text:
Talk:Wake Me Up When September Ends

==Really?== Do individual songs usually deserve wikipedia entries? 65.11.69.130 22:15, 8 Apr 2005 (UTC)

 * Hi, Almost anything NOTABLE is included in wikipedia. Notability, however, doesn't include every garage band. Lotsofissues 22:43, 8 Apr 2005 (UTC)

 * Yes, they do, not songs that aren't singles though. That would be pointless and lengthy. --Zzguitar14 (talk) 15:33, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

Statement conerning the music video
is the Music Video anti-war, or does it not say anything at all about the war in iraq? this critisim of the video has been taken up by Ed the Sock, i wonder if its a valad point? (Transcona Slim 18:03, 11 June 2007 (UTC))

 * Good point. WinterSpw 04:45, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

 * The song has nothing to do with the war. BUT as for the music video, well, yes that part does. It's anti-war. --Zzguitar14 (talk) 15:31, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

Yes, the music video has nothing to do with the meaning of the song. But it DOES has something to do with the album, because American Idiot is anti-war.

Moved from Wikipedia:Votes for deletion
Unsubstantial text, which reads as if written in 15 seconds flat. Writing a proper entry would be quicker without the current ramblings. Possible speedy delete candidate? -- llywrch 22:50, 8 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I rewrote it. How about removing the tag? Lotsofissues 22:54, 8 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I added to it. It's still a stub and a short article, but not a candidate for deletion in my opinion. Luis rib 23:01, 8 Apr 2005 (UTC)

 * Considering revisions, I say it's Keepable; though I'm not well-versed in music procedure. --Asriel86 23:09, Apr 8, 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep the rewrite. Mgm|(talk) 23:16, Apr 8, 2005 (UTC)

 * Much better. Removing tag, moving this discussion to Talk. -- llywrch 23:17, 8 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Move?
On the American Idiot page, they capitalise all words in the songs. I put a link to this page now, but maybe we should consider moving it to Wake Me Up When September Ends. What is the policy on this issue? Also, the same page states the original claim that the song is about the death of Billie Joe's father. Should that be re-inserted? Luis rib 23:27, 8 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Time to Wake Up
It's October. 142.161.206.89 19:01, 1 October 2005 (UTC)

The album came out in September of 04...I think he's been awake for more than a year now

 * Ha Ha, So witty! Sceptre  ( Talk  ) 19:32, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

Interestingly, there's an entry in the Jargon File: "September that never ended". Completely irrelevant though.--Jibjibjib 10:33, 24 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Eternal September? Melchoir 00:55, 13 April 2006 (UTC)
 * I had been wondering about that, too -- any relation or connection possible? — Nightst a  llion  (?) 09:35, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

 * The song was released in June. I know, what signficance does that have, right? Yeah, well, what does "it's October" have to do with anything? --Zzguitar14 (talk) 15:30, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

uk video
I'd have to challenge the statement In the UK, the music video is cut down to the original length of the song (4:45), therefore the song starts at the beginning and not 100 seconds into the video. as I'm watching the video in the UK and it had the 100 second intro before the song kicked off properly

"Here comes the rain again"
I'm taking out that part of the article. Nothing implies that as a reference to this song - if anything, I'd far, FAR more likely to be a reference to the Eurythmics song, Here Comes the Rain Again. The Son Of Nothing 00:17, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

where did he cry during bullet in a bible?
i just watched the dvd and i saw him sing i didnt see any tears out of his eyes during the whole thing? what am i missing?

 He dosen't cry he holds back from crying, but when he says "like my father come to pass 20 years have gone so fast."--Kingforaday1620 23:12, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

Incorrect ending information?
In the article, they say it's "implied that he died huddled under the tank." But after watching the video, he was alive and well in the final scene of the video, he was still in Iraq, but he wasn't dead. It's her fear that he'll die that makes her cry, not the fact that he did die. -Emhilradim 22:55, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
 * I'm sorry, I can't find the part of the article that you're referring to. The article states "It is hinted that the boy might have died when the girlfriend is seen crying," which I will remove, because it's speculation.  Is that what you meant?-- J UDE  talk 10:21, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

 * To answer your wonders, yes, I'm almost positive that's what she/he meant. --Zzguitar14 (talk) 15:28, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

Usenet?
I always wondered if this song somehow referred to the same phenomenon as Eternal September. Is this worth mentioning? (Probably not.) —Steve Summit (talk) 17:03, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

 * If it was referring to eternal summer he would be saying he never wanted to wake up. What sense does that make? lol --Zzguitar14 (talk) 15:27, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

 * Not sure what you mean... This could be a h4x0r reference (it makes sense), except it's unlikely Green Day has even heard of Eternal September. Muntoo (talk) 06:50, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

 * I was wondering that as well... Unlikely, seeing how Billie's so anti-computers/technology/stuff. More likely is 9/11 -- the song is about war (see the music video), so those two go along more nicely than "When will everyone stop being dumb?". Muntoo (talk) 06:50, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

Similarities to other songs
Whoever keeps deleting the reference that the song's melody is EXTREMELY similar to that of Oasis' "Rockin' Chair," cite a reason for doing so; I will find mp3 files with a comparison if needed. 207.6.58.164 (talk) 11:07, 2 September 2008 (UTC)
 * It is being deleted because it constitutes original research, which is not allowed.If however you can provide a source where a professional compares the two tracks and comes to the same conlcusion, then you can include it. Until then, observations of what a song sounds like are not necessary in an encyclopedia article. Nouse4aname (talk) 11:30, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 1 one external link on Wake Me Up When September Ends. 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/20120614021717/http://new.music.yahoo.com/blogs/chart_watch/53615/ to http://new.music.yahoo.com/blogs/chart_watch/53615/#postcomment

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

Cheers.—cyberbot II  Talk to my owner :Online 03:20, 29 February 2016 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 1 one external link on Wake Me Up When September Ends. 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/20140625075145/http://www.bpi.co.uk/certified-awards.aspx to http://www.bpi.co.uk/certified-awards.aspx

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) 20:09, 12 November 2016 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 20 July 2017
Could someone change the part where it says "The song became the fourth single from American Idiot to be certified platinum by the Recording Industry Association of America." to "The song became the fourth single from American Idiot to be certified 2x platinum by the Recording Industry Association of America." And change the Certification from Platinum which is 1 million to 2 million 208.54.39.212 (talk) 14:52, 20 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done: For too, read this for why. jd22292 (Jalen D. Folf) (talk) 15:06, 20 July 2017 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 7 August 2017
Could you change the BPI certification from Sliver to Gold, as it went Gold in September 2016 and the RIAA certification from platinum to 2x platinum in the certifications part 76.125.38.35 (talk) 01:04, 7 August 2017 (UTC)
 * BPI updated. RIAA not updated because the source supports the current information. ~ Rob 13 Talk 01:32, 7 August 2017 (UTC)

Track listing
Is it just me, or does the track listing on this page not make any sense?

title: Talk:Wake Me Up When September Ends


text:
Primaris Airlines

Primaris Airlines was an American charter airline located in Enterprise, Nevada, in the United States. It operated domestic and international services. Its main base was McCarran International Airport, Las Vegas.

History
The airline was established in 2002 and started operations on June 1, 2004. It had 140 employees (at January 2008). It achieved an FAA certified Part 121 certification in June 2004 as a Domestic, Flag and supplemental operator. It achieved 180 minute ETOPS certification November 3, 2006. Primaris suspended operations December 2, 2008 due to a lack of available funding.

Primaris was Boeing's first US airline customer for its new Boeing 787 Dreamliner aircraft, with an order for 20 aircraft. Primaris planned to use these aircraft to expand its services internationally, but canceled its intent to purchase the new Boeing aircraft in June 2006. No reason was given for the order cancellation.

Primaris operated the Kona Shuttle for a few years from Oakland, CA (OAK) to Kona, Hawaii (KOA).

On October 10, 2008, Primaris Airlines filed for Chapter 11 bankruptcy protection in U.S.Bankruptcy Court, District of Arizona. After several months attempting to secure continuation funding, the CH.11 trustee moved to convert the filing to CH.7 liquidation on March 30, 2009.

Services
Due to lack of scheduled service funding Primaris Airlines remained a small charter airline.

Fleet
The Primaris Airlines fleet included the following aircraft (as of 1 December 2008)

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

title: Primaris Airlines


text:
Apéry's theorem

In mathematics, Apéry's theorem is a result in number theory that states the Apéry's constant ζ(3) is irrational. That is, the number
 * $$\zeta(3) = \sum_{n=1}^\infty \frac{1}{n^3} = \frac{1}{1^3} + \frac{1}{2^3} + \frac{1}{3^3} + \cdots = 1.2020569\ldots$$

cannot be written as a fraction $$p/q$$ where p and q are integers. The theorem is named after Roger Apéry.

The special values of the Riemann zeta function at even integers $$2n$$ ($$n > 0$$) can be shown in terms of Bernoulli numbers to be irrational, while it remains open whether the function's values are in general rational or not at the odd integers $$2n+1$$ ($$n > 1$$) (though they are conjectured to be irrational).

