text:
Talk:Premier Election Solutions

Diebold -> Permier
this sentence sounds like marketing-blabla because i couldn't find any information that more than the name has changed:

In this incarnation, the organization is much more autonomous from the main Diebold company, both financially and regarding decision making.

and the real reasons are obviously named here http://money.cnn.com/magazines/fortune/fortune_archive/2006/11/13/8393084/index.htm ;)

--Taintain 19:26, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

Security Issues
http://www.bradblog.com/?p=4066

—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 207.62.247.10 (talk) 20:52, 25 January 2007 (UTC).

Article merger
I've started a thread at Talk:Diebold about merging this article with the Diebold article. JamesMLane 07:30, 19 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Where does the 80% figure come from? 22:06, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

cleanup
This article needs serious cleanup. Anyone want to help? -- Joebeone (Talk) 00:15, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

I've created some section titles and moved stuff around, so we can at least see what's going on in this article. Lots more to do though. Kisch 11:02, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

Links to wrong Stephen Heller
Page links to the unrelated composer Stephen Heller, not a new stub

I contacted Kathy Dopp of the newly formed National Election Data Archive, who has all the last minute information about Diebold. I hope she will post.

Link to National Election Data Archive
Here is the link to the National Election Data Archive, headed by Kathy Dopp.

Originally a group of statisticians compared the national 2006 election exit polls to the voting results and determined that mathematically the differences were too great to explain in any legitimate way. However it was not possible to get all the data needed to prove this definitively.

They formed NEDA with the purpose of creating a national database of election results to bring transparency to the election process. With all the numbers available, any statistician could do the math.

As part of this mission, NEDA follows the Diebold situation and lobbies for voter-verified ballots. A record of their activities, with many articles about the Diebold machines, can be found on this website:

USA Count Votes  --Aenb 13:21, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

Princeton
The Princeton analysis of the Deibold's weakness has been referenced as further reading but not mentioned. └ VodkaJazz / talk ┐ 12:44, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

 * This really should be added... and that section should be cleaned up to be less add-on to more narrative. -- Joebeone (Talk) 23:14, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

 * If this referance is added, counter point articles to this old article also have to be added so as not to violate NPOV 75.169.254.116 (talk) 14:41, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

References section needs help
Hi, the references section of this article needs help. Each ref should use one of the WP:CITET templates. -- Joebeone (Talk) 23:15, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

Name change
As user:Rosicrucian noted, Diebold Election Systems has announced that it's changing its name to "Premier Election Solutions". Their website has already changed over. The company's is governance structure is also being changed significantly. We'll need to move the article and we should add some text on the changes. I'll take care of the move. Though I can think of some good reasons to leave the article name unchanged, those are all overriden by the undeniable fact of the new name. Any other views? ·:· Will Beback ·:· 08:42, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

 * here is a link from PC World about the name change [] Diebold Can't Sell E-Voting Subsidiary 75.169.253.116 (talk) 14:22, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

Diebold tampering with this page
Recently read this report on BBC: Perhaps this might be included in the main body of the article? User talk:Anonymous(first time posting, hope I did correctly.) 04:06 19 August —The preceding  signed but undated.

 * That article talks about "Diebold", not "Diebold Election Systems". ·:· Will Beback  ·:· 02:58, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

reference 16
is a blog... should be removed71.225.205.124 (talk) 06:33, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

 * You're right that blogs normally aren't used as sources. However that blog was linked because it had a copy of some text from an NYT article. So instead of deleting it I fixed the link so it goes straight to the original article. ·:· Will Beback  ·:· 06:45, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

Kathy Dopp could help
[moved to bottom because of 15 May 2008 edit]

I've alerted Kathy Dopp to the presence of this page. She runs the newly formed National Election Data Archive. Their purpose is to create a database for all election results so discrepancies are easily examined. She knows every last detail of the Diebold story.

 * Any contribution to this article by Kathy Dopp, or any other activist, would violate the Wikipedia is not a soapbox, WP:NOTSOAPBOX. Further more, NPOV requires views to be represented without bias. This article all ready has issues with Neutrality WP:NPOV, Undue weight WP:Undue weight, Fairness of tone, Attributing and substantiating biased statements, and a news blog tone WP:NOT. 75.169.254.116 (talk) 14:37, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

 * From the link given just above, under "Diebold tampering with this page": "In October 2005, a person using a Diebold computer removed paragraphs about Walden O'Dell, chief executive of the company, which revealed that he had been "a top fund-raiser" for George Bush." I think it's a given that some of the people editing this article will have what Wikipedia considers to be a conflict of interest, and yes that's a problem, and the solution is to make sure that information in this article comes from the best of the available Reliable sources.  I agree that there's a problem with tone, but the problem is that, for a variety of electronic voting machines used in the US, no one writing in a reliable source has ever made a case (that wasn't instantly rebutted) that they were tamper-proof.  The only case that has been made (successfully) is that they didn't think it was likely that anyone would try.  Any new information involving certification of tamper-proof features would be extremely welcome in this article, and would help to even out the tone. - Dan Dank55 (talk)(mistakes) 14:49, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

 * Any editing by people with conflicts of interest is not good and will most likely result in the NPOV becoming Biased. Since this is Voting related I think the [|EAC] should be used as a reliable source. The EAC certifies the Voting machines and is the location where the most current information about what machines, software, and manufactures are certified for voting. Some States have their own state certification process and might be another place to find reliable sources. I would assume the EAC would have more neutrality then typical writers about voting machines. Where the State Certification reports could be biased by the testing labs and or certification report writers. 75.169.254.116 (talk) 15:36, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

 * No, a political body is specifically not neutral about political matters; and on top of that, it's already clear in the article that the software was certified for use in the last election; and on top of that, that's not the question. The software was certified by various government officials as being "good enough" or "better than some alternatives", but no one has even tried to make the case that it is tamper-proof, and this more than any other issue is what contributes to the tone that you don't like in this article.  Find a reliable source that supports your position, if that's what you want the article to say. - Dan Dank55 (talk)(mistakes) 16:08, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

 * I would normally agree with your point that "a political body is...(not) neutral about political matters, but in context of use the EAC could be used as a reliable sources. If we include information about what equipment is currently certified (EAC is the only source) as a counter point to some of the Voting related issue that are about outdated software, a more neutral article could be achived. For example, under software The Diebold GEMS central tabulator software, version 1.18.15 is called into question, the most current software according to the EAC [] is 1.20.2 (Florida is rummored to have upgraded to that version, hard to find a reliable source to identify which states have updated) the EAC is also a reliable source to identify which products Premier Election Solutions is offering or has offered. Context can often determine whether a source can be used neutral reliable source. 75.169.253.116 (talk) 14:15, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

I don't want to OWN the discussion; I've made my points. Anyone else want to respond to this? - Dan Dank55 (talk)(mistakes) 14:36, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

 * My only response is to point out that, fwiw, 75.169.254.116 has made no contributions to wikipedia apart from the 3 posts above and 1 on the actual article--Mongreilf (talk) 09:49, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

Admission of errors
They have now admitted that an error in their software causes votes to be dropped.. Superm401 - Talk 04:30, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

Content Errors \ Cleanup
1. Removed: The following allegations have been unsourced for nearly 2 years:
 * "The software architecture common to both is a creation of Mr. Urosevich's company I-Mark. Some experts claim that this structure is easily compromised, in part due to its reliance on Microsoft Access databases. Britain J. Williams, responsible for certification of voting machines for the state of Georgia and a consultant to Diebold, has provided an assessment based on his accounting of potential exploits."

2. Removed: The following allegations have been unsourced for 6 months:
 * "The Diebold GEMS central tabulator software, version 1.18.15 is at the center of controversy for apparent irregularities versus the 2004 United States presidential election exit polls. The Diebold AccuVote voting machine has also come under scrutiny especially by Ralph Nader's campaign."

3. Removed: Clearly POV content, with a duplicative wikilink and unnecessary external link. Seems very much link an advertisement for a book:
 * "DESI claims its systems provide strong immunity to ballot tampering and other vote rigging attempts. These claims have been challenged, notably by Bev Harris on her website, Blackboxvoting.org, and book by the same name. Harris claims there is also evidence that the Diebold systems have been exploited to tamper with American elections — a claim Harris expands in her book Black Box Voting."

4. Edited: Language appears unencylopedic and potentially POV. (i.e. "votes disappear...")
 * 'Orginal - "In June 2005, the Tallahassee Democrat reported that when given access to Diebold vote-counting computers, Bev Harris—a critic of Diebold's voting machines—was able to make 65,000 votes disappear simply by changing the memory card that stores voting results for one that had been altered."
 * 'Edit' - "In June 2005, the Tallahassee Democrat reported that when given access to Diebold vote-counting computers, Bev Harris—a critic of Diebold's voting machines—was able to make alter vote totals by replacing the memory card that stores voting results with one that had been tampered with."

5. Removed: Entirely unsourced and clearly POV content:
 * "In early 2006 the Diebold Election Systems subsidiary came under considerable fire from alternate media sources for creating voting systems without reasonable auditing, no paper trail, security holes, and software bugs. The attention negatively affected Diebold stock (though elections are only a small part of their business) and triggered investigations in several states after insiders revealed irregular practices in Diebold's election division. Diebold was the first major vendor to experience a serious backlash from poor quality, service and preparation in the election industry, and condemnation of Diebold helped to focus attention on other vendors (ES&S)."

6. Edited: Content duplicative of previous paragraph. Prof Rubin already introduced along with school.
 * 'Orginal - "According to Avi Rubin, the Johns Hopkins University computer science professor who first identified flaws in the technology in 2003"
 * 'Edit' -"According to Professor Rubin"

71.178.193.134 (talk) 21:16, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

Notes on Sept 2009 edits

1. The usage of "Bev Harris" (an individual) in place of Black Box Voting (a 501c(3) nonprofit group) is inaccurate. There is no book for sale, by the way, and hasn't been for five years, so stop with the "advertising for a book" nonsense. "Bev Harris" did not execute the Tallahassee hack; this was a project conducted by and funded by Black Box Voting, the nonprofit, and to do this we hired Harri Hursti, who actually conducted the hack as the lead researcher for a Black Box Voting project. Bev Harris founded Black Box Voting, but isn't synonymous with the organization. Corrected attributions accordingly.

