This article was nominated for deletion on 31 October 2010 (UTC). The result of the discussion was keep. |
what about Russia, Mongolia,China Kazakhstan border?
hmm not sure what you could mean by this but there is surely no cnkzmnru quadpoint by any name
This article still needs a lot of work. I am planning to write an article tripoint and then come back to quadripoint and fix it up. By way of explanation, this article began as a translation by me of the Dutch article nl:Vierlandenpunt. However, I don't know any Dutch; I just ran it through a machine translator and then figured it out based on similarity to English and German. One thing I realized is that the Dutch word "Vierlandenpunt" is not the same thing as the English word "quadripoint": a Vierlandenpunt is literally a four-country point, while a quadripoint can be four subnational units (e.g. the U.S. Four Corners). In German, the word is "Vierländereck" meaning "four-country corner"; not quite the same thing as "four-country point" but close.
Among other things the images in this article need to be fixed up but I am hopeless at stuff like that. No need for such a large image of Lake Chad, but it needs to be large enough to see that within the lake are two tripoints rather than a single quadripoint. It would be great to have this image from the Dutch wiki. Also there must be photos of the Sweden/Norway quadripoint mentioned in the article. There's a monument at the Manitoba/Saskatchewan/NWT tripoint which may have become a quadripoint with Nunavut (see article); three photos are on this page. Also I like this photo even though it's a bit out of focus.-- Mathew5000 21:57, 20 June 2006 (UTC)
"three regions meet at a point on the line...": sorry, if a house has four rooms that meet at a point, there are still four corners, even if not all 90 degrees. So explain your point better. -- User:Jidanni 2006-10-29
>> The Zambia/Zimbabwe/Botswana/Namibia [possible] quadripoint is very similar to the one shown in that ^^ diagram -- 85.62.18.5 ( talk) 20:05, 22 September 2011 (UTC) -- DLMcN ( talk) 20:07, 22 September 2011 (UTC)
Looks to me like some kind of borders of Solomon Islands, Tuvalu, Kiribati, Nauru all meet at a point. Going by the various articles, these are not the territorial waters; are they the Exclusive Economic Zone? It might be worth mentioning in any case. jnestorius( talk) 19:47, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
The external link Local Curiosities has a sister page USA County curiosities which lists a possible quintipoint involving 3 counties of Colorado: Jefferson, Boulder and Broomfield. This large scale map suggests that where the SW fragment of Broomfield meets the main body, you have (clockwise from north-west) Boulder-Bloomfield(main)-Jefferson(pincer#1)-Bloomfield(fragment)-Jefferson(pincer#2). However, these detailed maps from the Bloomfield site north-east of quintipoint and south-west of quintipoint suggest either the fragment is an exclave, or it is linked to the parent by a corridor. (Or possibly by an infinitely thin line? Can they do that??) Anyway, no quintipoint. jnestorius( talk) 00:58, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
Before 19th century tidying up of local boundaries, the stone did mark the convergence of four counties: Oxfordshire, Warwickshire, Gloucestershire, and a detached portion of Worcestershire. FGB —The preceding unsigned comment was added by FatGravyBoat ( talk • contribs) 10:24, 15 February 2007 (UTC).
I'm not sure about this one. I've looked at the relevant OS 1:50,000 map (sheet 141) and it seems to show a Rutland/Lincs/Northants tripoint and a Lincs/Cambs/Northants tripoint about 600m apart, with a 2-300m wide 'tongue' of Lincolnshire keeping Rutland and Cambridgeshire(Peterborough UA) apart. FatGravyBoat 10:33, 15 February 2007 (UTC)FatGravyBoat
Tetrapoint redirects here should we mention this usage?
Since we have trillion, quadrillion, quintillion, sextillion etc, would five or more areas joining at a point logically be called, 5-quintipoint/pentapoint 6-sextipoint/hexapoint 7-septapoint/heptapoint 8-octopoint 9-nonopoint/enneapoint 10-decapoint etc.
