article is supported by the Sociology WikiProject, which gives a central approach to sociology and related subjects on Wikipedia. Please participate by editing the article Statelessness, or visit the project page for more details on the projects.
Start	This article has been rated as Start-Class on the quality scale.
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the importance scale.

This page has the exact same text and pics as 1961 Convention on the Reduction of Statelessness. I suggest that one be merged into the other. (Ghostexorcist 03:39, 15 February 2007 (UTC))

Contents 1 No to merge proposal 2 Well done to ghostexorcist who placed these pictures much better than I did and filled in text 3 Merge and Unreferenced Tags removed 4 GA NOM 5 GA failure 6 Merging "Stateless person" and "Statelessness"

[edit] No to merge proposal

This page and the other pages about the 'status' and 'reduction' conventions of '54 and '61 have now been differentiated. There is some common content. Thank you for tagging for cleanup, etc.DavidYork71 05:40, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

Though some articles have similar material, all of your pages use the same uncited info over and over again. If you look at the page from this edit, you will see that the '61 page was identical, same sub-headings and everything. And now, even after your multiple edits, these pages still share 60% (and I'm being kind here) of the material. There has not been enough differentiation to merit taking down the merge tag. Either expand this page with new info or merge the two.(Ghostexorcist 07:29, 15 February 2007 (UTC))

[edit] Well done to ghostexorcist who placed these pictures much better than I did and filled in text

Re merge proposal with the page on the Statelessness Reduction Convention I still resist this because: 1. the 1961 Convention deserves a page of its own setting out greater detail eg. fuller explanation of the Convention content, the full list of States acceding. '1961 Convention' is now only a small part of this article. 2. the realising of the Convention is a seminal achievement in international humanitarian law. Let's have a Wiki page all of its own to remember the moment when the nations of the world did and said something solemn and uplifting for all the people of the world who didn't have a nation! DavidYork71 12:17, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Merge and Unreferenced Tags removed

this article now has four references, plus external links. Content is differentiated from '61 Convention page by treaty text summary appearing there while history of UN action and regional initiatives is mentioned here. Does anyone have infomation about the (proposed?) UN Special Rapporteur on statelessness. DavidYork71 05:19, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] GA NOM

I'm not going to be reviewing this for GA status since I've done some very minor work on the page. But, like I said for the '61 page, this article is going to quickly fail the nomination. It is still more of a list than an article, the sections are too small, and there are only four citations. I'm not trying to be mean, I'm being realistic. There is no set limit for citations, but since this article features a very broad topic, more than four are needed. You also seem to favor statelessness in the 20th century more than that which happened in the past. The article would be better balanced if you offered just as much info on events of statelessness in ancient times as you do the 20th century. Also, try to focus more on countries outside of Europe and Asia Minor. You only briefly touch on Asia Major.

I know for instance, during the Great Anti-Buddhist Persecution of Tang Dynasty China, which was apart of the Four Buddhist Persecutions in China, masses of Non-Chinese people, who had lived there for centuries, were driven out of the country because their religious beliefs were considered heretical forms of Buddhism. These people where forced to the outlying regions of China that were not under the direct control of the Chinese empire.

I think you are really getting a head of yourself when you try to nominate these fledgling articles. You should take the time and build up material before doing so. I see that you have requested a Peer Review. You should have several peer reviews and make requested changes where needed before nominating anything. (Ghostexorcist 00:15, 19 February 2007 (UTC))

Good suggestions. Peer review will attract examination, interest, contributions and ideas.

[edit] GA failure

I've failed this for assesment as a GA for a number of reasons that look too large to resolve in a few days

• The lead does not summarise the article per WP:LEAD but is just a series of definitions of the subject
• Much of the article is written in list or dot-point form intermingled with short, single-sentence paragraphs. The text needs to be rewritten as prose.
• Most of the article is unreferenced and the existing references are not well formatted (see WP:CITE)
• boldfacing statelessness everywhere in the article seems a trifle excessive

Really needs an extensive rewrite and a lot of work, followed by the peer review I can see the link for above - Peripitus (Talk) 07:20, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Merging "Stateless person" and "Statelessness"

Stateless person and Statelessness basically talk about the same topic: statelessness of a person. I am aware that the articles are large already. I suggest to merge them and then to see how they may be reasonably split into subtopics. For example UN on statelessness is a well-separable topic. `'Miikka 18:32, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

Maybe it would be better to merge them the other direction? I think the current version of statelessness is seriously flawed by a basic assumption that owing allegiance to a state is a good thing, a necessary thing for an individual. While from a practical point of view that may be true, I think that's a flaw in the way the world currently works. I like the current version of stateless person better from that standpoint, although I admit it's a less detailed article.

On the other hand, if the POV problem were addressed, I wouldn't really care which title the merged article ended up at. --Trovatore 18:51, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

Both articles have their own, as well as common, problems. I don't even want to list them now. Before tackling them, IMO the texts must be merged, under whatever title. `'Miikka 19:15, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

I agree that statelessness may be a little biased, these two articles contain a vast amount of the same information --