History
Leonhard Euler proved that if n is a positive integer then
 * $$\frac{1}{1^{2n}} + \frac{1}{2^{2n}} + \frac{1}{3^{2n}} + \frac{1}{4^{2n}} + \cdots = \frac{p}{q}\pi^{2n}$$

for some rational number $$p/q$$. Specifically, writing the infinite series on the left as $$\zeta(2n)$$, he showed
 * $$\zeta(2n) = (-1)^{n+1}\frac{B_{2n}(2\pi)^{2n}}{2(2n)!}$$

where the $$B_n$$ are the rational Bernoulli numbers. Once it was proved that $$\pi^n$$ is always irrational, this showed that $$\zeta(2n)$$ is irrational for all positive integers n.

No such representation in terms of π is known for the so-called zeta constants for odd arguments, the values $$\zeta(2n+1)$$ for positive integers n. It has been conjectured that the ratios of these quantities
 * $$\frac{\zeta(2n+1)}{\pi^{2n+1}},$$

are transcendental for every integer $$n \ge 1$$.

Because of this, no proof could be found to show that the zeta constants with odd arguments were irrational, even though they were (and still are) all believed to be transcendental. However, in June 1978, Roger Apéry gave a talk titled "Sur l'irrationalité de ζ(3)." During the course of the talk he outlined proofs that $$\zeta(3)$$ and $$\zeta(2)$$ were irrational, the latter using methods simplified from those used to tackle the former rather than relying on the expression in terms of π. Due to the wholly unexpected nature of the proof and Apéry's blasé and very sketchy approach to the subject, many of the mathematicians in the audience dismissed the proof as flawed. However Henri Cohen, Hendrik Lenstra, and Alfred van der Poorten suspected Apéry was on to something and set out to confirm his proof. Two months later they finished verification of Apéry's proof, and on August 18 Cohen delivered a lecture giving full details of the proof. After the lecture Apéry himself took to the podium to explain the source of some of his ideas.

Apéry's proof
Apéry's original proof was based on the well known irrationality criterion from Peter Gustav Lejeune Dirichlet, which states that a number $$\xi$$ is irrational if there are infinitely many coprime integers p and q such that
 * $$\left|\xi-\frac{p}{q}\right|<\frac{c}{q^{1+\delta}}$$

for some fixed c, δ > 0.

The starting point for Apéry was the series representation of $$\zeta(3)$$ as
 * $$\zeta(3) = \frac{5}{2} \sum_{n=1}^\infty \frac{(-1)^{n-1}}{n^3\binom{2n}{n}}.$$

Roughly speaking, Apéry then defined a sequence $$c_{n,k}$$ which converges to $$\zeta(3)$$ about as fast as the above series, specifically
 * $$c_{n,k} = \sum_{m=1}^{n}\frac{1}{m^{3}} + \sum_{m=1}^{k}\frac{(-1)^{m-1}}{2m^{3}\binom{n}{m}\binom{n+m}{m}}.$$

He then defined two more sequences $$a_n$$ and $$b_n$$ that, roughly, have the quotient $$c_{n,k}$$. These sequences were
 * $$a_{n} = \sum_{k=0}^{n}c_{n,k}\binom{n}{k}^{2}\binom{n+k}{k}^{2}$$

and
 * $$b_{n}=\sum_{k=0}^{n}\binom{n}{k}^{2}\binom{n+k}{k}^{2}.$$

The sequence $$\frac{a_n}{b_n}$$ converges to $$\zeta(3)$$ fast enough to apply the criterion, but unfortunately $$a_n$$ is not an integer after $$n=2$$. Nevertheless, Apéry showed that even after multiplying $$a_n$$ and $$b_n$$ by a suitable integer to cure this problem the convergence was still fast enough to guarantee irrationality.

Later proofs
Within a year of Apéry's result an alternative proof was found by Frits Beukers, who replaced Apéry's series with integrals involving the shifted Legendre polynomials $$\tilde{P_{n}}(x)$$. Using a representation that would later be generalized to Hadjicostas's formula, Beukers showed that
 * $$\int_{0}^{1}\int_{0}^{1}\frac{-\log(xy)}{1-xy}\tilde{P_{n}}(x)\tilde{P_{n}}(y)dxdy=\frac{A_{n}+B_{n}\zeta(3)}{\operatorname{lcm}\left[1,\ldots,n\right]^{3}}$$

for some integers An and Bn (sequences and ). Using partial integration and the assumption that $$\zeta(3)$$ was rational and equal to $$\frac{a}{b}$$, Beukers eventually derived the inequality
 * $$0<\frac{1}{b}\leq\left|A_{n}+B_{n}\zeta(3)\right|\leq 4\left(\frac{4}{5}\right)^{n}$$

which is a contradiction since the right-most expression tends to zero as $$n\to\infty$$, and so must eventually fall below $$\frac{1}{b}$$.

A more recent proof by Wadim Zudilin is more reminiscent of Apéry's original proof, and also has similarities to a fourth proof by Yuri Nesterenko. These later proofs again derive a contradiction from the assumption that $$\zeta(3)$$ is rational by constructing sequences that tend to zero but are bounded below by some positive constant. They are somewhat less transparent than the earlier proofs, since they rely upon hypergeometric series.

Higher zeta constants

 * See also

Apéry and Beukers could simplify their proofs to work on $$\zeta(2)$$ as well thanks to the series representation
 * $$\zeta(2)=3\sum_{n=1}^{\infty}\frac{1}{n^{2}\binom{2n}{n}}.$$

Due to the success of Apéry's method a search was undertaken for a number $$\xi_5$$ with the property that
 * $$\zeta(5)=\xi_{5}\sum_{n=1}^{\infty}\frac{(-1)^{n-1}}{n^{5}\binom{2n}{n}}.$$

If such a $$\xi_5$$ were found then the methods used to prove Apéry's theorem would be expected to work on a proof that $$\zeta(5)$$ is irrational. Unfortunately, extensive computer searching has failed to find such a constant, and in fact it is now known that if $$\xi_5$$ exists and if it is an algebraic number of degree at most 25, then the coefficients in its minimal polynomial must be enormous, at least $$10^{383}$$, so extending Apéry's proof to work on the higher odd zeta constants does not seem likely to work.

Work by Wadim Zudilin and Tanguy Rivoal has shown that infinitely many of the numbers $$\zeta(2n+1)$$ must be irrational, and even that at least one of the numbers $$\zeta(5)$$, $$\zeta(7)$$, $$\zeta(9)$$, and $$\zeta(11)$$ must be irrational. Their work uses linear forms in values of the zeta function and estimates upon them to bound the dimension of a vector space spanned by values of the zeta function at odd integers. Hopes that Zudilin could cut his list further to just one number did not materialise, but work on this problem is still an active area of research. Higher zeta constants have application to physics: they describe correlation functions in quantum spin chains.

title: Apéry's theorem


text:
TCPaccess

TCPaccess is a software product which implements the TCP/IP protocol suite on IBM mainframe computers using the MVS operating system. It was developed in 1986 by Advanced Computer Communications under the name ACCES/MVS, and was the first commercial TCP/IP implementation for MVS mainframes. It is usually associated with Interlink Computer Sciences, which developed and marketed the product from 1990 until 1999, and is frequently referred to as "the Interlink stack". The product was marketed by Cisco Systems as Cisco IOS for S/390. It is currently offered by Computer Associates as Unicenter TCPaccess Communications Server.

title: TCPaccess


text:
Maryam Rajavi

Maryam Rajavi (, Qajar-Azodanlu, ) is an Iranian dissident politician and the leader of the People's Mujahedin of Iran (MEK), an organization advocating the overthrow of the Iranian government, and president-elect of its National Council of Resistance of Iran (NCRI). She is married to Massoud Rajavi, who is the co-leader of MEK.

Political career

Rajavi has stated that her political activism began when she was twenty-two after her sister Narges was killed by SAVAK. Her other sister, Massumeh, was also executed (while pregnant) in 1982 by Ruhollah Khomeini’s regime. Then she became a member of the People's Mojahedin of Iran (PMOI/MEK), and began her political career.

Rajavi served as an organizer of the anti-Shah student movement in the 1970s. In 1979, she became an official of the social section of the PMOI/MEK, where she served until 1981. Rajavi was a parliamentary candidate in 1980.

In 1982, Rajavi was transferred to Auvers-sur-Oise, Île-de-France where the political headquarters of the Mojahedin was located.

In 1985, she became co-leader of the PMOI alongside Massoud Rajavi, her husband, and served as the Secretary General between 1989 and 1993.

On 22 October 1993, the NCRI elected Rajavi to be "Iran’s interim President" if the NCRI were to assume power in Iran.

In October 2011, Theresa May banned Rajavi from coming to Britain in a trip where she was to "explain how women are mistreated in Iran". The high court then sued Theresa May, with Lord Carlile of Berriew (the Government's former independent reviewer of counter-terrorism laws) saying that May's decision "could be viewed as appeasing the Mullahs". In 2014, the Supreme Court of the United Kingdom dismissed an appeal from Lord Carlile of Berriew QC and others and upheld it to maintain the ban, which had originally been implemented in 1997. Members of the UK House of Lords argued that the Home Secretary was "violating Article 10 (freedom of expression) of the European Convention of Human Rights (the Convention)", saying that "Home Secretary’s reasons were legally irrelevant, because they depended on the potential reaction of a foreign state which did not share the values embodied in the Convention." Rajavi is not excluded from any other European country and engages regularly with parliamentarians in the European Parliament.

Maryam Rajavi publicly met with the President of the State of Palestine Mahmoud Abbas on 30 July 2016 in Paris, France.