Octopoint is mentioned. Am I talking rubbish or are these ever used? Carlwev ( talk) 17:55, 24 February 2008 (UTC)
no you are right to raise this but because tripoint along with quadripoint & quintipoint are at least somewhat common & latinate & tetrapoint & pentapoint etc are almost unheard of it has become fairly standard to extend the series with latin based terms rather than greek based ones
so quintipoint sexipoint septipoint & octapoint i would suggest btw rather than octopoint since octo is the number & octa is the combinative prefix
& probably not beyond 8s because there is not at the moment any occasion or reason to use them
one admittedly crazy exception tho is the former hypothetical sexinational hendecapoint at the south pole involving as it did adjoining & overlapping territorial claims rather than any agreed boundaries where the greek prefix hendeca has volunteered itself in the absence of any latin counterpart
but the perfectly good alternative is simply not to name or even mention it in the same article since it is not really a boundary multipoint at all as are all the others Egull ( talk) 01:29, 25 October 2010 (UTC)
According to the several maps and sat images available in Map sources/GeoHack at the coordinates for Jungholz, at a high zoom it shows the area does not form a quadripoint although it is close. see here 47°33′20″N 10°27′17″E / 47.5555°N 10.4546°E
Carlwev ( talk) 12:59, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
I'm thinking of the near misses with Brazilian states, whether any of them is relevant enough for inclusion. The states of Acre, Amazonas and Rondônia almost converge on a point on the Bolivian border; also, the Piauí-Tocantins-Maranhão and Piauí-Tocantins-Bahia tripoints are very close together.
The one which might have the most interest, however, I think would be the Distrito Federal - Minas Gerais border, with the two tripoints with Goiás state (Formosa and Cristalina municipalities) less than three kilometers apart. This DF-MG border is what makes an Eulerian path of Brazilian states possible. Amorim Parga ( talk) 13:09, 8 September 2008 (UTC)
thanx & i would submit that lots of near misses are not really interesting in an article like this
in fact one or two should suffice for people to get the idea & focus on the actual topic at hand rather than on what misses the point of it Egull ( talk) 01:39, 25 October 2010 (UTC)
I would like to see some text on where this term comes from, and preferably a couple of reputable references for its usage. Nice term though it is, it does not seem to be a dictionary word, and seems to have little usage outside the wikipedia sphere so may be a case of WP:OR? Cheers — SteveRwanda ( talk) 10:57, 21 August 2009 (UTC)
[undent]I read through that chapter/appendix.....the context of the wording "quadripoint" is NOT "theory of quadripoints" but "theory that this quadripoint actually exists"; i.e. theory concerning which boundaries are valid towards A theoretical quadripoint/four-way boundary meeting. It's not about some abstract theory about quadripoints, but about one particular four-state boundary convergence. Big difference, and still not sufficient rationale for this bloated article's continued existence; that the word exists if fine, and can go in wiktionary; but there's no valid grounds for a wiki article since it just becomes a trivia-pissing/checking contest.... Skookum1 ( talk) 05:34, 31 October 2010 (UTC)
According to Google Maps there is no point were Saskatchewan borders Nunavut. Since the zig-zagging eastern border of Saskatchewan its is very likely that Google hasn't made a mistake.-- 78.21.167.224 ( talk) 20:24, 28 December 2009 (UTC)
Somone put this back in:
Manitoba, Northwest Territories, Nunavut, and Saskatchewan meet in a multi-point in Canada.