2. The characterization of the electronic voting controversy as one of open source vs. closed source is inaccurate. The issue is concealed counting vs. publicly observable counting (or alternatively, publicly observable input vs output); that's a longer discussion. This is now well articulated in a constitutional court case, have made the nature of the argument more precise in the section leading into security and concealment issues.

3. The 2005 hack reported in the Tallahassee Democrat was of the optical scan; it was conducted by Black Box Voting (not "Bev Harris") and was executed by Harri Hursti and Dr. Herbert Thompson. The 2006 hack which caused such consternation in Pennsylvania was of the TSx DRE machine; like the 2005 hack, it was conducted by Black Box Voting and executed by Harri Hursti, with on-site corroboration by Dr. Herbert Thompson. Corrected the attribution for this test.

4. The state of Florida and Diebold offered rebuttals to the 2005 hack, which was the hack shown in Hacking Democracy. However, the state of California report makes it explicitly clear that the Black Box Voting/Harri Hursti memory card attack performed in the 2005 study is real, accurate, and debunks the Diebold and Florida excuses. Therefore, it is important to include the study for California by the University of California scientists; added it.

5. The lawsuit in California was filed by Bev Harris and Jim March (filed before Black Box Voting existed, so in this case use of individual names is appropriate). The lawsuit was then "joined" by the state of California. In other words, lawsuit by Harris and March joined by California, resulting in the $2.6 million settlement.

6. The Stephen Spoonamore material is not particularly credible. I can find no evidence that he was a "long time Republican operative" so I deleted that sentence. I also see no evidence that he found anything "new" and in fact, some of his first report mixed up the program for the GEMS central tabulator run on a Windows NT machine with the Windows CE program run on the precinct touchscreens. Therefore, I find his studies to be factually weak. But more than that, I examined the campaign finance reports for Republican Party and John McCain and found no expenditures indicating he had ever been hired, nor for any of his companies. When I questioned reporters of this story about this, they said he said he may have been a volunteer for McCain. At any rate, I dug up an old (also non-credible) press release from Spoonamore from 2006 where he was claiming that the Republicans rigged the election. It seems unlikely that a John McCain operative (2007) would have written that piece back in 2006 if he was really a Republican operative. I would delete that whole paragraph if I felt bolder.

7. The Diebold memos were published on Black Box Voting .org and only AFTER the Diebold cease and desist order, issued Sept. 23 2003, shuts us down did any other sites post the memos. In fact about 32 sites published them. After defeating the cease and desist (which happened due to Kucinich's actions) Black Box Voting reposted the memos. I added the correct timeline on this and a link to the memos themselves. Realize that I should probably find a citation for that, would have to poke around, not sure how germane it is. But it is accurate to at least include Black Box Voting among the web sites that got shut down, since we were the first to publish and the first to get shut down, and we were shut down the longest.

'''8. The ES&S acquisition, because of the size (market share-wise), still needs review by the DoJ and FTC. '''It's not a done deal. I added that caveat to the end of the article. It could use a link to the Clayton Act.

Bev Harris (talk) 03:19, 8 September 2009 (UTC)Bev Harris

Ethical questions about Diebold personnel
This whole section is of dubious value to this article. The wired magazine that is the primary source for this section says that the employees named here left the company when PES acquired GES. If so, what is the relevance to an article about Premier? Bonewah (talk) 15:13, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

Whitewashed again?
Have the Wikipedia articles on Diebold/Premier Elections Solutions been whitewashed again? For example, there is no longer any mention that that some of the people responsible for Global Election Systems's software (i.e. Jeff Dean) had previously been convicted for embezzlement and electronic fraud. --96.255.132.51 (talk)
 * Were there reliable sources for this? Without knowing the details, I believe it isn't unheard of for companies to hire security consultants with a history of crime - no one knows how to hack better than a hacker.   Will Beback    talk    03:52, 25 September 2009 (UTC)
 * The IP is probably talking about the edits I made and explained above. Here is the wired article I mentioned above,, what do you think? Was I right to remove it, or should it be in here? Bonewah (talk) 12:42, 25 September 2009 (UTC)
 * If I understand, GES became DES which became PES. So it's a direct corporate lineage. We do report on the CEO, but not lower level personnel. The Wired/AP article doesn't mention any actual harm caused. If this matter became more notable than a single article then it might be worth mentioning, but even then we probably wouldn't name the employees. I think leaving it out is appropriate unless there's more to it.    Will Beback    talk    17:00, 25 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Nothing deeper to my knowledge. Perhaps the reader would be well served if we put the salon article in the external link section. Im going to boldly do it, revert, discuss here if need be. Bonewah (talk) 17:58, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

Also in terms of whitewashing I wonder why there is no reference to the "Rob Georgia" file involved in allegedly a 12% vote flip in the Max Cleland vs. Saxby Chambliss race in Georgia? Citing sources, e.g.: 1. Published on Thursday, March 10, 2005 by CommonDreams.org Teresa Heinz Kerry - Hacking the "Mother Machine"? by Thom Hartmann Democratic concern about electronic voting machines has floated around for several years, particularly since voting rights activist Bev Harris (of www.blackboxvoting.org) reported that she was Googling around the internet and stumbled across an FTP backdoor on Diebold's website that, just after the 2002 election, contained a folder titled "Rob Georgia." (Cleland's 2002 loss in Georgia helped hand control of the Senate back to the Republicans, who had lost it when Jim Jeffords of Vermont left the party to become an independent.)

In Georgia and Florida, where paper had been totally replaced by touch-screen machines in many to most precincts during 2001 and 2002, the 2002 election produced some of the nation's most startling precursors to the alarming shift from an "exit poll win" for Kerry to the "voting-machine win" for Bush in 2004.

2. In blackboxvoting.org, Harris: “What was rob-georgia?” Rob: “I believe what that file was for, I did a — well, there were a ton of holes with the programs on those machines. When they all came into the warehouse, I did a quality check; this was something I did on a Saturday. I found that 25 percent of the machines on the floor would fail KSU testing —” Dr. Clown Shoes (talk) 09:31, 11 March 2013 (UTC)

Update for Dominion sale
It might be good to update this article to reflect the recent sale of Premier assets from ES&S to Dominion voting. --Joebeone (Talk) 12:07, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 2 one external links on Premier Election Solutions. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
 * Attempted to fix sourcing for http://www.raba.com/press/TA_Report_AccuVote.pdf
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/20061228062312/http://hellerlegaldefensefund.com:80/oakland.html to http://www.hellerlegaldefensefund.com/oakland.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

Cheers. —cyberbot II  Talk to my owner :Online 19:35, 17 October 2015 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 1 one external link on Premier Election Solutions. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
 * Attempted to fix sourcing for http://da.co.la.ca.us/mr/112006b.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

Cheers.—cyberbot II  Talk to my owner :Online 13:09, 5 January 2016 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 3 one external links on Premier Election Solutions. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20080804153308/http://www.fcw.com:80/online/news/153178-1.html to http://www.fcw.com/online/news/153178-1.html
 * Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20090627194219/http://www.sos.ca.gov/elections/voting_systems/premier/premier-11819-withdrawal-approval033009.pdf to http://www.sos.ca.gov/elections/voting_systems/premier/premier-11819-withdrawal-approval033009.pdf
 * Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20041009181240/http://www.dbm.maryland.gov/dbm_publishing/public_content/dbm_search/technology/toc_voting_system_report/votingsystemreportfinal.pdf to http://www.dbm.maryland.gov/dbm_publishing/public_content/dbm_search/technology/toc_voting_system_report/votingsystemreportfinal.pdf

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at Sourcecheck).

Cheers.—cyberbot II  Talk to my owner :Online 04:34, 28 February 2016 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 10 one external links on Premier Election Solutions. 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 tag to http://www.omaha.com/article/20090903/MONEY/909039985
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100704213440/http://dominionvoting.com:80/images/pdfs/DominionAcquiresPremierReleaseFinal4.pdf to http://www.dominionvoting.com/images/pdfs/DominionAcquiresPremierReleaseFinal4.pdf
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.dbm.maryland.gov/dbm_publishing/public_content/dbm_search/technology/toc_voting_system_report/votingsystemreportfinal.pdf
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.sos.ca.gov/elections/voting_systems/security_analysis_of_the_diebold_accubasic_interpreter.pdf
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.cantonrep.com/index.php?ID=285016&Category=13
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100801053919/http://www.dominionvoting.com:80/management.html to http://www.dominionvoting.com/management.html
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110106075130/http://itpolicy.princeton.edu/voting/ to http://itpolicy.princeton.edu/voting/
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110811113642/http://www.avirubin.com/vote/ to http://avirubin.com/vote
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110317162356/http://mlis.state.md.us/2010rs/misc/2010VotingSystemsStudyReport.pdf to http://mlis.state.md.us/2010rs/misc/2010votingsystemsstudyreport.pdf
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20041009190745/http://www.eff.org/legal/ISP_liability/OPG_v_Diebold/ to http://www.eff.org/Legal/ISP_liability/OPG_v_Diebold/
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080426032536/http://www.wired.com:80/politics/security/news/2003/12/61640 to http://www.wired.com/politics/security/news/2003/12/61640

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) 01:54, 9 November 2016 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Premier Election Solutions. 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/20111018001746/http://www.hackingdemocracy.com/downloads/hbo_letter.pdf to http://www.hackingdemocracy.com/downloads/hbo_letter.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) 14:14, 3 September 2017 (UTC)

Unburying history
I'm making a bunch of the content from here appear in the Dominion_Voting_Systems, which is lacking any of the history at the moment; without the change, you read the Dominion article and you have no idea the company has an uber-sordid history, which is absurd... [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Dominion_Voting_Systems&diff=1004350951&oldid=1004213009 this is my first stab at it; using code like this: Premier Election Solutions#O'Dell's fundraising. After discussing the problem on the talk page. --50.201.195.170 (talk) 05:19, 2 February 2021 (UTC)
 * The history was reburied.:(--50.201.195.170 (talk) 07:38, 11 February 2021 (UTC)