Activism
In 1992, following the EP Council supported Maryam Rajavi's advocacy for "the international community act specially in favor of women’s rights" following condemnation of human rights violations by the Iranian government.

Rajavi presented her plan at the Council of Europe in 2006, which supports complete gender equality in political and social rights and, specifically, a commitment to equal participation of women in political leadership. Her 10-point plan for the future of Iran stipulates that any form of discrimination against women would be abolished and that women would enjoy the right to choose their clothing freely. It also includes the ending of cruel and degrading punishments.

In April 2021, Maryam Rajavi endorsed resolution HR 118, which expresses “support for Iranian people’s desire for a democratic republic” and “condemns ‘violations of human rights and state-sponsored terrorism’ by Tehran”.

In July 2021, Rajavi organized a protest in Berlin to protest the election of Ebrahim Raisi as President of Iran. Rajavi called Raisi the "henchman" of the massacre of 30,000 political prisoners in 1988. She was joined in the protest by former U.S. Secretary of State Mike Pompeo, who expressed his support for Rajavi and the National Council of Resistance of Iran.

In a statement that condemned the ISIS attacks against Iran's parliament and the tomb of the Islamic Republic's founder, Rajavi stated, Rajavi stated: "ISIS's conduct clearly benefits the Iranian regime's Supreme Leader Khamenei, who wholeheartedly welcomes it as an opportunity to overcome his regime's regional and international impasse and isolation. The founder and the number one state sponsor of terror is thus trying to switch the place of murderer and the victim and portray the central banker of terrorism as a victim."

A 10-point manifesto published by Rajavi sets out a programme to transform Iran. She states her commitment to the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and to other international instruments. She calls for the abolition of the death penalty, the creation of a modern legal system and the independence of judges. Rajavi would end Tehran's funding of Hamas, Hezbollah and other militant groups and is committed to peaceful coexistence, relations with all countries and respect for the Charter of the United Nations. The manifesto also contains the statement that "We recognize private property, private investment and the market economy." In June 2020, a majority of members of the USA's House of Representatives backed a "bipartisan resolution" supporting Rajavi and the NCRI's "call for a secular, democratic Iran" while "condemning Iranian state-sponsored terrorism." The resolution, backed by 221 lawmakers (including Louie Gohmert and Sheila Jackson Lee), gave support to Rajavi's 10-point plan for Iran's future (which include "a universal right to vote, market economy, and a non-nuclear Iran") while calling on the prevention of "malign activities of the Iranian regime’s diplomatic missions."

In early August 2023, the government of Albania, where most of MEK camps are based, banned Rajavi's entry into the country, citing evidence that MEK had conducted terrorist activities inside Iran.

2018 Rally incident
In 2018, Vienna-based Iranian diplomat Asadollah Asadi was tried and sentenced to 20 years in prison in a high-profile case for masterminding a terrorism plot against a rally led by Maryam Rajavi. The rally was also attended by civilians and high-profile Westerners scheduled to speak (including Rudy Giuliani, Stephen Harper, and Bill Richardson).

France
On 17 June 2003, Rajavi was arrested by Paris Police Prefecture alongside some 150 MEK members. She and 23 other people were investigated over suspicion of links to terrorism. All charges were later dropped.

Iraq
In July 2010, the Iraqi High Tribunal issued an arrest warrant for 39 MEK members, including Rajavi, "due to evidence that confirms they committed crimes against humanity" by "involvement with the former Iraqi security forces in suppressing the 1991 uprising against the former Iraqi regime and the killing of Iraqi citizens". The MEK have denied the charges, saying that they constitute a "politically motivated decision and it’s the last gift presented from the government of Nuri al-Maliki to the Iranian government".

Trial in absentia
On 29 July 2023, Iran announced that they would try Rajavi and 103 other members of MEK in absentia. The trial against both Rajavi and the 101 other MEK members commenced on 21 December 2023 at a Tehran court, and is ongoing as of April 2024. According to U.S. federal legislative information, these involve "sham trials" of dissident Iranian Resistance veterans in order to have them extradited back to Iran or "justify terror plots against them".

Personal life
Rajavi was born Maryam Qajar-Azodanlu on 4 December 1953 in Tehran, Iran. She was raised in a middle-class family of civil servants descended from a member of the Qajar dynasty. She attended the Sharif University of Technology in Iran, earning a Bachelor of Science degree in metallurgy. Maryam Rajavi was married to Mehdi Abrishamchi from 1980 to 1985, when she divorced him in order to marry Massoud Rajavi (dis. 2003).

Books

 * Great March towards Freedom
 * No to Compulsory Religion, No to Compulsory Government Illustrated
 * Women, Islam and Fundamentalism
 * Iran Will Be Free
 * Key to Countering Islamic Fundamentalism

title: Maryam Rajavi


text: Category:474 births

title: Category:474 births


text:
Talk:Municipality

Municipality and commune
Is municipality really the proper translation for Gemeinde? "Commune," on the French model, seems more appropriate. john k 22:22, 8 Apr 2005 (UTC)

 * What is the difference between municipality and commune (subnational entity)? According to our articles, it seems that they are just two different words for the same thing. Maybe commune (subnational entity) should be merged into this article. Chl 19:57, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

Let's merge commune (subnational entity) here. Chl 17:17, 27 May 2006 (UTC)
 * There is a difference between Gemeinde and Municipality or Commune, because the law in French, German or English speaking countries is not the same. And those words has also a meaning according to the local law. Carsrac (talk) 12:05, 25 December 2015 (UTC)

 * The law among English-speaking countries is not the same. The law among German-speaking countries is not the same. Even within the United States, for example, every one of the 50 states has its own legal definition for what constitutes a "city", a "town", in some of them a "village", and each of them accords its own sets of rights and responsibilities to each of those units. That doesn't mean someone from California can't speak of a city in Pennsylvania as a "city".

 * Can we not say that Berlin is the capital of Germany because Germans call it their "Hauptstadt", which isn't the same word as "capital", and because Berlin doesn't have exactly the same legal status with respect to its country as Washington or Ottawa or London have with respect to theirs (all three of which are different)?

 * "Municipality" refers to a very generally defined level of local government. Precisely because the local government infrastructures of all the countries vary so greatly from one another, any term we use to reference them in general has to have a very loose, fuzzy meaning. But we do need to have a generic term to cover them. —Largo Plazo (talk) 14:13, 25 December 2015 (UTC)

Not fully correct definition(?)
''A municipality ... is an administrative local area generally composed of a clearly defined territory and commonly referring to a city, town, or village government.''

It seems to me, correct if I'm wrong, that this definitions is based on US view (see in article the US part). The explanations in many other countries are referring to type of counties vs towns (county as land area where is villages, fields, forest etc vs town which is houses and parks, when defining simplified way) see Belgium, Netherlands, Finland, Sweden etc. --TarmoK 2 July 2005 06:23 (UTC)

Entry on JAPAN states that all governments other than the national government are called municipalities. This is clearly not the case: Prefectures are hugely important political/administrative statutory governing bodies. Randal

Hungary
The article says "In Hungary, a municipality (kistérség) is part of a county (megye)." I don't know if this terminology is correct; when speaking about Hungary in English, municipality is often used as a term that encompasses cities, towns and villages, while kistérség is usually translated as district, the same as the translation for járás (note that a kistérség has importace mainly in statistics only, I'm not even sure they have some kind of local government). – Alensha 寫 词 13:10, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

United Kingdom
At the time of writing the bit about the UK reads as follows: "In the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, a municipality is governed by official political borders, such as that of the Greater Belfast area in Northern Ireland. As is the same for the Greater London area and not just the City of London."

I know little about local government in Northern Ireland, but I know how it works in London, and the Greater London level - the Mayor of London and the Greater London Assembly - has power over policing, public transport, strategic planing and a few other bits and pieces but the lower-tier London Boroughs - Westminster, Ealing, etc, have power over most major services, e.g. education, social services, housing and local roads. Describing Greater London as a municipality in the sense described in this article seems a little odd. To be honest, as has been mentioned earlier, this article seems to be exporting the US concept of municipalities worldwide and so doesn't map very successfully to the local government structures in most other countries. 80.229.220.14 19:07, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

First- / Second-Level Entities
This distinction needs to be defined and motivated (what is exactly the difference? why is it important?), or removed. Chl 11:07, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

 * I removed it. Slovenia and Portugal had their municipalities in the section First-level and in the section Second-level. The combined table allows to state under "subdivision of" the value "the country" to indicate first level. But Slovenia and Portugal both have entities containing multiple municipalities. JelgavaLV (talk) 06:03, 3 February 2013 (UTC)

Proposed merger

 * The following discussion is an archived discussion of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The merger proposal fails for lack of consensus. See additional comments at Talk:Township Yellowdesk (talk) 00:01, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

Oppose merger of township, as a common English term yet with variants in usage in different locations. It deserves its own article, if for nothing more than to facilitate linking. Probably the others, too; though they might be combined with other similar in function or similarly named entities. Gene Nygaard 14:09, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

Small Text Subscript text

First of all, I support a merger with township, as the two articles cover much the same ground. More importantly, both articles are confusing and incorrect because they use the term municipality incorrectly in various places. A municipality refers to the local government of a town, or an area governed like a town. Rural (or urban) sub-units with small populations, and very limited administrative responsibilities, are not municipalities but parishes or communities, and those expressions should be used to translate commune, Gemeinde, and all the equivalents in other languages. Ehrenkater (talk) 19:11, 11 September 2008 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Error
The part where it says Netherlands is messed up, since the text below it is about new zealand. somehow a header must have been deleted somewhere. I am too busy to edit it, and not sure if I am really correct, but this needs fixing -77.249.244.103 (talk) 13:16, 18 June 2009 (UTC)
 * The New Zealand header was missed when the layout of the article was re-designed. I have inserted the header.  Thanks for catching this!—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 13:59, June 18, 2009 (UTC)

municipalities in mexico
municipalities in mexico act like counties. there is a municipality seat and surrounding communities. just like a counties. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.25.15.158 (talk) 21:54, 26 October 2009 (UTC)
 * I presume you are talking about the United States concept of county, not the European concept. In Europe, a county is normally a second-level administrative unit, and is subdivided into municipalities.  Skinsmoke (talk) 20:51, 19 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Seeing as American and Mexican states are comparable to European countries in size, it's understandable that countries as large as the USA and Mexico would be subdivided into states first. The states, geographically similar to European countries, are then further subdivided.  In the US, these subdivisions are usually called counties, making them equivalent to what you're discussing.  In Mexico, they are called municipios.  A Mexican municipio is more akin to an American (and European) county than it is to an American municipality.  98.221.141.21 (talk) 17:47, 8 November 2016 (UTC)

Urgent urban renewal
This article is completely unreferenced.

