Log InRegister
Quick Links : The Mindat ManualThe Rock H. Currier Digital LibraryMindat Newsletter [Free Download]
Home PageAbout MindatThe Mindat ManualHistory of MindatCopyright StatusWho We AreContact UsAdvertise on Mindat
Donate to MindatCorporate SponsorshipSponsor a PageSponsored PagesMindat AdvertisersAdvertise on Mindat
Learning CenterWhat is a mineral?The most common minerals on earthInformation for EducatorsMindat ArticlesThe ElementsThe Rock H. Currier Digital LibraryGeologic Time
Minerals by PropertiesMinerals by ChemistryAdvanced Locality SearchRandom MineralRandom LocalitySearch by minIDLocalities Near MeSearch ArticlesSearch GlossaryMore Search Options
Search For:
Mineral Name:
Locality Name:
Keyword(s):
 
The Mindat ManualAdd a New PhotoRate PhotosLocality Edit ReportCoordinate Completion ReportAdd Glossary Item
Mining CompaniesStatisticsUsersMineral MuseumsClubs & OrganizationsMineral Shows & EventsThe Mindat DirectoryDevice SettingsThe Mineral Quiz
Photo SearchPhoto GalleriesSearch by ColorNew Photos TodayNew Photos YesterdayMembers' Photo GalleriesPast Photo of the Day GalleryPhotography

Contested Regions

Last Updated: 17th Jan 2017

By Jolyon Ralph

As a worldwide mineralogical database with contributors from many countries we often have to deal with political disagreements over contested regions or areas regarded as 'frozen conflicts'.

In order to avoid taking any overtly political viewpoint within mindat.org, we have decided on the following rule to define how a region is listed within our political hierarchy.

Our primary concern is not to appease a political viewpoint, but simply to report on the reality of control of a region - on the basis that if a mineralogical excursion to the region is planned, which authority would be responsible for granting access.

At the same time, we do not want to constantly update our site with changes after minor border skirmishes and military occupations. We would not, for example, have wanted to incorporate Kuwait into Iraq immediately after August 1990. So our rule is defined as:

Any region that has declared independence or has declared that it is now integrated into another country will be moved immediately into its own (or the other country's) hierarchy if that decision has received wide international support (for example, a United Nations resolution.) In cases where such a change is either unilateral or has not received wide international support (for example, with the Russian annexation of Crimea), we will wait five years from the date of the change before implementing the change in mindat.org, to ensure that such a change is a permanent political reality.

This would mean that, assuming no change in the political situation, Crimea will be moved from Ukraine to Russia on mindat.org in March 2019.

Under no circumstances should our definition of regions be regarded as political support for the status of a region, it is purely to record the reality of control of a region based on our formal rule as outlined above.

It is possible with our new non-hierarchical locality system to build alternative political hierarchies that contain regions with a different political viewpoint (for example, a map could be created now for Russia that includes Crimea, if it is requested) but these will not be part of our official locality hierarchy.





Article has been viewed at least 3000 times.

Discuss this Article

19th Feb 2020 23:24 UTCVolodymyr Udovichenko

I believe that international law have to be respected, so the crime of immoral and dishonest occupation should not be supported regardless of limitation period anyway!

1st Mar 2022 13:46 UTCJolyon Ralph Founder

Our current policy is that we try to record the reality of control of regions rather than the internationally accepted political boundaries, hence Crimea is now regarded as part of Russia on mindat.org while the broader international community still regards it as Ukrainian territory.

From a moral standpoint this could be seen as mindat.org deliberately siding with aggressor states as opposed to us trying to remain neutral, which was the opposite of our intentions.

From a technical standpoint doing this involves us with more work than it would do otherwise as we have to check and decide which region declared independence at what point, and who is in effect running it. We really shouldn't be doing this. 

In addition, our national boundaries as downloaded from openstreetmap etc are inconsistent with our own listed boundaries for regions.

So, I propose we formally change our policy and revert to the internationally recognized boundaries. 

We can cover contested/breakaway regions with non-hierarchical localities.   We can have for example two different localities for 'Russia', our formal locality based on internationally accepted boundaries which excludes Crimea, and a non-hierarchical mirror copy "Russian Federation" or similar which would include the boundaries as claimed by Russia itself - with suitable descriptions on both entries.