Se quiserem traduzir é só dar um toque. att 2804:14C:5BB1:8FDA:4465:DE7A:A35B:FB33 (talk) 22:59, 29 September 2021 (UTC)

title: Talk:Premier Election Solutions


text:
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Derthnog

Derthnog
This is a joke of some sort; I'm confused. Maybe it's patent nonsense, though it does at least use complete sentences. Anyway, it doesn't belong here. Cdc 07:31, 19 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * Delete: Looks like nonsense to me. DCEdwards1966 07:59, Dec 19, 2004 (UTC)
 * Delete. Sound like a RPG creature. --Wikimol 14:44, 19 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * Delete. Obvious joke, and a classic case of something that shouldn't need to stay on VfD for the full five days, but does under current policy. Andrewa 16:46, 19 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * Delete. I agree that it should be speedied. Only one hit on Google. Guess where. --LeeHunter 17:45, 19 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * Speedy Delete, it does qualify as vandalism- prank or hoax. Wyss 18:42, 19 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * No, it does not. We don't have a policy to speedy delete pranks and hoaxes. --Wikimol 00:10, 20 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * Yes we do, they're included in the definition of vandalism. Wyss 03:50, 23 Dec 2004 (UTC)

 * No, but I would argue we have a de facto policy to speedy delete Derthnog, and only Derthnog. Nobody in the whole wide world would argue otherwise, solely on the merits of the article itself. Show me such a person, and I'll show you a straw man. To all the admins out there who are CSDing utter nonsense like this without even feeling guilty they're not burdening VfD enough: good for you. "Policy" is not just a bunch of words written on a page somewhere, it's made by us. Policy may not be able to include common sense, but flesh and blood people can, and should, where appropriate. "A foolish consistency is the hobgoblin of a small mind". And that's all I have to say on that. 82.92.119.11 23:59, 20 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * Delete. And for heaven's sake, stop humping wolves.  --fvw *  08:06, 2004 Dec 20 (UTC)
 * Kids, please don't use the photoshop software while on drugs. Delete.  Edeans 05:45, 22 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * Looks like Windows PBRUSH.EXE to me. And delete, of course.  —[[en:RaD Man|RaD Man (talk)]] 08:28, 22 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * Speed deleted as silly vandalism. See: Vandalism. Wile E. Heresiarch 22:49, 23 Dec 2004 (UTC)

license: Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/


text:
Yurina Hase

Yurina Hase (長谷優里奈), formerly Yurika Ochiai (落合祐里香) and now just Yurika (友利花), is a Japanese singer-songwriter and former voice actress and gravure idol. She is also known by her nickname Yurishi (ゆりしー) in Japan.

She was originally working for Arts Vision, however, she quit in October 2006. From 2007 she worked for Genki Project, but moved to Intercept in December 2008. On December 17, 2009, she went freelance and changed her name to Yurina Hase. In December 2011, Hase began working for Kekke for her voice actor related activities. In 2014, she took a break from voice acting roles.

In June 2020, she recalled how she experienced sexual harassment from a casting couch from anime studio Sunrise

Television animation

 * Uta Kata (2004), Keiko Takamura
 * To Heart 2 (2004), Konomi Yuzuhara
 * Futakoi (2004), Rara Hinagiku
 * Tweeny Witches (2004, 2007), Melissa
 * Futakoi Alternative (2005), Rara Hinagiku
 * Love Get Chu (2006), Yurika Sasaki
 * Makai Senki Disgaea (2006), Thursday
 * The Idolmaster Live For You! (OVA) (2008), Yukiho Hagiwara
 * Hyakko (2008), Suzume Saotome

Video games

 * The Idolmaster (2005), Yukiho Hagiwara
 * Dawn of Mana (2006), Faye
 * Growlanser VI: Precarious World (2007), Yurii
 * The Idolmaster (2007), Yukiho Hagiwara
 * The Idolmaster Live For You! (2008), Yukiho Hagiwara
 * The Idolmaster SP (2009), Yukiho Hagiwara
 * The Idolmaster Dearly Stars (2009), Yukiho Hagiwara
 * Quiz Magic Academy, Aloe

Internet radio

 * Radio To Heart2 (onsen(音泉))
 * yurishi･azusa Love Get Chu Miracle Radio(onsen(音泉))

title: Yurina Hase


text:
Ruud Krol

Rudolf ("Ruud" or "Rudi") Jozef Krol (born 24 March 1949) is a Dutch former professional footballer who was capped 83 times for the Netherlands national team. Most of his career he played for his home town club, Ajax. He became a coach after retirement. Regarded as one of the best defenders of all time, Krol mainly played as a sweeper or left-back, though he could play anywhere across the back line, or in midfield as a defensive midfielder, due to his range of passing with both feet, temperament, tactical intelligence, and his ability to start attacking plays after winning back the ball.

Club

He began his career at Ajax under manager Rinus Michels. In his first season at the club he did not play much. After the departure of left-back Theo van Duivenbode in the summer of 1969 to Feyenoord, Krol became a regular player. When Ajax reached the UEFA European Cup in 1971, and won, Krol did not play because of a broken leg. Krol did play in the European Cup finals of 1972 and 1973. While others, such as Johan Cruijff and Johan Neeskens, left for new pastures, Krol, captain since the departure of Piet Keizer in October 1974, stayed at Ajax until June 1980.

He moved to the North American Soccer League to play for the Vancouver Whitecaps for one season. He then joined Napoli, where he played for the next four seasons. His last club before he retired in 1986 was the French club Cannes, at the time in Ligue 2 (the French 2nd division).

International
Internationally, Krol made his debut for the Netherlands in 1969 against England, retiring from international football in 1983. He was a crucial component in the Total Football side of the 1970s. A versatile defender, he could play in any position along the back four or midfield. In the 1974 FIFA World Cup, in which the Netherlands reached the final, Krol primarily played at left-back. He created Cruijff's goal against Brazil and scored a 25-yard screamer against Argentina.

Krol was part of the Dutch squad that participated in the 1976 European Championship.

By the time the 1978 FIFA World Cup came about, Krol had switched to playing as a sweeper and had earned the captain's armband after the retirement of Cruijff.

Krol played for the Netherlands as captain at the 1980 European Championship. He played for part of the qualifying for Euro 84, and played his last international in 1983.

Managerial career
In his managerial career, he has been head coach of Egypt, and has been assistant manager of the Netherlands (under Frank Rijkaard and Louis van Gaal) and Ajax (under Ronald Koeman). He became the interim manager of Ajax after the resignation of Koeman. He was manager of Ajaccio in France Ligue 2 from 2006 to 2007. He returned as manager of Egyptian giants Zamalek in August 2007. He had previously managed them from 1994 to 1999, winning the Egyptian Cup in 1999, the African Cup of Champions Clubs in 1996 and the Afro-Asian Club Championship 1997, the last two being the biggest club level prizes available to CAF clubs. Krol's return to Zamalek was meant to be a stabilizing presence, the club having gone through several managers in the preceding two seasons. His stay however would be a short one. He ended his sole season by winning one Egyptian Cup with Zamalek, within one season he would leave and sign a three-year contract with the South African giants Orlando Pirates.

In his three years with the Orlando Pirates, he won two South African cups (and a finalist once) and won the national league, all in his last year in charge of the team. Those cups include MTN8 and Nedbank Cup. Despite that success his contract was not renewed.

He won the Tunisian championship with Sfaxien in 2012–13, after a fierce battle with the other three of the Tunisian big four.

After that success, he was contacted to lead the Tunisia national team in the play off qualifying to the 2014 world cup against Cameroon. He accepted that role and simultaneously became manager of Sfaxien and Tunisia in September 2013. He won the 2013 CAF Confederation Cup with Sfaxien. He resigned from his duties as Sfaxien coach after the second leg of the final against TP Mazembe on 30 November 2013. He quit as the national team interim coach following Tunisia's loss in the World Cup play-off.

In January 2014, he was appointed new head coach of Tunisian side ES Tunis.

Personal life
On 6 July 1972, Krol married Yvonne van Ingen. The couple have a daughter. On 26 September 1974, together with teammate Arie Haan, he opened a snack bar on Reguliersbreestraat in Amsterdam.

Player
Ajax
 * Eredivisie: 1969–70, 1971–72, 1972–73, 1976–77, 1978–79, 1979–80,
 * KNVB Cup: 1969–70, 1970–71, 1971–72, 1978–79
 * European Cup: 1970–71, 1971–72, 1972–73
 * UEFA Super Cup: 1972, 1973
 * Intercontinental Cup: 1972

Netherlands
 * FIFA World Cup runner-up: 1974, 1978
 * UEFA Euro third place: 1976
 * Tournoi de Paris: 1978

Individual
 * FIFA World Cup All-Star Team: 1974, 1978
 * UEFA Euro Team of the Tournament: 1976
 * Sport Ideal European XI: 1975, 1976, 1978, 1979, 1980
 * World XI: 1977, 1978
 * Onze de Onze: 1976, 1978, 1979, 1980, 1981
 * FIFA XI: 1979
 * Ballon d'Or – third place: 1979
 * Guerin d'Oro (Serie A Footballer of the Year): 1981

Coach
Ajaccio
 * Ligue 2 third place: 2007

Zamalek
 * Afro-Asian Club Championship: 1997
 * Egyptian Premier League: runner-up 1997-98, 2007-08
 * Egypt Cup: 2008

Orlando Pirates
 * Premier Soccer League: 2011; runner-up 2009
 * Nedbank Cup: 2011; runner-up 2010
 * Telkom charity cup: 2010, 2011
 * MTN 8: 2010

Sfaxien
 * Tunisian Ligue Professionnelle 1: 2013
 * CAF Confederation Cup: 2013
 * Tunisian Cup: runner-up 2012