I have serious doubts about the lower level / first level definitions by country. Other editors have voiced similar doubts. The problem comes from an attempt of mapping the generic meaning of municipality into a specific context of another nation.
 * Merriam-Webster defines municipality as "1 : a primarily urban political unit having corporate status and usually powers of self-government. 2 : the governing body of a municipality." Other encyclopedias come to similar conclusions. We can't attach another meaning to it when translating it to another country.
 * Now, pull out a dictionary. If it does its job right, it will say that "municipality" can mean anything from a village to a city, and even a municipal government.
 * My English-German dictionary faithfully translates municipality to anything from "Gemeinde" (village, parish) to "Stadtverwaltung" (city government).
 * However, this article claims that ..
 * In Austria, a municipality (Gemeinde) is part of a district (Bezirk), which is in turn part of a state (Bundesland).
 * In Germany, a municipality (Gemeinde) is part of a district (Kreis). Larger entities of the same level are called towns (Stadt). In less populated regions, municipalities are often put together into collective municipalities (Verbandsgemeinde)
 * In Switzerland, a municipality (commune/Gemeinde/comune) is part of a canton (canton/Kanton/cantone) and defined by cantonal law.
 * This is all true. But it's only partially true. It gives the impression that in all three countries, municipality means "Gemeinde" (village,parish.) In reality, municipality can mean anything from a village to a city in all three countries, or even a city government. In the German language, there exists a complementary generic term, "Ort". Literally, it means "place", but within that context, it is as generic as municipality. It does not encompass the governing body of a municipality, that would be "Ortsverwaltung."
 * I checked some other countries I am familiar with, and they are likewise problematic. For instance, the Chinese direct-controlled municipalities (直辖市 in pinyin: zhíxiáshì) are correctly reflected as cities ("shi" means city in Chinese and Japanese), but the reverse translation into "municipality" has problems. They are cities with the rank of a state/province, just like Berlin or Vienna. In their own language, they all are called "cities."
 * Ì assume other countries have similar problems, as the comments above attest.

I strongly recommend removing the country-specific explanations, unless they can be properly sourced. Wikipedia is not a dictionary, so translations into other languages are out. -- BsBsBs (talk) 05:59, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

Largest Municipality
"The largest municipalities can be found in Australia, Brazil, Canada, Greenland, and Iceland."

This statement contradicts the Wikipedia article on Chongqing. The article on Chongqing states it is 'possibly the worlds largest municipality by both size and population". At 31,000,000 people I suspect this is probably right, at least for population. 122.59.243.157 (talk) 02:53, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

Reference or perish
Folks, this article is going down the drain. It is full of information, but there is not a single reference. The introduction is mostly pure fantasy. The long lists of upper and lower level municipalities all over the world are likewise unreferenced and usually fall into the trap of translating the purely generic meaning of “municipality” into a national context. The result is humbug.

So “in most countries, a municipality is the smallest administrative subdivision to have democratically elected representation?” Citation needed. There are many countries and municipalities on this planet that don’t have a democratically elected representation. Some of the world’s most populous municipalities fall in this category.

So most municipalities “fall into one of two categories: (1) a single settlement, a city, town, or village, and (2) a land area similar to a township that may contain multiple settlements, or even just part of one, such as a city's borough. A town municipality is typically governed by a mayor and a council, while others may have appointed prefects?” Where did that come from? Citation, please.

Merriam Webster defines municipality as “a primarily urban political unit having corporate status and usually powers of self-government.”

The Free Dictionary concurs: A municipality is “a political unit, such as a city, town, or village, incorporated for local self-government.”

Wiktionary agrees: A municipality is “a district with a government that typically encloses no other governed districts; a borough, city, or incorporated town or village.”

That’s it. There is not more to a municipality. It's a generic term. It can be used from a tiny hamlet (if it has a local government) all the way to a city bigger than many countries.

The fact that the article is completely unreferenced has been brought up quite a while ago. See above. This was met with silence.

The assertion that “the largest municipalities can be found in Australia, Brazil, Canada, Greenland, and Iceland” has been challenged (and rightfully so.) The challenge has been ignored. The World's largest municipalities by population are in China, Pakistan, and India. The World's largest municipalities by surface area are in China, Brazil, Australia, and Canada.

This article is largely a work of fantasy. It needs to be cleaned up, referenced, or deleted. Putting it out of its misery would probably be the best solution, as the only thing of substance left after a thorough cleanup and removal of unreferenced fiction would most likely be: “A municipality is a primarily urban political unit having corporate status and usually powers of self-government.” And since Wikipedia is no dictionary, we can dispense with the article. BsBsBs (talk) 06:52, 16 November 2010 (UTC)
 * The easiest way to improve this article is to follow the country-specific links and borrow the references from wherever they led you to. If the target article has no references, then the line can be marked as uncited and eventually removed.  While the issues outlined above are serious and real, nuking the whole article seems to be akin to shooting a person over a severe toothache :)—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); November 16, 2010; 14:06 (UTC)

I've tried that on a few and it leads to nothing. We have two major problems:

1.) The intro is unreferenced. I can find no references for the assertions made. And some of the assertions are plain wrong.

2.) The mapping of "municipality" into other countries and their languages rests on the fallacious assumption that these countries have their own interpretation of "municipality." They don't. They use a term of their language and work with that. "Municipality" is an English word, and it means “a primarily urban political unit having corporate status and usually powers of self-government.” From an English speaking perspective, there are no differences between municipalities in Albania and Zambia, because all will have "primarily urban political units having corporate status and usually powers of self-government.” From an Albanian perspective, the country may have a "bashki" or "komunë," but it has no "municipality" in its own language. Or maybe it does. But then that Albanian word needs to mean “a primarily urban political unit having corporate status and usually powers of self-government.”

I have tried to follow some country specific links and either found nothing, or more nonsense. For instance, the German entry references "Gemeinde" which links to Municipalities of Germany. This likewise unreferenced article says "Municipalities (Gemeinde) are the lowest level of territorial division in Germany." True for "Gemeinde." Not true for "municipality." Berlin, the capital of Germany with the status of a state, is a municipality. The country specific entries are full of mistakes. It says that "in the People's Republic of China, a direct-controlled municipality is a city with equal status to a province: Beijing, Tianjin, Shanghai, and Chongqing." True. But it gives the impression as if each municipality in China is a direct controlled municipality. It does that by faking "see Municipality of China" which leads to Direct-controlled municipality. China is full of other municipalities which are not direct controlled.

In Taiwan, even bigger lies are perpetrated. Supposedly, in Taiwan, "a municipality is a city with equal status to a province: Taipei and Kaohsiung. (see Municipalities of Taiwan)." Again, a Direct-controlled municipality has the status of a province, hence the term, the others don't. And the list goes on.

This is more than severe toothache. This is cancer. BsBsBs (talk) 20:18, 16 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Good points, yes. But we still don't shoot cancer patient even if they are terminal :)
 * Take the intro. Why not make it specific to the English-speaking countries (ref the entries by country, if necessary), and mention that the term may be used in a different sense in other, not-English-speaking countries?  Those other countries can then be listed in a separate section, with the caveats specifically mentioned. Countries where the entity type terms are not translated directly as "municipality" can then be sacked.
 * This, of course, is all going to be complicated and not as easy as deleting the article outright. What this article needs is individual attention from each applicable WikiProject.  I can hardly imagine any one person who would be able to bring any semblance of order to this page after an individual effort...—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); November 16, 2010; 21:20 (UTC)

I hate deleting articles. Sometimes, I dream of creating a PROD rescue site. I never deleted an article or nominated one for deletion. But I’m afraid this article is beyond salvage. It rests on two erroneous assumptions:

1.) The article assumes that a municipality is something special. It is not. "Municipality" is a generic term for an administrative local entity. A municipality can be anything from a village to a city. Just like “motor vehicle” can be anything on wheels (and not on rails) with an engine.

2.) The article assumes that “municipality” means something different in different countries. It does not. Sure, a “motor vehicle” is an F150 in the USA, a Mercedes S-Class in Germany, and a Hilux with a machine gun in Somalia. All true. But the fact remains that in all countries, a motor vehicle is anything on wheels (and not on rails) with an engine.

