On 13/05/15 14:54, Adam Roach wrote: > That's a highly uncontroversial example, given that the area is > uncontentiously recognized as Catalonia. Your proposal only sounds > reasonable on its surface because you're ignoring the more problematic > designations I mentioned, like Kurdistan and ISIL.
Kurdistan is a valid name for a region, recognised by the country (Iraq) in which it sits. Assuming the field is named "Country or region", then there would be no political problem. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iraqi_Kurdistan notes "also known as the Kurdistan Region ... The region is officially governed by the Kurdistan Regional Government.") > This is a politically charged area with subtleties that would take > entire careers in political science to correctly understand, and it > could have real consequences that are difficult to foresee (would adding > Tibet to the list get the reps site blocked in China?). Tibet is a valid name for a region, recognised by the country (China) in which it sits. Assuming the field is named "Country or region", then there would be no political problem. I'm fairly sure this is a common way to solve this problem. I bought a map the other day, which had the equivalent in the key of: - - - - : country boundary - - - - : regional boundary i.e. the two were denoted the same. They just then ran this along both borders of a disputed area. The only example you have which might be problematic is ISIS, and I doubt we'll get anyone from there. I recognise the issues you are pointing out, but it turns out people need to find a way of living, and so we are not the first people to hit this problem, and it is not one with no solution. Gerv _______________________________________________ governance mailing list [email protected] https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/governance