And I've taken it back out; it's a nonsensical claim based on poor-resolution maps and does not warrant inclusion in this article which is near-entirely original research to start with. The MT-SK and NU-NT boundaries do NOT coincide, there is no so-called quadripoint. It's also original research to brand the fictional/illusory point in Canada as "Four Corners", as that's not a proper name, nor is it in any site/citation than the one that coined the term (and the false claim). Skookum1 ( talk) 23:25, 17 March 2010 (UTC)
Why do you keep removing the section? People are going to keep coming here to read about it, so you may as well have a few sentances explaining why it isn't a quadripoint even though it looks like one. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 205.193.96.10 ( talk) 18:25, 29 October 2010 (UTC)
hahas kookum why do you think i am flattering myself & indeed why shouldnt i if i do & moreover what is rank about originality & enthusiasm
i ask because i truly dont understand but am tickled pink
am also curious if when you abolish quadripoint & enthusiasm & originality will you be killing tripoint too or just combining everything into larger articles on multipoint & or trypointing etc Egull ( talk) 23:17, 31 October 2010 (UTC)
I'm too non-plussed by process to launch the AFD myself, but it's time this rank and overweeing pile of original research was tossed to the circular file where it belongs. "Quadripoint" is an invention of the original page-author and is not a term in topology, geography or in any actual field of study, and many entries are not "real" but "probably" or "near misses" or just, well, downright irrelevant to anything useful or meaningful. It's an assmebly of geopolitical trivia, and as with what I removed here much of it is purely speculative or false-claims or just so wishy-washy as to be laughable. Long overdue for an AfD, imo.... Skookum1 ( talk) 23:48, 25 October 2010 (UTC)
hi friend
i agree with you about near misses & have tried to eliminate those that are farthest from being near
if you will check the footnotes to the quadripoint article you will find the term has been in scholarly use since 1979 or earlier
i would also add that the original research can be checked on large scale maps if anyone cares to invalidate it but please dont arbitrarily disallow it for lack of scholarly citations
it is after all original research & carefully done & checked
soviet topos are generally best for the third world
also the canadian quadripoint is established by law in the nunavut enabling act
if you dont appreciate it or the topic in general it may just be time to focus on a different topic
best regards Egull ( talk) 01:48, 26 October 2010 (UTC)
hi friend & thanx good points
the lowercase enabling act i meant is the one quoted in boldface above
& the mbntnusk quad may or may not only be hypothetical in any case
& i dont know if we want to get into the range of possible distinctions that can be drawn in the evolution of multipoints but in law & boundary art an existing demarcation supplants & trumps its verbal delimitation & the ntnu delimitation convergent with the quadripoint is inherited from the previous federal subdivisional boundary terminus within the earlier nwt which was effectively demarcated my mbsk at least in 1962 & probably with federal participation at that time or at least with federal acquiescence ever since
so in view of that the bold citation may or may not really be self contradictory
yet i would still agree a hypothetical quad perhaps but at least a highly presumptive one
& it is just a question of whether this article wants to get into all that
best Egull ( talk) 15:04, 26 October 2010 (UTC)
thanx good points
i mean for starters sir ian brownlies 1979 african boundaries a diplomatic & legal encyclopedia in which he devotes 10 pages to what he calls the quadripoint issue
unless you consider law & international relations beneath our scientific & or academic dignity
& you must know enjoy can mean to take pleasure but also just to experience as a condition
myself i confess i rather enjoy quads not to mention quints sexes etc
& know the usa at least does take pleasure in azconmut
& i also confess seeing as utterly final determinations are so elusive i am guilty of presumption all the time in scouting & determining the pluripoints or megapoints or however you might like to name & characterize & regard or disregard conjunctions of more than 3 entities
but i only continue to presume if the best available evidence really looks good
& i agree we should be quick to drop all interest in near misses or else collect them in a whole nother article if indeed anyone cares to
cheers Egull ( talk) 15:04, 26 October 2010 (UTC)
yes thanx if i might insert this here to clarify immediately & then follow below as well
for i dont just mean close enough geographically since that must be an exact fit or its a no go
the close enoughness that is really operative here is purely technical
maps & texts of canada have indicated these 4 corners since 1902 if not earlier