Correct these two erroneous and unreferenced assumptions, and the article evaporates. Just look at the talk entries. Nearly every entry finds fault. Nearly every fault is ignored.

Truly translating “municipality” into other languages would be as ridiculous as revealing the astounding fact that motor vehicle means “Kraftfahrzeug” in German. Or maybe only in Germany, who knows.
 * No, the terminology is the same in Austria and in the German-speaking part of Switzerland!47.215.180.7 (talk) 16:18, 18 February 2018 (UTC)

If we want to keep the article, then all the upper-level and lower-level fantasy has to go. The country typical entries have to go. The article will be a short article, saying what it is, and that it can be anything from West Hampton Dunes, pop. 11, to Chongqing, pop 32 million, or thereabouts. BsBsBs (talk) 06:28, 17 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Ironically, we do have an article on motor vehicle, as well as Article Rescue Squadron :)
 * My point is that while you are right about the term "municipality" being specific to each country (in Russia, for example, it is not even an administrative division), I still disagree that the article's premise is wrong. The lead sure needs to be re-written, that much is true, and the individual entries need attention, but the concept itself is quite encyclopedic.  Take your example on motor vehicles.  Different countries define motor vehicles differently, and many even have regulations as to what constitutes a "motor vehicle".  These distinctions, however, are hardly encyclopedic material.  Not so with municipalities.  They, too, are subject to different regulations in different countries, but they do constitute encyclopedic material.  Russian encyclopedias will have detailed articles about what a "municipality" is in Russia, German encyclopedias will have detailed articles about what a "municipality" is in Germany, Somali encyclopedias will have... you get the drift.  And since our job is to be a collection of all human knowledge, the country-specific details about the municipalities sure qualify.  Editing, yes, the article needs lots of that, and it will probably become much shorter, too, but sacking it, no, that's not a good approach.—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); November 17, 2010; 14:49 (UTC)

 * I'm German and I can tell you that a German encyclopedia will not have an entry for municipality. Try it: http://wortschatz.uni-leipzig.de/ It has entries for Gemeinde, Markt, Stadt etc. (Which are all "municipalities.") I am NOT saying that the term "municipality" is specific to every country. "Municipality" is an English term, with a certain meaning. Saying that "municipality" means this in that country and that in this country is wrong. Municipality means “a primarily urban political unit having corporate status and usually powers of self-government.” This English meaning does not change. Try set theory: Incorporated villages, towns with an administration, cities with a city government are all subsets of "municipality." Sidney as a whole is no municipality, because it consists of independent Local Government Areas (LGAs) which are municipalities. Greater London is a municipality, because it has a municipal government. Lagos is no municipality, because it is subdivided and has no common government. West Hampton Dunes is a municipality (has government.)  Westhampton Beach  is a municipality (has government.) Westhampton is no municipality. Has no government. Belongs to Southampton Township. The village where I was born in Germany used to be a municipality, because it had its own mayor. Now it's no municipality, because it had been swallowed by the city nearby. Singapore is a municipality and a country. Tiny Andorra is a country, but no municipality, because it is subdivided into parishes, which are. You can do this exercise in any country. The meaning of municipality does not change. BsBsBs (talk) 18:33, 17 November 2010 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure I see your point. Of course non-English-speaking countries would not have an entity called "municipality" (i.e., an entity described by an English word). Many, however, would have entities the terms for which can perfectly well be translated as "municipality" in English (Russia is one example, even though the Russian definition of municipality is at great odds with the English definition you provided). And, of course, different kinds of municipalities exist. Herding all possible varieties under the roof of one English definition (which, by the way, also differs from one English-speaking country to another, as well as can have different historic meanings) is a little strange. It looks as if you are under the impression that if any foreign entity does not fall under your English definition of a "municipality", it should not be covered here at all.
 * There's no arguing that in its present condition the lead of the article is unacceptable. However, it does not mean that a better lead cannot be written. You seem to be arguing that is is nearly impossible to clean this article up and still have anything of value remaining. I disagree.
 * By the way, it'd be really nice if someone else reading this also posted a comment. Cheers,—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); November 17, 2010; 19:06 (UTC)
 * I have been monitoring this discussion and agree that the article needs to be improved with references, and agree that it should not be deleted. I'm going to do my part by improving and referencing the summary of municipalities as they relate to Canada. I am unable to do the same for other countries as I am not familiar with how municipalities are defined in other countries. Hopefully editors of other countries will follow suit, possibly through engagement of past editors of this article that made changes related to specific countries or notification on the respective country notice boards.  It may take a day or more before I complete my Canada contribution as I have to rectify known errors in other articles that are incorrect before wikilinking them in the forthcoming Canada contributions. I feel this needs to be done first to minimize downstream controversy and remove contradictory content. Hwy43 (talk) 19:25, 17 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks, Hwy. This is exactly what I was talking about—if we get one editor per each country line to take care of just that line, the end result might just turn out pretty decent. Cheers,—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); November 17, 2010; 19:59 (UTC)
 * Before we delve into country-specific municipalities, we need to define the meaning of "municipality." Supposedly, it has different meanings in different English-speaking countries. If it does, then this would be a good start for the intro. The trouble is, I can't find substantially different definitions. They all pretty much say the same. Don't fall into the translation trap. As much as I can tell, "municipality" is a generic term, encompassing anything from a tiny village to a city of 32 million. That gives you a wide latitude of translation. Translated back into English, it can - if you are not careful - produce the impression that municipality has different meanings in different countries. If you are careful, you pick a likewise generic term (if there is one) for your translation that encompasses the same generic meaning of an independent local administrative unit. But then we are in the realm of "Wikipedia is no dictionary." You also will have serious reference problems. As the reference for each country is most likely in its own language, it needs to be translated back into English - which produces mistakes. Who will check all these references? I speak several languages. I lived around the world and in extremely diverse cultures. I write professionally in German and English. I'm professionally involved with demography. But truth be told, I'm not even sure of the proper unambiguous translation of "municipality" into German. In Districts of Germany, there is a never ending discussion whether a "Kreis" should be translated as "district" or "county." At the same time, nobody is bothered by the hilarious introduction of "This article is about the "Circles" (Kreise) of Germany." Sure, a "Kreis" can also mean "circle" in German, but nobody thinks of a shape with an equidistant radius in this context. Let's not fall in the same trap and produce more hilarity. BsBsBs (talk) 04:32, 18 November 2010 (UTC)
 * The material about "township" is absurd in many respects. A township is a unit of surveying in most of the United States. A township is generally a square six miles by six miles (36 "sections"), excepting in northeastern Ohio (settled earlier), where it is five miles by five miles (25 "sections"). In either case, a section is a square one mile by one mile = one square mile = 640 acres, but with some small deviation due to the curvature of the Earth.47.215.180.7 (talk) 16:18, 18 February 2018 (UTC)

Sanitation Department
This article did not have a single reference. It did not even have a reflist. It is a municipality ruled by anarchy. We can’t just make things up. I have edited and referenced the beginning. The wild and often contradicting sprawl clears up once sources are used. As mentioned long ago (see above) I still I have serious problems with the unreferenced rest. The theory that some countries use “municipality” as a lower level structure and some as an upper level is completely unreferenced. This sometimes leads to wild theories that are without foundation. I fail to see the sense of defining “municipality” for a country that does not have the term “municipality” in its own language. If editors insist on country-specific municipalities beyond countries that use the English word “municipality” as part of their legal framework, then please furnish references for each entry. Unreferenced entries can and will be deleted. Thank you. BsBsBs (talk) 07:52, 17 July 2011 (UTC)

 * Extreme insistence on references when the article is virtually a linkfarm to articles where the points are elaborated is not appropriate. Rather, this situation calls for a synthesis. Realistically, unless someone happens to dig up some textbook on municipal administration, it is unlikely that "general" references would immediately appear. --vuo (talk) 10:40, 17 July 2011 (UTC)

 * "Extreme insistence on reference?" The article had NONE. Removing a reference doesn't help. If Merriam-Webster says a municipality is "a primarily urban political unit having corporate status and usually powers of self-government" then Merriam-Webster defines a municipality as "a primarily urban political unit having corporate status and usually powers of self-government." If this is not true, then the edit needs a reference.

 * The "municipality" is the "motor vehicle" of local administration. It is a catch-all for the many permutations of local political units around the world. Defining it further, and giving it country-specific meanings would be akin to saying "in the United States, half of the motor vehicles are trucks", "in Germany, most of the motor vehicles are made by Volkswagen, whereas in Japan, they are made by Toyota", "in India, most of the motor vehicles have two wheels", "in Afghanistan, Sudan an Yemen, motor vehicles are generally Toyota Hilux with rear-mounted machine gun, whereas in Libya, the motor vehicle with rear-mounted machine gun is now mostly of Chinese provenience."

 * A synthesis is expressly disallowed: "Do not combine material from multiple sources to reach or imply a conclusion not explicitly stated by any of the sources. If one reliable source says A, and another reliable source says B, do not join A and B together to imply a conclusion C that is not mentioned by either of the sources. This would be a synthesis of published material to advance a new position, which is original research." What we have here, is gross synthesis devoid of reliable sources.

 * A wikilink is not allowed as a reference, and does not obviate the need for a reference. For instance, the fact that there is an entry for Municipalities of Mexico, does not prove the wild theory that a municipality can refer to several cities, towns or villages.