Esperance
 * Tunisian Ligue Professionnelle 1: 2014

Raja Casablanca
 * UNAF Club Cup: 2015

Kuwait
 * Kuwait Premier League: 2019–20

Egyptian Olympic Team (U23)
 * All African Games gold medal: 1995

Egypt
 * 1996 African Cup of Nations: second round

Netherlands (assistant coach under Frank Rijkard)
 * UEFA Euro 2000: semi-final

Individual
 * PSL Coach of the Season: 2010–11

title: Ruud Krol


text:
User talk:VersedFenrir/X Japan

Wouldn't it be better to have someone translate the article of the japanese wikipedia than to rewrite one here? Just an idea. S Sepp

 * It's quite unlikely that somebody would be willing to do that. Sure, we could look around, but the possibility is slim. What I intend to do is something along the lines of Children of Bodom. Dig up slowly all of the information avaliable on the band and build it like a puzzle until it's complete. However, CoB was a hollow article when I began working on it. X Japan, on the other hand, has a poorly written article already which fits with the Wikipedia standard for band articles. Lately I was really busy and unabler to work on anything on Wiki, but now things are slowing down. I sincerely believe that I can work on my articles now. If you feel like helping, be my guest. But this is going to be a BIG project. Extensive one, and I will spend as much time as it is necessary on it for it to be perfect. --Sn0wflake 16:55, 15 Dec 2004 (UTC)

title: User talk:VersedFenrir/X Japan


text:
Richel Hersisia

Richel Hersisia (born April 28, 1974) is a Dutch former professional boxer who competed from 2001 to 2009. He is referred to as "The Dutch Sonny Liston" by his fans.

He once held the fringe World Boxing Foundation (WBFo) Heavyweight title, but lost it to Audley Harrison via fourth-round knockout on March 20, 2004 at Wembley Arena in London.

He last fought in September 2008, when he lost a six rounds decision to a returning Ray Mercer in Karlstad, Sweden.

Professional boxing record

 * align="center" colspan=8|32 Wins (25 knockouts, 7 decisions), 3 Losses (1 knockout, 2 decisions)
 * align="center" style="border-style: none none solid solid; background: #e3e3e3"|Result
 * align="center" style="border-style: none none solid solid; background: #e3e3e3"|Record
 * align="center" style="border-style: none none solid solid; background: #e3e3e3"|Opponent
 * align="center" style="border-style: none none solid solid; background: #e3e3e3"|Type
 * align="center" style="border-style: none none solid solid; background: #e3e3e3"|Round
 * align="center" style="border-style: none none solid solid; background: #e3e3e3"|Date
 * align="center" style="border-style: none none solid solid; background: #e3e3e3"|Location
 * align="center" style="border-style: none none solid solid; background: #e3e3e3"|Notes
 * -align=center
 * Win
 * 32–3
 * align=left|🇩🇪 Frank Kary Roth
 * TKO
 * 2
 * 14/11/2009
 * align=left| The Hague, Netherlands
 * align=left|
 * -align=center
 * Win
 * 31–3
 * align=left|🇺🇦 Yaroslav Zavorotnyi
 * UD
 * 8
 * 26/10/2009
 * align=left| Amsterdam, Netherlands
 * align=left|
 * -align=center
 * Loss
 * 30–3
 * align=left|🇺🇸 Ray Mercer
 * MD
 * 6
 * 05/09/2008
 * align=left|🇸🇪 Karlstad, Sweden
 * align=left|
 * -align=center
 * Win
 * 30–2
 * align=left|🇧🇷 Marcos Celestino
 * TKO
 * 1
 * 29/09/2007
 * align=left|🇧🇪 Soumagne, Liège, Belgium
 * align=left|Won WBF Intercontinental heavyweight title.
 * -align=center
 * Loss
 * 29–2
 * align=left|🇺🇦 Taras Bydenko
 * UD
 * 12
 * 30/06/2007
 * align=left|🇩🇪 Stuttgart, Germany
 * align=left|For WBA Inter-Continental heavyweight title.
 * -align=center
 * Win
 * 29–1
 * align=left| Zurab Noniashvili
 * RTD
 * 5
 * 17/03/2007
 * align=left|🇩🇪 Stuttgart, Germany
 * align=left|
 * -align=center
 * Win
 * 28–1
 * align=left|🇧🇷 Adenilson Rodrigues
 * KO
 * 2
 * 28/10/2006
 * align=left|🇩🇪 Stuttgart, Germany
 * align=left|Rodrigues knocked out at 0:50 of the second round.
 * -align=center
 * Win
 * 27–1
 * align=left|🇧🇷 Rogerio Lobo
 * UD
 * 6
 * 14/01/2006
 * align=left|🇩🇪 Aschersleben, Germany
 * align=left|
 * -align=center
 * Win
 * 26–1
 * align=left| Ioan Mihai
 * KO
 * 2
 * 14/10/2005
 * align=left| Struer, Denmark
 * align=left|Mihai knocked out at 1:50 of the second round.
 * -align=center
 * Win
 * 25–1
 * align=left|🇧🇪 Vitali Shkraba
 * KO
 * 6
 * 10/09/2005
 * align=left| Rotterdam, Netherlands
 * align=left|
 * -align=center
 * Win
 * 24–1
 * align=left|🇸🇰 Vlado Szabo
 * KO
 * 4
 * 09/06/2005
 * align=left| Alcobendas, Madrid, Spain
 * align=left|
 * -align=center
 * Win
 * 23–1
 * align=left|🇧🇪 Siarhei Dychkou
 * TKO
 * 8
 * 06/11/2004
 * align=left| Amsterdam, Netherlands
 * align=left|Won vacant BeNeLux heavyweight title.
 * -align=center
 * Win
 * 22–1
 * align=left|🇭🇺 Viktor Juhasz
 * KO
 * 1
 * 16/10/2004
 * align=left|🇩🇪 Halle an der Saale, Germany
 * align=left|Juhasz knocked out at 1:23 of the first round.
 * -align=center
 * Loss
 * 21–1
 * align=left| Audley Harrison
 * KO
 * 4
 * 20/03/2004
 * align=left| Wembley Arena, London, England
 * align=left|Lost WBF heavyweight title. Hersisia knocked out at 2:00 of the fourth round.
 * -align=center
 * Win
 * 21–0
 * align=left|🇭🇺 Zoltan Petranyi
 * TKO
 * 1
 * 11/10/2003
 * align=left| Willemstad, Curacao
 * align=left|Won Netherlands Kingdom heavyweight title.
 * -align=center
 * Win
 * 20–0
 * align=left|🇫🇮 Sami Elovaara
 * UD
 * 12
 * 09/08/2003
 * align=left|🇦🇹 Salzburg, Austria
 * align=left|Retained WBF heavyweight title.
 * -align=center
 * Win
 * 19–0
 * align=left|🇦🇷 Sandro Abel Vazquez
 * KO
 * 9
 * 16/05/2003
 * align=left| The Hague, Netherlands
 * align=left|Won vacant WBF heavyweight title.
 * -align=center
 * Win
 * 18–0
 * align=left|🇵🇱 Wojciech Bartnik
 * MD
 * 8
 * 15/03/2003
 * align=left|🇩🇪 Berlin, Germany
 * align=left|
 * -align=center
 * Win
 * 17–0
 * align=left| Costel Patriche
 * TKO
 * 2
 * 14/02/2003
 * align=left| Leeuwarden, Netherlands
 * align=left|Won vacant Dutch heavyweight title.
 * -align=center
 * Win
 * 16–0
 * align=left|🇦🇷 Eduardo Andres Sandivares
 * TKO
 * 2
 * 30/11/2002
 * align=left| Willemstad, Curacao
 * align=left|Won vacant WBA Fedecentro heavyweight title.
 * -align=center
 * Win
 * 15–0
 * align=left|🇰🇪 Chris Sirengo
 * KO
 * 3
 * 11/10/2002
 * align=left| Thisted, Denmark
 * align=left|
 * -align=center
 * Win
 * 14–0
 * align=left|🇫🇷 Antoine Palatis
 * UD
 * 8
 * 23/08/2002
 * align=left| Skagen, Denmark
 * align=left|
 * -align=center
 * Win
 * 13–0
 * align=left|🇫🇷 Jean Francis Traore
 * PTS
 * 6
 * 20/05/2002
 * align=left|🇧🇪 Roeselare, Belgium
 * align=left|
 * -align=center
 * Win
 * 12–0
 * align=left|🇧🇫 Roger Foe
 * KO
 * 3
 * 02/05/2002
 * align=left| Arnhem, Netherlands
 * align=left|
 * -align=center
 * Win
 * 11–0
 * align=left|🇭🇺 Istvan Kecskes
 * TKO
 * 4
 * 01/04/2002
 * align=left|🇧🇪 Ghent, Belgium
 * align=left|
 * -align=center
 * Win
 * 10–0
 * align=left|🇧🇷 Marcelo Ferreira dos Santos
 * KO
 * 4
 * 01/03/2002
 * align=left| Give, Denmark
 * align=left|
 * -align=center
 * Win
 * 9–0
 * align=left| Emmanuel Nwodo
 * TKO
 * 3
 * 18/01/2002
 * align=left| Thisted, Denmark
 * align=left|
 * -align=center
 * Win
 * 8–0
 * align=left|🇫🇷 Thierry Guezouli
 * TKO
 * 3
 * 09/11/2001
 * align=left| Odense, Denmark
 * align=left|
 * -align=center
 * Win
 * 7–0
 * align=left| Cătălin Zmărăndescu
 * TKO
 * 5
 * 12/10/2001
 * align=left| Herning, Denmark
 * align=left|
 * -align=center
 * Win
 * 6–0
 * align=left|🇵🇱 Piotr Jurczyk
 * PTS
 * 6
 * 07/07/2001
 * align=left| Amsterdam, Netherlands
 * align=left|
 * -align=center
 * Win
 * 5–0
 * align=left| Drazen Ordulj
 * KO
 * 3
 * 09/06/2001
 * align=left|🇵🇱 Kolobrzeg, Poland
 * align=left|
 * -align=center
 * Win
 * 4–0
 * align=left|🇨🇿 Frantisek Vasak
 * TKO
 * 2
 * 19/05/2001
 * align=left|🇩🇪 Cologne, Germany
 * align=left|
 * -align=center
 * Win
 * 3–0
 * align=left| Boris Mamic
 * TKO
 * 3
 * 20/04/2001
 * align=left| Ronne, Denmark
 * align=left|
 * -align=center
 * Win
 * 2–0
 * align=left|🇭🇺 Sandor Bacsko
 * KO
 * 1
 * 16/03/2001
 * align=left| Lemvig, Denmark
 * align=left|
 * -align=center
 * Win
 * 1–0
 * align=left|🇭🇺 Laszlo Pataki
 * TKO
 * 1
 * 25/02/2001
 * align=left| Wassenaar, Netherlands
 * align=left|
 * }
 * align=left|
 * }