your finding of fault in the latest documentation over the apparent discrepancy between stated geocoordinates & stated geopolitical boundary convergency is vacuous tho both in the absence of geodetic datum & in the presence of monumentation
also it is hard to imagine a ntnu boundary commission not using the established nwt mbsk marker for its point of beginning since it is the only real point on the ntnu boundary at this time
you are just trying to create a technical case or space for the quad not to positively exist within & i appreciate that
but the discrepancies between textual delimitations & demarcations on the ground are common & well known & dont need to be belabored
your latest change in the article text seems to me to carry on a great deal over not much of real significance
yet maybe all this really does need to be made explicit every time it comes up or even potentially arises Egull ( talk) 17:05, 27 October 2010 (UTC)more below
Obvious example: the bulk of the western US-Canada border is regularly said to be the 49th parallel. A great many otherwise reliable sources make this claim. But the actual, legal border runs along short line segments from survey monument to survey monument. It does not ever precisely follow the 49th parallel. These points may be insignificant to most people, but to those who care about boundaries, surveys, and precise coordinates, it does matter. I think Wikipedia should take care to point out the underlying reality of borders, despite the common perception. In short, the true reality of political boundaries is not so much in the terms of the establishing legislation (which often cites whole number lines of latitude and longitude), but in the survey markers placed on the ground, for better or worse. Those markers are what carry enduring legal weight. They are what really count, when you get down to it. Pfly ( talk) 11:39, 27 October 2010 (UTC)
yes precisely & here you have made my point above i think
with your permission & after a decent interval for reflection i think i will offer a compromise draft that reflects our discussion best Egull ( talk) 17:05, 27 October 2010 (UTC)
well i have followed thru now a few hours later & hope you like it or can rerevise it to your liking Egull ( talk) 22:32, 27 October 2010 (UTC)
fwiw both google maps & google earth are now showing the boundary quadriconvergency at exactly n60d00m00s00h00 w102d00m00s00h00 wgs84
& converting the presumably empirical nad27 coords given in degminsecdec at the corner corner site into wgs84 would place the marker roughly 1000 feet due west of the point google shows
& the variability of an empirical reading in degminsecdec is probably on the order of 100 feet
but coords expressed only in integral degmin without datum as these are in the enabling act could vary & shift on the order of up to 10000 feet Egull ( talk) 23:58, 27 October 2010 (UTC)
thanx & yes of course i understand & agree wholeheartedly
hence the fwiw above
the respective orders of discrepancy or fudge factors of roughly 100 & 1000 & 10000 feet which i computed & mentioned are evidently still applicable tho
& my apologies for inadvertently forging ahead
i will gladly & patiently wait for you now that i realize your revision is coming
cheers Egull ( talk) 03:02, 28 October 2010 (UTC)
wow nice we seem just about totally in agreement
& yeay for footnotes
i would only add it seems to me the survey general would not be free to decide whether to honor the existing & presumptive monumentation
on the contrary
i think he would be quite constrained by many convergent realities to begin nowhere but at monument 157 & to not even think of contemplating any possible alternative
& expect at least a virtual demarcation sooner rather than later because the land is valuable & exploitable whether it holds diamonds or not
in fact such a vast expanse & long frontier is practically bound to include at least a few things of value
so happily i dont think we will remain in any suspense much longer Egull ( talk) 13:56, 28 October 2010 (UTC)
great & i am glad of our mutual understanding
& would answer your question that the jog may be more illusory than real
or more mental than physical
for any expressible meridian is technically not a sharp line but rather the band sometimes quite narrow of the delimitation of its own expression
so a meridian expressed as crudely as just some integral degree of longitude like say the hundredth meridian could be understood & until recently preferred to be understood as a band of longitude with a width of 1 degree or say many km even in northern canada
& if you express your meridian in degminsecplus5 youll get a submillimetrically wide or rather truly narrow band which is for all practical purposes as thin as a line yet still is not a line but a band at the bandwidth of your command
but coarsen your expression to degminsecplus3 & your band will be fatter than a tape measure
& if you express it in just plain degmin then your band is a mile wide