 * A municipality is not synonymous with populated place. A populated place can be a municipality if it has its own municipal government, but more often than not, it is not.  BsBsBs (talk) 19:16, 17 July 2011 (UTC)

Dubious
I don't believe that the reference provided here supports the previous sentence, ie "Types of municipalities within Canada include cities, district municipalities, municipal districts, municipalities, parishes, rural municipalities, towns, townships, villes, and villages among others" While it may be true that there may be examples in Canada of municipal villages and parishes etc, this reference is simply a list of Census subdivisions. I don't believe that these necessarily have anything to do with whether or not the areas are municipalities or not. Derek Andrews (talk) 13:09, 11 March 2012 (UTC)

 * See the first footnote at the bottom of page 5 of the reference, which states the following:
 * 1. Census subdivision (CSD): a term applying to municipalities (as determined by provincial legislation) or their equivalents (e.g., Indian reserves, Indian settlements). In Newfoundland and Labrador, Nova Scotia and British Columbia, census subdivisions have been created by Statistics Canada, in cooperation with the provinces, as equivalents for municipalities.
 * Those listed as examples are then extracted from Table A on pages 7 and 8. Hwy43 (talk) 17:28, 11 March 2012 (UTC)

 * OK, I see that now, but my concern is in what manner are they equivalent? Do they have any level of self governance and taxation, or are they just convenient boundaries for the purpose of gathering statistics? Derek Andrews (talk) 20:26, 12 March 2012 (UTC)

 * Those that have convenient boundaries for the purpose of gathering statistics appear to be certain census subdivisions within Newfoundland and Labrador, Nova Scotia and British Columbia per the footnote above from the reference. The level of self governance and taxation for those census subdivisions that are officially municipalities will vary by province and territory according to the applicable legislative documents. I wonder if there is something on your mind behind this discussion triggered by the recent discussion at Talk:Unincorporated area (maybe as it relates to Nova Scotia). I might be incorrect but if I am correct, can you elaborate? Hwy43 (talk) 06:50, 14 March 2012 (UTC)

 * Based on your last reply, I'm going to remove the dubious tag on the article. In the meantime, I look forward to your reply to the last post. Hwy43 (talk) 03:14, 18 March 2012 (UTC)

 * Sorry for the delay. I certainly did get here from Unincorporated area. I was trying to get a more global viewpoint of what municipality means, and noticed this, which is really just a minor side issue. Having read this document again, I still find it ambiguous, and feel it takes a leap of faith to think that it proves the listed community types are necessarily real municipalities. I will try to find better references for each type of munuipality listed in the text. Derek Andrews (talk) 15:08, 18 March 2012 (UTC)

Column formatting
I've added a template cleanup-reorganize to section Municipalities by country because its the best I could think of. Look at the Notes column formatting for Brazil, Chile, and Portugal for example. Making this column wider would help, but not enough. The Notes column is essentially how 'municipality' is defined in the enclosing political jurisdiction, and there can be considerable detail, a lot of which isn't included here. If this were a printed document, it wouldn't waste all that white space. Maybe there should be a separate full page width Notes section below the table with an entry for each relevant definition of municipality. Sbalfour (talk) 18:23, 15 January 2014 (UTC)

sp " municiaplity" / municipality
19 hits for this spelling in WP.GinAndChronically (talk) 04:52, 8 June 2014 (UTC)

"municpality" 24 hits in WPGinAndChronically (talk) 04:55, 8 June 2014 (UTC)

 * What is the meaning of the above obscure posts? Hwy43 (talk) 05:42, 12 June 2014 (UTC)

Sanitation Dept. revisited
The "Municipalities by country" section is completely unreferenced. I had noted this many years ago (see talk above) and nothing happened. We have no way of checking whether these "by country" statements are true.

I have put a big "reference" needed section on top of the article. After waiting for four years for improvements, I will wait another month. After that, all unreferenced entries will be removed.

Also, Sbalfour noted months ago that some notes have swelled to article length. This is blowing the table apart. Once references are supplied, please bring the notes down to a few words. Use links, and, well, references. Obese notes will also be removed once the month is over.

I do not think that these by country list are necessary at all. As repeatedly noted, "municipality" is a generic term that describes a lower level administrative entity. It does so all around the world. Wikipedia is not a dictionary. BsBsBs (talk) 14:29, 8 June 2014 (UTC)

 * Let's not wait another month. We've waited three years already. Blow it away and we can diligently enforce unsourced additions in the wake of the removal so that the article doesn't run away on itself again. Hwy43 (talk) 18:42, 8 June 2014 (UTC)

I just love it when people are determined to be current in a work that is never ending; that is why the world will never end--no one to process the paper work. I hope that goes for any word that is being used even if misspelled to represent "municipality". All that happens with a wake is disturbance of the surface and those resulting squiggly lines on the ceiling and walls from the reflection of the light. — Preceding unsigned comment added by GinAndChronically (talk • contribs) 10:50, 11 June 2014 (UTC)

 * IMHO, the country list is useful. When one would like to compare local government in various countries, one could check all 'administrative division of ...' articles, but then one also gets information about regional government. This list (at least ideally) gives information about the lowest or local tier of government worldwide, since the usual meaning of municipality is that it is a local entity.
 * There may be some special cases like
 * Portugal where the freguesia is even lower (here 'municipio' is translated as municipality because they are cognates, although it would more properly called a district);
 * Large cities in many countries which have the same status as a whole province or even a federal state (for example Hamburg, Kiev, London).
 * But generally speaking, this is all not very problematic as long as the list gives correct information about local government.
 * Now the reference problem. For most countries, the list links to one or more detailed articles. Although Wikipedia in itself cannot be a source for itself, if the target articles are properly referenced, I think that would be enough. Bever (talk) 23:37, 28 May 2020 (UTC)

External links modified (February 2018)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Municipality. 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/20101205024802/http://www.surfrider.org/rincon/Ley_Municipios.pdf to http://www.surfrider.org/rincon/Ley_Municipios.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) 10:22, 8 February 2018 (UTC)

No source - it is to be distinguished (usually) from the county
Removed: "It is to be distinguished (usually) from the county, which may encompass rural territory or numerous small communities such as towns, villages and hamlets." 77.191.251.111 (talk) 08:29, 7 December 2020 (UTC)

Municipalities by country
Dropped unsourced content in this tabular section, which had been been tagged as unsourced since 2014. I have serious doubts about whether this section is appropriate here at all, as Wikipedia is not a dictionary, and in general, this sort of information is not appropriate for an encyclopedia in this format. Possibly the content could be transwikified to Wiktionary. Certainly there's nothing wrong with having per-country sections about municipalities in other parts of the world, the way it is done in Village, Town, or City, and some of the information in the table rows could be moved to the appropriate country subsection in the article. In my opinion, the section Municipality should be changed to #By country, analogous to the way it's done in section Town. In that section, information about the term in the local language could be included, in the context of other information about municipalities in that country. The remaining information from the Municipality table could be merged into that section. Mathglot (talk) 18:56, 20 August 2021 (UTC)

title: Talk:Municipality


text:
Talk:Charles Adolphe Wurtz

Untitled
this article is based on 1911 Encyclopædia Britannica, I respectfully disagree that the article should require cleaning up, link density is within standards. for now I remove the qualification

WikiProject class rating
This article was automatically assessed because at least one article was rated and this bot brought all the other ratings up to at least that level. BetacommandBot 02:47, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

Revisions
I edited several parts of the article. I removed a reference to the Puerto Rican independence leader Betances. To say that Betances was one of Wurtz's students is to imply that Betances was an important chemist, for no other students of Wurtz are mentioned in the article (and indeed Wurtz had several students who became very prominent chemists). Yes, Betances heard Wurtz's lectures, but he took Wurtz's chemistry course only because he needed it for his medical degree. It is therefore not very relevant to this brief article, and is in fact misleading. I also removed a statement that Wurtz was of German extraction. Again, this is true, but misleading, for it implies that some of Wurtz's near forebears were German, and they were not. It is true in the sense that all native Alsatians have German forebears, if you go back far enough. So I added a couple of sentences on this matter in the Life section. Ajrocke (talk) 18:57, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

title: Talk:Charles Adolphe Wurtz


text:
National Basketball League (China)

The National Basketball League is a professional basketball minor league in China, called Chinese Basketball League (CBL) before 2006. It is commonly known as the NBL, and this name (spelled out in letters) is often used even in Chinese.

NBL is the second-tier league to the professional Chinese Basketball Association (CBA).

Current teams
Updated to 2023 National Basketball League (China) Season.