We will be voting on this proposal in the management group.

11th Mar 2022 23:48 UTCAntonios Karatosios

Jolyon, you have my respect but you must take into consideration about Turkey when you speak about recognized countries.

Anybody wants to type in the gap of searching the word ''Cyprus'', the result will show the half of the island. And if anybody types ''Syria'', the searching will show the whole country.

Turkey did invansions to these 2 countries, Cyprus(since 1974) and Syria(since 2011) but the searching shows only the controlled northern part of Cyprus and nothing as about controlled northwestern part of Syria!

If you show Syria as a whole country, do the same for Cyprus (as a whole country)!

12th Mar 2022 13:13 UTCJolyon Ralph Founder

It's something we need to look at.

We do have the Island of Cyprus currently as an entry https://www.mindat.org/loc-306660.html

THere are regions that have had long-standing independence or occupation that have become part of the geopolitical norm.   If we reunited Cyprus as a single country we would of course have to reunite Taiwan into China (I'm not saying we should not, just that we need to be consistent)

We get into more grey areas with places such as the Golan Heights and the Kashmir.

12th Mar 2022 14:09 UTCAmir C. Akhavan Expert

>> If we reunited Cyprus as a single country we would of course have to reunite Taiwan into China (I'm not saying we should not, just that we need to be consistent)

These cases are very different, and TRNC/KKTC is declared illegal by the UN, and if UN recognition has any meaning, we have to go by it.

12th Mar 2022 15:46 UTCJolyon Ralph Founder

UN does not recognise Taiwan's independence either though?

12th Mar 2022 15:53 UTCDavid Von Bargen Manager

I looked at some of the UN maps and most of them are fairly old. They tend to not get involved in border disputes (or at least aren't particularly helpful).

12th Mar 2022 16:35 UTCAmir C. Akhavan Expert

>> UN does not recognise Taiwan's independence either though?
No it doesn't, and that's one of the differences, it has not said much about it. But there are several UN declarations about Cyprus. Cyprus is much more like Crimea/Eastern Ukraine.

12th Mar 2022 17:40 UTCAntonios Karatosios

As Amir said, Taiwan and Cyprus are very different cases. In Cyprus there is Turkish army and enforced there. In Taiwan there are not army that is controlled by Beijing. There is separate army which is controlled by Taipei (the capital of Taiwan).

That is why UN doesn't recognize the Turkish enforcement and declares the Cyprus as a whole island. If you look at the national flag of Cyprus, you will notice that there is the geography of the whole island in orange color onto the white background. And UN accepts this flag.

12th Mar 2022 17:59 UTCJolyon Ralph Founder

Cyprus now fixed!

https://www.mindat.org/loc-16569.html

12th Mar 2022 18:20 UTCAntonios Karatosios

Thank you Jolyon! 
And you know as a British, British army controls about 2.75%(254 Km^2) of the land of the whole island and it's a formal agreement between governments of UK and Cyprus.

12th Mar 2022 20:27 UTCUwe Kolitsch Manager

Maybe we need a new "Status" option ("disputed"?) for the locality type "Country"?

12th Mar 2022 23:40 UTCJolyon Ralph Founder

we have 'disputed territory' which works fine for this.  In fact it's better we use this because calling something a country implies acceptance.

13th Mar 2022 16:54 UTCUwe Kolitsch Manager

we have 'disputed territory' which works fine for this. 
 Thanks, yes, I had forgotten that this is among the list of locality types.
 
Mineral and/or Locality  
Mindat Discussions Facebook Logo Instagram Logo Discord Logo
Mindat.org is an outreach project of the Hudson Institute of Mineralogy, a 501(c)(3) not-for-profit organization.
Copyright © mindat.org and the Hudson Institute of Mineralogy 1993-2024, except where stated. Most political location boundaries are © OpenStreetMap contributors. Mindat.org relies on the contributions of thousands of members and supporters. Founded in 2000 by Jolyon Ralph.
Privacy Policy - Terms & Conditions - Contact Us / DMCA issues - Report a bug/vulnerability Current server date and time: April 19, 2024 04:57:35
Go to top of page