title: Richel Hersisia


text:
User talk:Lemworld

Welcome
--Slowking Man 07:39, Dec 19, 2004 (UTC)

title: User talk:Lemworld


text:
Talk:Unincorporated area

"insular area" vs. "territory"
The reason I removed the word "territory" is that the term is ambigious. A uppercase "T" territory is one that has been Incorporated (e.g. Palmyra Atoll). A lowercase "t" territory is one that is unincorporated. (e.g. everything else). I hope this helps. - Hoshie 07:41, 19 Dec 2004 (UTC)

merging articles (2005) unincorporated community into unincorporated area

 * The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

Doctor Whom added the template on unincorporated community to merge with this article. Actually, I think the merge should actually go the other way. Without modification, the term "unincorporated" can refer to things other than land, territory, or communities. older≠wiser 19:29, July 10, 2005 (UTC)

 * I agree and have tagged the articles acordingly. However, no discussion has been forthcoming yet and hence after waiting for a week for comments, I'd merge the articles as per the tag on them. --Gurubrahma 12:57, 1 November 2005 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

In law ?
I believe the article means in USA law, not "in law" in general. However, not being a Columbian, I can't amend the article as I don't know whether to put US law, or whether this is something federal or state or whatever....someone Stateside please help. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 219.78.20.85 (talk • contribs) 08:20, 3 August 2005 (UTC)

 * I'm not sure if it is a U.S. specific term. I think it depends on whether the other common law jurisdictions have it as well.  If they don't have the word, then maybe we should qualify the definition by saying in American law.  Does anyone from the British Commonwealth know anything about whether they have unincorporated areas there? --Coolcaesar 15:35, 3 August 2005 (UTC)

 * (A British reader responds: There's no such thing as an "unincorporated area" in the UK. I've never heard the term used outside the US.) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.104.196.56 (talk • contribs) 14:56, 23 September 2005 (UTC)

 * A Google search turned up plenty of uses in Canada and Australia. I haven't tried it with other countries.  Would someone familiar with the organization of local government in Canada or Australia care to enlighten us?  Thanks.  Doctor Whom 20:48, 27 September 2005 (UTC)

 * The term is most definitely used in Canada, and some very large communities have chosen to remain unincorporated for tax saving purposes. Other have chosen to lose their incorporated status and merge with surrounding rural communities.  Since the provinces have constitutional jurisdiction over municipalities, the rules regarding them are different for each province.  I know in my own province, Alberta, some of the largest communities are unincorporated.  See Sherwood Park, Alberta and Fort McMurray, Alberta, and see the good information in Hamlet (place). Kevlar67 12:05, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

 * From reading the interwikied article in German, de:Gemeindefreies Gebiet (roughly municipality-free area), it is clear that such areas exist in some German states as well, and to some extent in Switzerland also. And those countries are not common law ones, are they? This article clearly needs to be more international in scope. 217.208.26.177 22:18, 31 December 2005 (UTC)

 * Ironically enough, the apparent intent of the anon editor who raised the issue was to remove US-centric bias, not to add it. I've had to revert edits in other articles that have backfired in the same way. Doctor Whom 01:10, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

 * Also, I should point out that using Columbian for American is very archaic and would not be understood by most people. I know what you're saying because I have a bachelor's degree in history, but most people don't know much about history!  --Coolcaesar 15:35, 3 August 2005 (UTC)

Stub?
I dont really belive this article is still a stub, it seems pretty informative, maybe some legal info is needed? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Doodle77 (talk • contribs) 00:54, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

Strange edits by Freekie in July
I just caught on to this. Where are unincorporated communities signed with the term "unincorporated"? In California and Virginia, unincorporated communities, if they are signed at all, are usually signed in the name of the county. For example, Alta Arden is signed as "Alta Arden, a Sacramento County neighborhood," and in the D.C. area, Rosslyn is signed as "Rosslyn, a neighborhood of Arlington County." If Freekie doesn't give a concrete example soon, I'm deleting his/her edit.--Coolcaesar 09:49, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

 * I agree. This edit is rather too vague to remain as is. I don't doubt that there may be cases like this, but at the very least there needs to be at least one specific example. older ≠ wiser 12:33, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

 * Wisconsin. They used to be settlements (for lack of a better term) with names, which got swallowed up by townships (six-mile-square). There are signs showing where the old towns were, listing them as "unincorporated." But what I'm talking about fits under the definition of the first bullet point (a neighborhood that is within a town), so it's no big deal - I just gave a more specific description. I'll see if I can get a picture for you, but either way, feel free to edit the article in any way you see fit. -Freekee 03:00, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

 * Well, see, it's kind of confusing, since towns in Wisconsin, are like civil townships in Minnesota and Michigan and are not themselves "incorporated" municipalities. These towns and townships are county subdivisions established under provisions of general law. Their powers are limited by the provisions of the statutes. On the other hand, with incorporated municipalities, like cities or villages, the people in an area incorporate as a municipal corporation. Such municipal corporations have considerably more powers than general law entities. The confusion arises because in other states, towns are just another type of municipality. And even in MI, MN and WI, some townships have powers which approach that of a municipality, so it can be difficult to make meaningful distinctions. BTW, it's not quite accurate to say the settlements got swallowed up by townships -- townships in these states were generally the first form of organized local government in many of these areas. It'd be probably more accurate to say in most such cases that the communities were never incorporated. In the case of a place within a Wisconsin town, I think this would more closely fall under the second bullet point. older ≠ wiser 12:40, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

 * I concur. My understanding of townships is that they were surveyed first and then the settlements within them came later.  --Coolcaesar 17:59, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

 * So what you are saying is that in Wisconsin (and some other states), towns are technically unincorporated. Even though they have governing bodies. I don't think the article and/or bullet points explain this. Sounds like you should do a rewrite. :-) As far as my edit, I don't think either bullet point quite explains what "unincorporated" means in this context. Perhaps something like a neighborhood or other community existing outside of an incorporated municipal government, within a larger unincorported area, or away from a larger urbanized area. My point is that these unincorporated "towns" are really just neighborhoods, but they have official signs, so someone is going to come here to see what that may mean. -Freekee 16:11, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

 * Unincorporated Kansas towns often have a green city limit sign stating the town name and "Unincorporated" underneath, where incorporated Kansas towns list "Population: X,XXX" underneath the city name. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Paulmcdonald (talk • contribs) 17:47, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

merging articles (2007) census-designated place into unincorporated area

 * The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

I've suggested merging this article with census-designated place--both articles cover the same territory with the one caveat that CDP talks about a census bureau designation. That could be easily covered in this article.--Velvet elvis81 18:18, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

 * Well, no, not at all the same. A CDP has a very specific, albeit somewhat confusing, meaning. Not all CDPs are unincorporated. older ≠ wiser 01:06, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

 * Strong agree with Bkonrad, a CDP is distinctly different from an unincorporated area. --MMX 09:04, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

 * I concur. What older ≠ wiser is referring to is the six New England states that use incorporated townships and have allowed the county governments to wither away to vestiges, unlike most other states which divide local administrative power between cities and counties.  Some New England townships are so large as to have several geographically distinct communities within them, which all require their own CDPs.  --Coolcaesar 22:58, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

 * I would not want to see a merging of these articles. Some CDPs can be a subset of unincorporated areas, but not all of them are. While CDPs should be mentioned in the Unincorporated area article, there is sufficient difference between the two that Census-designated place should continue to have its own article as well. Whyaduck 11:46, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

 * I second those that say these should not be merged. Census-designated places are statistical divisons used by the census.  Unincorporated communities can be any loose grouping of areas by one person or a community.  They are statistical divisions. These are not one and the same. --Criticalthinker 04:24, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

 * Strong oppose. Please do not merge in either direction. First, there's the New England situation, where many towns that are fully-functioning municipalities and have clearly defined boundaries are not "incorporated" according to state law and therefore are treated by the Census as CDPs. In contrast, in other parts of the country there are many unincorporated communities that are recognized by the post office, appear on standard maps, and are identifiable on the ground, but that the Census Bureau chooses not to recognize as CDPs. Combining the two would be like combining "apples and oranges." --orlady 16:41, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

 * Very Strongly disagree!!! CDPs are constructs of the USA National Government Census Bureau just as the Post Office ZIP code service area are created by the US Postal Service (USPS).  While the USPS asks for a city in address your mail that may not be the municipality that the addressee lives in.   The USA has a federal system of government so ZIP Code areas and CDPs are not exactly municipalities or recognized place names.  No one is suggesting to merge ZIP Codes with Unincorporated Areas.  While the state government does recognized some place names that Unincorporated Areas are as some may be recognized through platting (survey) records.  The Village of Swartz Creek (now city; village was a size tag for incorporated mini.{ie. cities} in MI) was platted as the Village of Swartz Creek in 1877 but was not incorporated until 1959 (with two other place names {Crapo Farms & Otterburn} and other Platted subdivisions. In fact, Swartz Creek was formerly know as Miller Settlement by the residents, Swartz Creek was the Post Office name and Hamiltion as the train station name for one year!  Spshu 22:28, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

 * Very Strongly disagree I can not be more against merging the two articles. I don't believe that there is any useful purpose in doing so. Furthermore there are at least two reasons why it should not be done. 1) This is tantamount to bureaucracy, unnecessary and unwarranted. 2) Merely linking CDP and Unincorporated Area is not at all helpful. The terms are not synonymous with one another. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 206.174.79.202 (talk) 13:03, 30 January 2007 (UTC).