Name changes
Updated to 2023 National Basketball League (China) Season.
 * Anhui Jianghuai Lightning (安徽江淮闪电)(2016) → Fujian Lightning (福建闪电)(2017-2018) → Anhui Putian Xingfa Lightning (安徽莆田兴发闪电) (2019-2020) → Fujian Son of the Wind (福建风之子) (2020-2022) → Hefei Kuangfeng (合肥狂风) (2023-)
 * Guangxi Weizhuang Rhinos (广西威壮) (2013-)
 * Hebei Xianglan Kylins (石家庄翔蓝) (2016-)
 * Henan Jiyuan Iron and Steel (河南济源钢铁) (2006-2011)→ Henan Jiyuan Coal Industry Golden Elephants (河南济源煤业金象) (2012) → Henan Shedian Laojiu Golden Elephants (河南赊店老酒金象) (2013-)
 * Hong Kong Bulls (香港金牛) (2023-)
 * Hong Kong Xinlibao Bulls (香港新丽宝公牛) (2008-2012) → Hongkong Xingda (香港信达) （2013）→ Shaanxi Xingda Northwestern Wolves (陕西信达西北狼) （2014） → Shaanxi Weinan Xingda Northwestern Wolves (陕西渭南信达西北狼) （2015） → Shaanxi Xingda Northwestern Wolves (陕西信达西北狼) （2016-）
 * Hunan Yongsheng (湖南勇胜) → Hunan Jinjian Rice Industry (湖南金健米业) （2016-2019） → Changsha Jinjian Rice Industry (长沙金健米业) （2020-2021）→ Changsha Wantian Yongsheng (长沙湾田勇胜) （2022-）
 * Jiangsu Yannan Suke (江苏盐南苏科) (2021-)
 * Jiangxi Ganchi (江西赣驰) (2023-)
 * Nanjing Military Region Yueda Great Wall (南京军区悦达长城) (2011-2015) → Eastern Army Yueda Great Wall (东部陆军悦达长城) (2016) → Eastern Yuanchuang Yueda Great Wall (东部原创悦达长城) (2017)/Nanjing Lishui Yueda Great Wall (南京溧水悦达长城) → Hefei Yuanchuang (合肥原创) (2018-2019）→ Foshan Kung Fu Boy (佛山功夫小子) (2020-2022）→ Liaoning Arctic Wolves (辽宁益胜/辽宁益胜雪狼) (2023-）
 * Zhengzhou Dayun (郑州大运) （2015） → Luoyang Jinxing Flaming Horses (洛阳金星) （2016） → Luoyang Zhonghe Flaming Horses (洛阳中赫) （2017-2018） → Luoyang Jinxing Haixiang Flaming Horses (洛阳金星海象) （2019）→ Hainan Jinxing Haixiang Flaming Horses (海南金星海象) （2020）→ Hainan Haikou Haixiang Flaming Horses (海南海口海象 ) （2021-）
 * Wuhan Kunpeng (武汉锟鹏) (2022-)

Joined the CBA

 * Yunnan Honghe Running Bulls (云南红河奔牛) – 2004, now defunct
 * Dongguan New Century Leopards (东莞新世纪烈豹) – 2005
 * Zhejiang Guangsha Lions (浙江广厦猛狮) – 2006
 * Qingdao Conson DoubleStar Eagles (青岛国信双星雄鹰) – 2008
 * Tianjin Ronggang Gold Lions (天津荣钢金狮) – 2008
 * Sichuan Jinqiang Blue Whales (四川金强蓝鲸) – 2013
 * Chongqing Wansheng Black Valley Fly Dragons (重庆万盛黑山谷翱龙) – 2014
 * Jiangsu Tongxi Monkey Kings (江苏同曦大圣) – 2014

Name change

 * Guangzhou Free Man (广州自由人) --> Chongqing Wansheng Black Valley Fly Dragons (重庆万盛黑山谷翱龙)

Defunct teams

 * Beijing Bucks (北京东方雄鹿) (2022)
 * Chongqing Huaxi International (重庆华熙国际) （2022）
 * Guangzhou Whampoa Chateau Xingbao Liusui (广州黃埔星堡酒庄六穗) – 2013
 * Guizhou Guwutang Tea White Tigers (贵州古雾堂茶白虎) (2020)
 * Hanzhou Yongtong (杭州永通) – 2011
 * Hebei Jidong Cement (河北冀东水泥) –
 * Hebei Qingquan Running Horses (河北清泉奔马) – 2013
 * Heilongjiang Daqing (黑龙江大庆) –
 * Heilongjiang Zhaozhou Fengshen Sky Lions (黑龙江肇州丰绅天狮) – 2014
 * Hubei Marco Polo (湖北马可波罗) – 2014
 * Hunan Changsha Bank Park Lane Snow Wolves (湖南长沙银行柏宁雪狼) – 2014
 * Jiangsu Guoli Lions (江苏国立雄狮) （2018）
 * Jiangxi Xingye Flaming Horses (江西鑫业烈焰马) – 2014
 * Lhasa Pure Land (拉萨净土) – 2018
 * Shanxi Yujin (山西宇晋) – 2006, merged with the Henan Renhe Dragons (河南仁和猛龙) to form Shanxi Yujin Dragons (山西宇晋猛龙)
 * Shenyang Dongjin (沈阳东进) – 2011
 * Sichuan Shidai Glacier (四川时代冰川) –
 * Team Tianjin (天津市男子篮球队) – no nickname or sponsor
 * Weihai Xinli (威海新力) – 2013
 * Wuhan Dangdai (武汉当代) – 2021
 * Xinjiang Tianshan Xiongying (新疆天山雄鹰) – 2023
 * Yingkou Donghua Shenyang Army (营口东华沈阳部队)

Name changes

 * Beijing Bucks (北京东方雄鹿) (2015) --> Beijing Capital Sports Shares Eastern Bucks (北京首体股份东方雄鹿) (2016) --> Beijing Bucks (北京雄鹿) (2017) --> Beijing Guoan Bucks (北京国安雄鹿) (2018) --> Beijing Bucks (北京雄鹿) (2019)

 * Jiangsu Hualan Royal Pandas (江苏华兰皇家熊猫) （2016） --> Chongqing Sanhai Lanling Royal Pandas (重庆三海兰陵皇家熊猫) （2017） --> Chongqing Linglong Luntai (重庆玲珑轮胎) （2018）--> Chongqing Huaxi International (重庆华熙国际) （2019-2021）

 * Guizhou Shenghang Snow Leopards (贵州森航雪豹) （2014-2017） --> Guizhou Guwutang Tea White Tigers (贵州古雾堂茶白虎) (2018-2019)

 * Dongguan Park Lane (东莞柏宁) --> Hunan Changsha Bank Park Lane Snow Wolves (湖南长沙银行柏宁雪狼)

 * Guangzhou Whampoa Liusui (广州黃埔六穗) --> Guangzhou Whampoa Chateau Xingbao Liusui (广州黃埔星堡酒庄六穗)

 * Henan Renhe (河南仁和) --> Shanxi Yujin (山西宇晋)

 * Team Hubei (湖北省男子篮球队) --> Hubei Marco Polo (湖北马可波罗)
 * * Jiangsu Guoli Lions (江苏国立雄狮) （2012-2015）--> Jiangsu Guoli Qifu Lions (江苏国立汽服雄狮) (2016-2017) --> Jiangsu Guoli Lions (江苏国立雄狮) （2018）

Inaugural season
The first regular season of the CBL began in April 2004. Eight teams advanced to the playoffs:

 * Yunnan Honghe Running Bulls (云南红河奔牛)
 * Yingkou Donghua Shenyang Army (营口东华沈阳部队)
 * Hebei Jidong Cement (河北冀东水泥)
 * Sichuan Shidai Glacier (四川时代冰川)
 * Shanxi Yujin (山西宇晋)
 * Heilongjiang Daqing (黑龙江大庆)
 * Dongguan New Century Leopards (东莞新世纪烈豹)
 * Team Tianjin (天津市男子篮球队) – no nickname or sponsor

On 4 August 2004, Yunnan Honghe Running Bulls defeated Dongguan New Century Leopards to win the first ever CBL championship and were promoted to the CBA for the 2004–2005 season.

title: National Basketball League (China)


text:
Citrix Online

Citrix Online was the name of the online services division of Citrix Systems. Citrix Online sold web-based remote access, support, and collaboration software and services. Its products are GoToAssist, GoToMeeting, GoToMyPC, GoToTraining, GoToWebinar, Podio, and OpenVoice. Citrix Online used the software as a service (SaaS) and application service provider (ASP) software business models.

Citrix Online started as "Expertcity, Inc." in 1997 and was acquired by Citrix Systems in 2003, subsequently changing its name to "Citrix Online". Citrix Online was renamed to Citrix's SaaS division in 2014, and Citrix Mobility Apps Business Unit in 2015. In November 2015 Citrix announced it would be spun off into a new standalone company.

In July 2016, it was announced that the new company, consisting of the Citrix Online collaboration products (the "GoTo family" of products), would be merged with the business operations of LogMeIn, Inc during the first quarter of 2017. The merger occurred on January 31, 2017 with Citrix shareholders owning 50.1% of the stock of the new LogMeIn and LogMeIn shareholders owning 49.9% of the stock of the merged company. The combined company was headquartered in Boston, Massachusetts, and led by executives of both LogMeIn and Citrix Online.

History
The core technologies that would become Citrix Online were originally built by the company Expertcity. Expertcity, Inc. was founded in 1997 by University of California, Santa Barbara professor Klaus Schauser and graduate students Bernd Oliver Christiansen and Malte Muenke. Investors included Sun Microsystems, ZDNet, Bertelsmann Ventures, and Wit Capital.

The company announced a web-based marketplace for technical support services, called Expertcity, in December, 1999. A user of the service would submit a technical support question through a simple webform and receive Dutch auction bids from online experts to resolve the problem. Upon selecting one of the experts, the user would be connected to him via a chat interface and, optionally, via desktop sharing, whereby the expert could see the user's screen and remotely control the user's mouse and keyboard. This "remote desktop" technology formed the kernel of later products for Citrix Online.