& if you do that without giving a datum then your mile wide band is roughly redoubled in width
& thats precisely or imprecisely what the enabling text creates
it stipulates noncontradictorily a marker that stands within the stated bandwidths of longitude & latitude & it doesnt pretend to any more exactitude than to say something very clearly in two distinct but equally clear ways albeit that one of these ways could have been misunderstood to contradict rather than confirm & be reaffirmed by the other
so since marker 157 does indeed fall within that nicely & not at all clumsily stated neck of the woods we already have a lock on a de jure quadripoint whether ntnu is ever surveyed or not
nor is this text unique in expressing the location of a monument so apparently crudely
far from it
this happens all the time as you yourself have remarked in several ways
& the only jog that is needed in such a case is to jog the mind into realizing that the stated terms actually are a perfect mutual lock & no miss at all
& yes technology has come a long way but only a very short distance in survey art since the 1960s
i would guess about a millimeter in geodetic accuracy
anyway i hope this helps or at least amuses Egull ( talk) 20:32, 28 October 2010 (UTC)
very nicely done indeed & thank you
it inspires me to continue to contribute improvements elsewhere in the article
regarding the above i think we might agree to disagree if need be so i will only offer this hopefully final observation
for tho i read you loud & clear about everything else i still find it strange & inconsistent that you are able to follow & grasp the delimitation of mbnu along the 60th parallel westward from hudson bay to mbntnusk157 notwithstanding that the inherited demarcation might be said to be technically a few seconds offline while in the case of the ensuing 102nd meridian leg of the delimitation you suddenly reject the inherited demarcation point for ntnu within mbntnusk157 as being somehow less good than all its mates to the east & than its own latitude component & somehow subject to being rejected & supplanted by some higher order of truth
for why not accord all the other inherited mbnu markers the same reserve as you hold for number 157 & expect their locations to be adjusted too
it seems to me you should be equally fastidious or aloof about previous demarcations of both stripes whether of latitude or longitude
& the text does expressly equate 60x102 & mbntnusk as being one & the same point
it even uses the word being
being means which is the same thing as
& it is used repeatedly in this sense in the delimitation
so if n60 is considered the same as mbnu how can w102 not be considered the same as ntnu
i dont get it but can certainly leave it be Egull ( talk) 02:47, 29 October 2010 (UTC)
Anyway, my main point is that I don't think either Nunavut or NWT have inherited the boundary markers set by the Manitoba-Saskatchewan boundary commissions and laws. Perhaps the northern boundaries of those provinces have force for the two territories, but the boundary between the provinces should not. But yes, we can agree to disagree--and I could easily be wrong! Pfly ( talk) 04:42, 29 October 2010 (UTC)
ok great & glad you are still with us enthusiasts
what would be a real shift tho & a total novelty is the idea that ntnu & mbsk might not be in communication with each other
the above ntnu delimitation text is primarily concerned with & most explicit about this absolute geopolitical conjunction
only secondarily does it remark that the point of conjunction happens to fall within or coincide with a certain minute of longitude
not with any certain second of longitude but only with a certain minute & very round minute at that
& it does this with the intention of clarifying rather than obfuscating the turnpoint it has just stipulated
moreover this expressly inherited demarcation point has indeed been found to lie within the stated minute by any definition
so there is no intrinsic problem here
but even if there had been some mistake or technical lapse within this delimitation there would still be no basis for the belief that a new mbnt or nusk boundary of any length could ever be demarcated unless it too had first been delimited
no such delimitation presently exists nor is one even conceivable unless existing laws are first rescinded Egull ( talk) 12:15, 29 October 2010 (UTC)
Just did some copyedits. Removed this paragraph about maritime boundaries:
I rewrote the section to say that this article does not address maritime boundaries and quadripoints at sea. But I have to wonder, why not? The reason given in this text I removed doesn't seem quite right. First, some maritime boundaries are as real as political boundaries on land. I cited a couple on the page. Two, the bit about "not a meaningful quadripoint" makes me want to ask, "says who?" I understand the "mere allocational lines" idea, but I'm not convinced that makes the quadripoints "not meaningful". Maybe not meaningful in terms of political jurisidiction. Even then I'd like a reference explaining just what power such lines do have. Then again, there are obviously many kinds of maritime borders. Maybe some of them are "meaningful" enough to warrant inclusion on this page. I think there are at least two quadripoints at sea on maritime international borders of sovereignty, by treaties. Pfly ( talk) 20:06, 29 October 2010 (UTC)