 * Strong oppose....As stated above, not all CDPs are unincorporated. In fact many large CDPs (ie Redford Township, Michigan, Canton Township, Michigan, Irondequoit, New York, and Penn Hills, Pennsylvania) comprise of at least 90% of their respective townships. Urban townships in northern New Jersey are mainly co-extensive with CDPs. Another point is that only selected unincorporated communities qualify to become CDPs. (Del Rio, Florida, although urban, failed to meet the 2000 census requirements to become a CDP) and CDPs may contain two or more separate unincorporated communities within the boundaries (see: Egypt Lake-Leto, Florida and Greater Carrollwood, Florida). --Moreau36 23:20, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

 * Strongly oppose merge in any direction Irrespective of all of the other points that others have made, CDP is an American topic, whereas unincorporated area is not! Also, please take a look at unincorporated to see that unincorporated has different meanings in different contexts. John Vandenberg 23:50, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Challenging Gurubrahma's edit as not quite right
On 9 November 2005, User:Gurubrahma inserted this edit which doesn't sound quite right. In California, we have many unincorporated settlements away from cities (the second part of the second category) and many unincorporated neighborhoods surrounded by incorporated cities (the first part of the first category). The first is exemplified by Glen Ellen, California and the second is exemplified by East Los Angeles, California.

But we don't have neighborhoods that are shared across city borders---in fact, I can't think of any (and I've visited over the years nearly every important city in the state).

Actually, as far as I know, the first category doesn't really exist; it seems to describe a situation where a neighborhood within one incorporated city merely shares the same name as an adjacent neighborhood within an adjacent incorporated city. This is kind of analogous to how the names Kansas City and Texarkana are shared by a pair of twin cities on a state border. Thus, such a neighborhood really isn't unincorporated in the sense that it lacks a city government. My understanding is that unincorporated means that one doesn't have a municipal government at all, which means one doesn't have a city hall, so one has to go to the county government to lobby for changes to local services. In the case of physically gigantic counties like San Bernardino, this is the difference between driving 1 mile (if one is driving to San Bernardino City Hall from a San Bernardino residence) versus 100 miles (if one is driving to the county seat from the unincorporated hamlet of Trona).

If Gurubrahma doesn't defend his/her position soon, I'm going to get rid of this original research.--Coolcaesar 03:13, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

 * I'm not certain precisely which statements you're objecting to. Based on your description, I'm assuming that it is this bullet point:
 * a neighborhood or other community existing within one or across multiple existing incorporated areas (i.e. cities or towns). One example is Clifton, Massachusetts.
 * But, are you objecting to the statement in its entirety, or only the bit about spanning multiple existing incorporated areas? I don't think it is that unusual to refer to unincorporated communities within a larger municipal entity. While the example given, Clifton, Massachusetts, seems to fit the bill for spanning municipal boundaries, I don't know anything about the details and I'd probably describe that as a neighborhood rather than a UC. But I think the idea behind describing it as a UC is that "Clifton" is not an incorporated entity -- the locale by that name is a part of one or more municipalities, but is not itself an incorporated municipality. There are quite a lot of such entities (depending on how you define incorporated municipality). In the midwest, there are multitudes of small communities that are within a civil township, which provides a level of municipal services and local government. But the communities often have a distinct identity apart from the surrounding township and are not incorporated. older ≠ wiser 14:18, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

 * Well, what I'm objecting to is this concept of applying unincorporated to neighborhoods that are clearly governed by a city government, when the very definition of unincorporated is land that doesn't have a city government. For example, Nike's headquarters sits in unincorporated Washington County but is surrounded by Beaverton, Oregon.  I have never seen a legal professional using the term "unincorporated" for a neighborhood within a larger city regardless of whether that neighborhood spans other cities or not.

 * I'm well aware of the situation you describe for townships. But that's not the situation described by the phrase "a neighborhood or other community existing within one or across multiple existing incorporated areas (i.e. cities or towns)."  The phrase is describing a situation where a named community lies "across" or spans multiple corporate entities (analogous to the situation where the Kansas City metropolitan area spans two separate municipal corporations named "Kansas City,") as opposed to the unincorporated towns which are fully encompassed by civil townships.

 * My suspicion is that Gurubrahma isn't law-trained and is inadvertently promoting a neologism or original research on Wikipedia, which violates the No original research policy. --Coolcaesar 06:37, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

 * I think that what the confusing passage is trying to get at is that unincorporated can refer to both senses -- you seem convinced that it only refers to the complete absence of local municipal government, while the implication is that the named entity as such is not incorporated.

 * Re, townships, I don't see the distinction you are making -- there are countless little hamlets that are situated precisely on the boundary between townships or in some cases at the corners and overlap into four townships. I don't see how the phrasing implies the situation you describe with Kansas City, which is really two separate incorporated entities that happen to share the same name. older ≠ wiser 10:48, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

Merger (2008)

 * The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

Article (Unincorporated community (New Jersey)) merged: See old talk-page here —Preceding unsigned comment added by Formerly the IP-Address 24.22.227.53 (talk • contribs) 12:13, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Czech Republic
The Czech Republic has also no unincorporated areas. Every place belongs to a municipality, except for military areas which have their own "governments". I would add the Czech Republic to the list but I am not sure if it should be there because of the existence of the military areas. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.151.83.161 (talk) 14:47, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

this article is really about two distinct topics
This article discusses, but fails to make a very clear distinction, between unincorporated areas and unincorporated communities. The first is an area, usually very sparsely populated, without any municipal or local level of government. The latter is a community or settlement that is not incorporated as a self-governing municipality. I think the statements in the section Countries without unincorporated places may a little misleading. While it may be true that there are no unincorporated areas (the first sense), there are almost certainly settlements in these countries that are not incorporated municipalities (the second sense).

I'm not sure what to do about this though, as there is already a great lack of any sort of references for this article. older ≠ wiser 01:56, 12 September 2008 (UTC)
 * I'm not convinced that these two concepts are distinct. In my personal experience, there is a gradational range in unincorporated places -- from well-defined communities that happen not to be legally incorporated as municipalities (example: Blountville, Tennessee) through a diverse variety of situations to sparsely populated (or unpopulated) areas lacking any local government. The article describes the diverse meanings of "unincorporated" reasonably well, although some references sure would be nice to have. ((Also, the fact that a settlements are not incorporated places does not necessarily make those settlements "unincorporated places," as they may be components of larger areas that have municipal governments.) --Orlady (talk) 02:26, 12 September 2008 (UTC)
 * (after ec) There is very little similarity between an genuinely unincorporated area, such as the unorganized territories in Minnesota, or Maine, or some other states, where there is for all practical purposes no local level of government, and unincorporated settlements where there is a distinct cluster of population, but which is not separately incorporated. I think the statement about there not being any unincorporated areas in some countries illustrates the confusion between these concepts. There are almost certainly unincorporated settlements in these countries, but such assertions are made because of the lack of clarity in distinguishing these concepts in this article. That there can be unincorporated settlements within incorporated areas is exactly the sort of confusion I'm referring to. older ≠ wiser 02:41, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

Poor Hyannis example
"a neighborhood or other community existing within one or across multiple existing incorporated areas (i.e. cities or towns). In this sense, a community is part of a municipal government, but not separately incorporated from it. For example, Hyannis, Massachusetts is an unincorporated village within the town limits of the larger incorporated town of Barnstable." The point is valid but the example is not. Note that villages are not a valid political body in Massachusetts; the smallest possible municipality under law is the town. Note that the town of Barnstable provides all the services to "Hyannis". I think it is inapporpiate and misleading to call it an "unicorporated village" when it incorporation is impossible to begin with. With this logic, however, Manomet and Cedarville in Plymouth, MA; Bryantville in Pembroke, MA; and Weymouth Landing in Weymouth, MA could be considered "villages" to simply because there is no legal definition or capacity to become incorported. I nominate the example for deletion when someone can come up with a more appropiate example. Dexta32084 (talk) 23:14, 19 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Your point about potentially misleading terminology is valid, although the general point being made with the example is still valid. While it is true that there is no incorporated "village" as implied by the term unincorporated village, the distinction would be the same if the terms were changed to unincorporated community or unincorporated hamlet, or other even more circumlocutory phrasing. If you'd prefer community or hamlet to village in that example, I'd have no objection, but I don't see that it would make much of a difference. older ≠ wiser 23:21, 19 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Actually, since Hyannis is as good as any other New England village. We could have just as easily used Pinardville, New Hampshire or Riverton, Connecticut.  The concept of a distict, recognized center of population which is part of a larger incorporated municipality is well established, and Hyannis is clearly one of them.  --Jayron32. talk . contribs  00:46, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

Norway
This article states that in Norway "…a handful of unincorporated cities exist within ordinary municipalities". What is this supposed to mean? In Norway, cities are municipalities. I know that people sometimes (even often) refer to the settlement that is the administrative centre of a municipality as "the city", but that is not formally correct. Such a definition would also make all cities unincorporated (except maybe Oslo), so the quoted text would still be wrong or misleading. I believe the situation is the same in Sweden. Svalbard might be unincorporated, though, but I am not quite sure about what exactly "incorporated" means. Ters (talk) 15:07, 26 October 2009 (UTC)
 * I think the main problem is that there seems to be an underlying assumption that a municipality basically corresponds to a particular community (town, city, settlement of any kind). This is simply not the case in Norway, where a municipality is the local government unit responsible for a certain geographical area, which can contain any number of separate communities. As such, every square inch of Norway is assigned to a municipality, without exception. In fact, some municipalities in sparsely populated areas are even larger than counties in more densely populated areas of the country. Naming certain cities as unincorporated communities makes little sense, because (with the exception of the capital, Oslo) no Norwegian municipality is intended to govern a single specific city in the first place. Maitreya (talk) 14:53, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

Australia
I came to this article because I keep seeing the term Unincorporated area used in Wikipedia to describe places, particularly ski resorts/mountains in the state of Victoria, Australia. The one I had looked at today was Mount Baw Baw. I have been visiting these places for 50 years and never heard or seen the term outside Wikipedia. The whole section titled Australia has only one reference and it's only about the Northern Territory.