Expertcity discontinued their support marketplace service on January 1, 2002 by transferring it to Tech24, Inc. Tech24 subsequently phased out the service and transitioned to phone-based support.

The remote desktop technology behind the support marketplace enabled additional products. June 2000 saw the debut of DesktopStreaming (now GoToAssist), a product that lets companies use desktop sharing for technical support between their own customers and support representatives. GoToMyPC, which allows a user to remotely access his or her own desktop, followed in early 2001.

Since 2009, Citrix Online had several layoffs. That year, following the lead of Citrix Systems, Citrix Online laid off 10% of its employees. In 2014, Citrix Online cut 65 workers, largely concentrated in marketing. In November 2015, Citrix announced plans to spin off its SaaS division, Citrix Online, and cut an unspecified number of employees. Chris Hylen was announced as the new CEO of the spinoff.

In 2018, the entire tech support staff was outsourced to Costa Rica resulting in a large number of US-based layoffs.

Acquisitions
In 2003, Citrix Systems acquired Expertcity, then a major player in web-based desktop access, in a transaction valued at approximately $225 million in cash and stock. Expertcity became the Citrix Online division of Citrix and retained many of the key developers of the original company.

At the time of the acquisition, Expertcity was developing GoToMeeting, a product that uses the remote desktop engine to allow multiple users to view and control a single desktop, enabling both collaborative support and collaborative presentations. In 2006, Citrix Online adapted GoToMeeting to support the growing market for web-based training and web-based seminars. The resulting GoToWebinar product and the GoToTraining product that launched in 2010 allow hundreds of attendees to view a single screen and join in a phone conference.

In 2008, Citrix acquired Vapps, Inc., an audio conferencing provider, and created Citrix Online Audio, LLC. Shortly after, they released HiDef Corporate, a flat-rate, hosted audio conferencing service.

In 2010, Citrix acquired Paglo Labs and released GoToManage, an IT management and support tool. GoToManage became part of GoToAssist in 2012.

In 2012, Citrix acquired Podio, a collaborative work platform for cloud collaboration.

In 2015, Citrix acquired Grasshopper, a virtual phone system provider.

Current

 * GoToAssist (formerly DesktopStreaming) — services for businesses to facilitate remote technical support and monitoring for IT environments
 * GoToMeeting — collaboration and meetings with up to 250 attendees
 * GoToMyPC — remote desktop access for individuals and medium & large enterprises
 * GoToTraining — training and development with up to 200 attendees
 * GoToWebinar — seminars and presentations with up to 1000 attendees
 * Podio — collaborative work platform to manage and collaborate on any project or business process
 * OpenVoice (formerly HiDef Corporate) — audio conferencing with web- and mobile-based administration and control
 * RightSignature - digital signatures straight through email.

Discontinued

 * BuddyHelp — desktop sharing for individuals to facilitate remote technical support
 * ExpertLive (formerly Expertcity) — technical support marketplace
 * GoView—Screen recording solution
 * Talkboard — Collaborative whiteboard app for iPad. Won Apple’s App Store “Best of 2013” award in the Business Productivity category.

title: Citrix Online


text:
Parmenas

Parmenas (Παρμενᾶς) was one of the Seven Deacons. He is believed to have preached the gospel in Asia Minor. Parmenas suffered martyrdom in 98, under the persecution of Trajan. He is one of the 4 out of 7 deacons jointly celebrated on July 28.

Christian tradition identifies him as the Bishop of Soli. Some take this to be Soli, Cyprus, while others interpret it as Soli, Cilicia.

title: Parmenas


text:
Talk:Sectionalism

More depth
The bulk of this article seems to be about US history at the moment, rather than the definition given in the first paragraph.

--TheParanoidOne 22:23, 8 Apr 2005 (UTC)

 * It's true and of course we should write more about the sectionalism in general sense. -- Taku 22:49, Apr 8, 2005 (UTC)

Yes, sectionalism in the context of U. S. History has a long path, its should definitely be included.

Someone ought to write about sectionalism outside of the United States, like the Serbs, Czechs, Germans, Poles, etc. who used to be part of Austria-Hungary before WWI.John edwards23 (talk) 05:19, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

First Sentence
Why can anyone change this info i could be making it all up!?!?!

"Sectionalism is a tendency among sections in bureaucracy to blindly focus on the interest of a section and look at the over tendency of the President's wrongs and not benefit the whole."

"Sections" needs to be defined or linked to a definition. The wording of this sentence needs to be addressed, as its meaning is unclear. I'm not sure that mentioning the President is appropriate here, as it is specific to the U.S. and sectionalism can occur in forms of government without a president. I suggest something like "Sectionalism is a tendency for subgroups within a beauracracy to blindly focus on their own intersets at the expense of the whole". Steve carlson 06:37, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

Prod delete (wow)
I've just spent some time scrolling through the article's more than four year history. The original article was a small stub defining sectionalism as "a tendency among sections in bureacracy to blindly focus on the interest of a section". This seemed to be more or less consistent with the Oxford English Dictionary definition: "Confinement of interest to a narrow sphere..." . Then, on 2004-09-29, this was introduced: "In national politics, sectionalism is often a precursor to separatism, ergo, concordingly. you know what? I don't know what the hell im talking about. I just said it to look cool." The last part of the sentence was removed by another editor in good faith, but unfortunately that masked the fact that originally, that information was a hoax. So for the past four years, multiple editors have contributed good faith efforts to clean up the article, as well (unfortunately) as a substantial amount of OR, off-topic and biased statements. There has never been any references. Even if this article can be cleaned up, which at this point I think it's so muddled that that probably can't happen, it's still only deserving of a wiktionary article. Please, free us from this mess and get rid of the article! :-) (By the way, the now non-sensical bureaucracy introductory statement survived until 2008-02-22 .) Maethordaer (talk) 05:16, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

This article can be saved
The article is no longer unsourced but it needs much more. It needs more sourcing and more "meat" in t he article itself. This is an important topic that frequently has influenced our national politics. Can you help? JodyBtalk 16:10, 29 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the time everyone has put into this. It has taught me a lot. I will try and continue to improve this when I have the time. Maethordaer (talk) 15:40, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

Broken Link
The link at the bottom of the page (in the "external links" section) is broken. Does anyone know if and where this page moved? 173.67.11.87 (talk) 02:16, 27 May 2010 (UTC)
 * OK, I fixed this 71.166.57.26 (talk) 19:57, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

Merger with Interservice rivalry
This entry and the entry about Interservice rivalry actually talked about the same thing. I think it's necessary to merge these two entries.--Aronlee90 (talk) 02:12, 2 November 2013 (UTC)

Entirely U.S.-Centric at the moment
So I added some extra information on sectionalism in the United States.

However, I must say that at the moment the article talks only about the United States as of my posting this. I believe that if we are just going to continue building on this article solely in the context of U.S. history, then it should be renamed to "Sectionalism in the United States". — Preceding unsigned comment added by Concchambers (talk • contribs) 10:04, 13 September 2014 (UTC)

Sectionalism in the United States
I agree that the largest amount of content is used to explain sectionalism in the U.S. I also agree that that area needs to be expanded, and possibly split into its own article. I would like to suggest that two books be added to the references: ″Storm Over Rangelands″, by Wayne Hage ″Sectionalism and American Political Development″, 1880-1980, by Richard Bensel [Quoted by Hage above]

″Storm Over Rangelands″ goes into great detail about how northeastern industrial interests in the United States have influenced the control of western U.S. resources. This sectionalism for the last 150 years has lead directly to recent actions in Nevada, Oregon, and Montanna. Because of these more recent activities than the American Civil War, sectionalism can be better explained to more people. I'm not real good at this, as this is my first "talk" session. I may not be putting this in the correct place. But I do think sectionalism has more facets than explained in the article.

Qsmxpilot (talk) 21:00, 5 January 2017 (UTC)

External links modified (January 2018)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Sectionalism. 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/20100630172451/http://history.arizona.edu/tah/resourcess/topics/civilwar/sectionalism1812-1860.htm to http://history.arizona.edu/tah/resourcess/topics/civilwar/sectionalism1812-1860.htm

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) 12:48, 22 January 2018 (UTC)

UK portion is inherently POV
To describe Scotland within the UK as engaging in Sectionalism is itself taking the POV that Scotland is a region of the United Kingdom rather than a constituent nation of a Multi-National Union as per the treaties and acts of Union that established the United Kingdom in 1707 and explicitly promised to preserve the various National institutions of Scotland in that day, including a separate legal system and separate Established church.

Thus, describing certain Scottish organizations as engaging in Sectionalism implies that Scotland is a region of a single nation. This is inherently taking a radical unionist position in a time where political tensions in the UK are high.

In order to remove the POV aspect, the section on Scotland ought to be removed.

Ollie Garkey (talk) 18:47, 22 October 2020 (UTC)

Should departmentalism redirect here?
A quick web search seems to indicate the term is used mostly to refer to what is considered excessive departmentalization, as opposed to concepts such as the whole-of-government approach.

IpseCustos (talk) 18:44, 5 June 2022 (UTC)

title: Talk:Sectionalism


text: Category:Ancient Greek mathematicians

title: Category:Ancient Greek mathematicians


text: Category:Ancient Greek engineers

title: Category:Ancient Greek engineers


text:
Talk:Salem College

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment
This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 1 September 2021 and 20 December 2021. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Barberla13.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 08:34, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

title: Talk:Salem College