What is this section really on about? I see it as a form of polluting garbage because enthusiastic but misguided editors keep copying bad styles from each other and creating a new but unnecessary usage for the term in articles that don't benefit from it. HiLo48 (talk) 02:30, 23 January 2010 (UTC)
 * I concur. The problem is that there are a lot of people out there who do not understand what the term unincorporated means.  The first problem is that unincorporated strictly means no municipal government, so it's inappropriate to apply it to places like Hyannis, Massachusetts, which is merely a neighborhood, not unincorporated.  The other problem is that it's predominantly used only in American English and it's inappropriate to apply it outside of that context. --Coolcaesar (talk) 21:50, 23 January 2010 (UTC)
 * I don't agree. Firstly, the term "unincorporated" is used to refer to areas that are not a part of a municipality in Australia. See for instance this list of municipalities and unincorporated areas . On that page (page 3 of the municipalities list you can get by clicking on the "search: municipalities" link, if it doesn't work), you will see both "Falls Creek Alpine Resort (Unincorporated)" and "French Island (Unincorporated)". This isn't in a list of places, mind, but a list of municipalities!
 * So you can't deny that there are areas in Australia, which are described as being unincorporated. Considering municipalities are more commonly known as "local government areas", it seems difficult to describe "unincorporated area" as being a false description of what French Island is!
 * Now, local government in Australia and America are completely different. We've only got one level; in many respects, our LGAs look like counties in America (although obviously the responsibilities and councils are different). For instance, at least in Victoria, suburbs, cities, towns and "rural districts" very rarely correspond in any way to LGAs (in Melbourne, there's only one council which has no suburbs that are not apart of another council!).
 * I've just tried adding a few paragraphs that explain some of the differences. My comments were added to try and put the Australian situation in perspective. But this isn't really the right place.
 * In reality, I begin to think about whethere or not Wikipedia should have an article on unincorporated areas. The difference in local government between Australia and the US is sufficiently great, that the similarities between "unincorporated areas" are going to be trivial enough they're better dealt with in separate articles.
 * (I've also just noticed that "unincorporated community" redirects to this same article, and by a reasonable standard, I think it's possible to say that almost all communities in Australia are unincorporated, because we distinguish between (say) the City of Melbourne, and Melbourne the city. At least, this wouldn't be more misleading that the current standard. But this isn't something to take up *here*. Wikipedia is systematically crap and narrow-minded.)
 * —Felix the Cassowary 14:06, 30 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Hey. Don't get too frustrated. I learnt a lot from your contribution above. If you can get that information into Wikipedia it would clarify things a lot. I tend to agree with you that the meaning is different enough to justify separate articles for different countries. Too many Wikipedia articles cover what happens in places outside the USA as minor variations on what happens there, all inside an article originally created to describe something in the USA. Anything to reduce that US-centric approach is a good thing. Keep up the good work. HiLo48 (talk) 21:34, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

New England
Compare the assertion in this piece to that of the wiki entry on Maine

"... Unincorporated regions are essentially non-existent in the six New England states and New Jersey due to the weak or nonexistent county government system.[citation needed] Nearly all of the land in New England (and all of the land in New Jersey) is part of an incorporated area of some type. ..."

"Unorganized Territory of Maine consists of over 400 townships (towns are incorporated, townships are unincorporated), plus many coastal islands that do not lie within any municipal bounds. The UT land area is slightly over one half the entire area of the State of Maine."

And, while on the subject of New England, the use of Hyannis as an example of an unincorporated area is patently inappropriate - as already cited by a couple of folks, but cavalierly disposed of by others - Hyannis is a neighborhood, once a village but no longer - as that form of government no longer exists. If we accept Hyannis on those terms as an unincorporated area, significant portions of every urbanized state in the US would fall into the category. Is there any groundswell here for designating Canarsie, BackoftheYards, Beacon Hill, or Watts as unincorporated areas? The logic is no different - hell, in Massachusetts, that would mean that the entire city of Newton would encompass 5 unincorporated areas, the former villages that comprise it.

As for the last retort to an objection about Hyannis - the response cites Riverton, CT - which is a historic district - and Pinardville, NH - which is a CDP. Neither of those fit the accepted idea of an unincorporated area, either. Irish Melkite (talk) 03:29, 6 April 2010 (UTC)
 * To address your second point of confusion, the term "unincorporated area" has two distinct meanings. The first is "an area not part of any municipal corporation" and the second is "a recognized and named population center which is part of a larger municipal corporation" (i.e. not seperately incorporated).  In New York State, these areas are usually called "Hamlets".  In New England, the second term tends to get used more commonly, i.e. for places like Hyannis.  That brings us back to your first confusion regarding New England.  Excepting Maine, there are almost no "unincorporated areas" anywhere in New England.  There are a few oddball locations in New Hampshire and Vermont, accounting for something like 1% of the land area and significantly less that 1% of the population; other than that the entire area of the 5 Non-Maine New England states is entirely incorporated; everywhere is part of a municipality.  This is unlike the rest of the country, which is why the Census Bureau can't handle it; it does not recognizes New England towns as a valid form of incoporation, though in most of New England there is no functional difference between a town and a city excepting the form of municipal government, but not its function or responsibilities.  Which is why the second definition of "unincorporated place" tends to be used in New England; for example Weirs Beach, New Hampshire is often called an "unincorporated village" because it is a distinct population center; however it is part of the municipality of Laconia, New Hampshire.  Locals recognize Weirs Beach as a seperate place from Laconia; but it receives all its services from and is politically part of, the City of Laconia.  -- Jayron  32  05:58, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

So what is the point of being not incorporated?
I did not catch what is the point to be not incorporated. A type of a tax evasion? Does not make any sense. Aleksandr Grigoryev (talk) 05:24, 24 August 2010 (UTC)
 * I would guess that it would start with not having enough population to qualify to incorporate (depending on the location). Another would be that those who live in the area may not be equipped to run their own local government for various reasons or otherwise may simply choose to not form one.  Another point--I don't know about other countries, but in the US "tax evasion" is illegal - the term I think you seek is "tax avoidance" which is much different.  Having lived in both incorporated and unincorporated areas and I personally find advantages and disadvantages to both.  For example, if I wanted to go pheasant hunting or deer hunting on my property in rural Kansas, all I needed was a hunting license.  If I tried to do that in Overland Park, Kansas I'd likely have problems with the police!--Paul McDonald (talk) 05:34, 24 August 2010 (UTC)
 * The point is that if you have an incorporated government, there is more local control, but more local micromanagement. I'll clarify the article.--Coolcaesar (talk) 10:45, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

I think in the Australian state of Victoria (where local government is quite different than in America, see above), unincorporated areas exist to give the state government more power over what planning. I am only speculating, but this is the best reason I can think of to have a few alpine resorts separated from their surrounding lgas. —Felix the Cassowary 07:02, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

Changes to lead
I recently changed the lead to read "In law, an unincorporated area is a region of land, usually a city, town, village or hamlet that does not have its own municipal corporation. Such regions are generally administered by default as a part of larger administrative divisions, such as a township, borough, county, state, province, canton, parish, or country."

This was challenged and reverted, and so I would like to explain my reasoning here so that we can reach some consensus as to the way forward. The problem may simply be in the difference in meaning from one country to another. I am in Nova Scotia, Canada, and the lead as it now stands makes no sense from my perspective. I live in a tiny community called Seafoam, which the Canadian Government defines as an unincorporated area. I can assure you (unfortunately) that we do have to pay taxes, in our case to the Municipality of Pictou County. The distinction, in case it is not clear, is that Seafoam itself is unincorporated and there is no municipality of Seafoam; our services are provided by, and taxed, by a municipality at the county level. The two statements I removed, "a region of land that is not a part of any municipality" and "An unincorporated community is usually not subject to or taxed by a municipal government" just do not apply. Derek Andrews (talk) 23:56, 10 March 2012 (UTC)

 * The statement an unincorporated area is a region of land, usually a city, town, village is self-contradictory for many places as, with the exception of hamlet, these terms often describe incorporated municipalities. I agree that the statement about taxes is highly misleading, though I'm not sure how to fix the lede. Personally (per my comments above at ), I think this article is pretty hopelessly confused. older ≠ wiser 01:02, 11 March 2012 (UTC)

 * Agreed that the above noted statement is contradictory. The usage of city, town and village implies that such communities are incorporated. Also agreed that this article is hopelessly confused. Hwy43 (talk) 01:55, 11 March 2012 (UTC)

 * Concur with Hwy43. Although I think the underlying problem is that Canadian English is using a different definition of municipality, one which makes no sense---which is probably due to the atrocious quality of Canadian universities and law schools.  --Coolcaesar (talk) 09:39, 11 March 2012 (UTC)

 * You only need to read Municipality to see that the term has many definitions world-wide, and even within the USA, and most are set by the highest law makers in the land, and no doubt take heed of local history, needs and circumstances. Derek Andrews (talk) 13:46, 11 March 2012 (UTC)

 * I'm not even sure that the terms town and village imply incorporation, at least in a vernacular sense. My nearest village is not incorporated, but I think everyone calls it a village. Whether we are legally allowed to do so, I do not know, but maybe in this jurisdiction there is no legal definition of the term anyway. Derek Andrews (talk) 13:55, 11 March 2012 (UTC)

 * I agree that this is a tricky one, and with . The lack of references is alarming, given that we are dealing here with something that seems to be legally defined, so presumably the references do exist. Maybe the problem is that there are so many definitions - it seems like in Canada each province and territory defines municipalities, so it could be a big article. It doesn't help that this article is really about something that doesn't exist, or at least is a negative state of being. As for the lede, I think that can only be a very vague statement that outlines briefly the various uses of the term and how it is used differently in various jurisdictions. Derek Andrews (talk) 14:32, 11 March 2012 (UTC)

Maine
As someone else pointed out, Maine, which is geographically larger than the 5 other New England states combined, consists of substantial unincorporated territory, though this article seems to ignore this with its emphasis on the New England states consisting almost entirely of incorporated municipalities. In addition to incorporated towns and unincorporated townships, Maine also has plantations, and it's not quite clear whether the said plantations would be considered unincorporated or incorporated. 98.221.128.109 (talk) 14:15, 2 May 2012 (UTC)

Unorganized territory and Unincorporated area
Please clarify the difference. --109.53.222.210 (talk) 13:09, 30 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Both articles are already very well written and the difference is really, really obvious. Of course, if you don't know what is a U.S. federal territory or a municipal corporation, then that could be the problem.  And I don't have the time to explain. Go read a civics textbook or something. --Coolcaesar (talk) 11:06, 2 July 2014 (UTC)
 * While it is stretching to call the underreferenced disasters that are both of these articles "very well written", I think the articles do a reasonably good job of describing the differences. older ≠ wiser 14:00, 2 July 2014 (UTC)

Pennsylvania does have Unincorporated areas according to a different article.
This part under United States

"Some American states have no unincorporated land areas; these include Connecticut, Massachusetts, New Jersey, Pennsylvania and Rhode Island"

Though Tolna, PA says its an Unincorporated Community.

I don't know anything about this subject, but I just noticed this. So I thought I'd mention it.

--TheeCakee (talk) 19:21, 17 May 2015 (UTC)

 * This illustrates why the long-time back merge of unincorporated community with this article was a bad idea. A state that has no unincorporated areas can and, for any areas with significant populations, usually does have distinct communities that are not separately incorporated. older ≠ wiser 19:24, 17 May 2015 (UTC)

Same with New Jersey. Ringoes, for example, is an unincorporated community in NJ.68.199.9.187 (talk) 20:01, 21 May 2015 (UTC)

I am sorry if I am doing this wrong, but it is my first wikipedia contribution. "Some American states have no unincorporated land areas; these include Connecticut, Massachusetts, New Jersey, Pennsylvania and Rhode Island" appears to be wrong, as I have just come from the page Goshenville, PA, and the only sentence on the page explains how it is an unincorporated community, and links to this page. Thank you for your time. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 100.14.89.68 (talk) 23:30, 11 April 2016 (UTC)

Do we really need two photos?
I am proposing to get rid of the Pine Valley photo for two reasons:

1. It's redundant. We already have a photo of the Contra Costa Centre sign. 2. It wasn't taken properly. A seasoned photographer would have waited a few hours for the sun to rotate to his/her back, or simply hit the sign with a really bright flash.

Any objections? --Coolcaesar (talk) 16:41, 29 May 2015 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 1 one external link on Unincorporated area. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/20110928145515/http://www.statistik-bw.de/Pressemitt/2010459.asp to http://www.statistik-bw.de/Pressemitt/2010459.asp

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

Cheers. —cyberbot II  Talk to my owner :Online 12:43, 17 October 2015 (UTC)

The issue of the lead paragraph
If anyone adds a "citation needed" tag to the lead paragraph as a result of User:Debresser's recent edit (which I just reverted again), I will (1) revert such a tag; (2) ask that editor to take it up with User:Debresser directly. The entire point of having Cabazon listed there is to ward off that kind of idiotic tagging on an issue which is a matter of common sense (i.e., municipal disincorporation). --Coolcaesar (talk) 11:05, 9 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Having an example is in general not the best idea, and especially in a lead section. Moreover, an example does not provide an answer to a "Citation needed" tag, because a source and an example are not the same. Also, it is not clear to me what would need to be sourced in this sentence. Debresser (talk) 12:36, 9 December 2015 (UTC)
 * In short, if a tag is added, deal with it. Don't point fingers, or insist on an inferior version because of it. Debresser (talk) 12:38, 9 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Very well, we'll do it your way and see what happens. To paraphrase Colin Powell, you broke it, you own it.  --Coolcaesar (talk) 17:45, 13 December 2015 (UTC)
 * I have this page on my watchlist now. If I don't react within 24 hours, drop me a note with the issue, please. I might not have understood the issue with the edit. Debresser (talk) 08:02, 14 December 2015 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Unincorporated area. 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/20150913233847/http://www.oca.sa.gov.au/ to http://www.oca.sa.gov.au/
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110202050821/http://www.naco.org/Counties/Pages/HistoryofCountyGovernmentPartI.aspx to http://www.naco.org/Counties/Pages/HistoryofCountyGovernmentPartI.aspx

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) 09:58, 3 September 2017 (UTC)

The UK doesn't have any?
There is no such legal term in the United Kingdom as an 'unincorporated' area or community, as far as I know.

However, it may just be that I'm misunderstanding the definitions given here, but it sounds like what those terms describe is indeed a thing that exists in all four countries of the UK.

Using England as an example: it's divided (entirely) into London Boroughs, metropolitan boroughs, non-metropolitan counties, and unitary authorities (which are all administrative divisions, i.e. they all have governments); non-metropolitan counties are further (entirely) subdivided into (also administrative) non-metropolitan districts (a county that isn't divided into districts is by definition a unitary authority, not a non-metropolitan county). Most non-metropolitan districts, many unitary authorities, and some parts of metropolitan boroughs are divided into civil parishes, which also have governments; some parishes have the status of 'city', 'town' or 'village', while others simply use 'parish'. However, many areas, usually urban areas, are 'unparished' - that is, governed at the lowest level by the unitary authority or district that they're in, and not being part of or under the jurisdiction of any civil parish.

From the definition of an unincorporated area or community in the lede, it seems that unparished areas in England (and their equivalents in Scotland, Wales and I think Northern Ireland that also exist) are unincorporated areas or communities, but it goes on to claim that the UK doesn't have any. Am I wrong? Is the definition clear enough? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Adam Dent (talk • contribs) 19:11, 16 May 2018 (UTC)

Proposed merge (2019) of Main road town into Unincorporated area

 * The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.
 * To not merge; distinct subjects warranting separate coverage. Klbrain (talk) 10:04, 17 July 2020 (UTC)

The articles' subject seems to infer that "main road town" is technically a specific pseudo-variation of an unincorporated community, but the premise is so vague that I think it would be nice to get some commentary first. ToThAc (talk) 20:46, 30 November 2019 (UTC)
 * The proposed merge is an illogical non sequitur. These are two entirely different subjects with no overlap. --Coolcaesar (talk) 19:24, 1 December 2019 (UTC)
 * I agree with Coolcaesar, though this article desperately needs to be sourced. SportingFlyer  T · C  22:18, 15 December 2019 (UTC)
 * I guess it's possible that some or many of these small towns are unincorporated, but there's no reason to think that it's an inherent part of their nature.Nickpheas (talk) 09:24, 23 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Even they may be big town. I can read in the article: "These towns tend to have a higher population than villages, and often act as a transit point for surrounding villages. These towns may be taluk headquarters or headquarters of a subdivision. " --Mezze stagioni (talk) 13:36, 7 March 2020 (UTC)
 * I agree with SportingFlyer, but that's a separate issue QoopyQoopy (talk) 17:24, 25 March 2020 (UTC)

Oppose: A Main Road Town sounds more like a type of Commuter town than an unincorporated area. The term unincorporated area is too general for this. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Llakew18 (talk • contribs) 01:33, 3 April 2020 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. <b style="color: #FF0000;">Please do not modify it.</b> Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

United States
Hello,

I have written a separate article on unincorporated areas in the United States. (Link:Unincorporated area (United States)) It is currently a stub but when it gets to at least start (probably C) should I link it as a main article?

Regards, Giraffer (munch) 08:11, 25 August 2020 (UTC)

Notability
Do stub articles on unincorporated areas in the United States that don't list the population of the area or if it has any people have notability? Jackattack1597 (talk) 19:20, 27 March 2021 (UTC)

Merger proposal (2022) Unorganized area into Unincorporated area
I propose merging Unorganized area (which is about the unincorporated area in Canada) into Unincorporated area. I think the content in Unorganized area can easily be explained in the context of Unincorporated area. --Thesmp (talk) 10:18, 18 February 2022 (UTC)

 * Comment IIRC, but there are organized regions in unorganized areas, the greater "county-level" is what is unorganized. Savard, Ontario is township in an unorganized area, the unorganized area is at the county-level, while Savard is organized as a township. -- 65.92.246.142 (talk) 05:33, 21 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Oppose as they are not the same thing.  Mr. C.C. Hey yo!I didn't do it! 19:25, 28 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Oppose. They are in essence the same, but there is enough country-specific detail at "Unorganized area" to warrant a stand-alone article. Too much detail for the parent article. Moreover, "Unorganized area" has too many Canada-related incoming links, which would be unhelpful if redirected to the generic "Unincorporated area" article. --  P 1 9 9  ✉ 14:06, 21 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Oppose for the reasons noted above. They are certainly related ideas, but the Unorganized area has enough distinct elements that it would be confusing to merge it.  -- Jayron <b style="color:#090">32</b> 14:38, 21 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Oppose Per above. They are similar but not the same; should have their own pages. Chaddude (talk) 00:44, 26 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Oppose We should avoid merging a specific article with a general article.
 * P.S. Proposal was initiated by a banned WP:SOCK, request for WP:SNOW close. 2001:8003:9008:1301:593E:42DA:A54E:3924 (talk) 07:18, 6 April 2022 (UTC)

France
The article says that France has no unincorporated areas except for Clipperton Island. In fact, I believe that also all of France's French Southern and Antarctic Lands are unincorporated. They are divided into districts for administrative purposes, but there are no local assemblies, all officials are appointed (which is unsurprising given that there is no population living there on a permanent basis). David.Monniaux (talk) 19:10, 2 October 2022 (UTC)

US could be separated?
The section on the US is super long and I feel like it could be its own article, and the US section on this article shortened. Just my opinion. TheT.N.T.BOOM! (talk) 01:26, 4 May 2024 (UTC)

title: Talk:Unincorporated area