ok good
there actually are no sovereign territorial quadricountry points on land or sea
the mentioned allocational lines & polygons are not agreed boundaries at all but only cartographical conventions
& since the spurious allocational quadripoint or imaginary line intersection is so often confused & mistaken for the real thing & proclaimed as such perhaps that is a good reason to include some caveat or disclaimer about it
agreed eez boundaries on the other hand are real boundaries tho they dont actually delimit sovereign territory
they only delimit the portions of the high seas over which certain sovereign rights may be exercised
the law of the sea provides that fully sovereign maritime territories extend only up to 12nm seaward from coastal baselines
still there is no reason to exclude & every reason to include eez quadripoints so long as they are characterized & distinguished as such
right on Egull ( talk) 21:10, 29 October 2010 (UTC)
ahh much better now great thanxx to both of you
& skookum happily i believe you are right about there not actually being any punctilious eez quadripoints
& pfly for my money & for all i can tell your time has been very well spent
& just one lingering question
seeing as the great international law professor & jurist sir ian brownlie devoted 10 pages of his globally renowned legal & diplomatic encyclopedia to the inherent question & intrinsic focus of this article & since he & it have just been deleted by our own diligence in the very year of his own demise dont we perhaps owe him & his quadripoint dissertation & landmark boundary bible at least a sideways glance say in a bracketed parenthesis to a footnote or something Egull ( talk) 13:29, 30 October 2010 (UTC)
ahh thanx pals for the corrections & admonishment & the evident consideration
i knew my little essay would not last long & was actually hoping for & inviting editorial attention so no harm done i assume
for whatever use it might be the deleted portion under review was as follows
after or while resolving the conflicting delimitations & disputed interpretations
official political discussions have been proceeding fitfully for the past decade because some & at times all 4 of the parties have been collaborating in the creation of a bridge that is projected of necessity & by chance to span the immediate boundary quadriconvergency directly between the present ferry slips at kazungula zm & kasane bw
indeed this critically important bridge link has been delayed for 10 years less for lack of vision or funding than for lack of boundary clarity
zw pres mugabe in 2004 did officially concede that a short bwzm boundary does exist between zw & na rather than any nazw boundary at all
& incidentally bwzm does exist de facto & in widespread belief not just because of the visible existence of the ferry connection but also owing to the unique prestige of the international boundaries research unit which has led academic speculation about the net effect of the various de jure delimitations into this direction as well
yet the best available official cartography which also happens to be zimbabwean does not support this concession belief or speculation
indeed all the best maps appear to agree that there could not possibly be a bwzm border but rather only a nazw border because territory not of botswana & zambia but only of namibia & zimbabwe are what appear to meet in these studied depictions or opinions
moreover these territories appear to meet on these maps exactly where the existing verbal delimitations indicate a territorial overlap
brownlie who in 1979 lamented the lack of adequate cartography still believed in the possibility of a quadripoint however remote
nevertheless all present evidence including surface & aerial photography he also never saw appears to refute all claims & expectations not only of a quadripoint but of any bwzm connection overlap border or boundary at all
indeed both the hypothetical bwnazmzw & the hypothetical bwzm today appear to be equally & only imaginary by perhaps as much as a few hundred meters
as the apparently responsible party for minting the coinages quintipoint sexipoint septipoint & octopoint all circa 2002 i would like to suggest that we take responsibility for quietly correcting at least the dog latin if now popular term sexipoint to the philologically more natural format of sexapoint
the following table is offered for guidance http://home.comcast.net/~igpl/NWR.html
from it you can judge i was only winging it thru the prefixes quinti sexi & septi by analogy or mimicry of tri & quadri til i hit a brick wall at octi & so finally decided only there to deflect from obvious outlandishness into a more natural sounding octo
& luckily octo is not wrong
but sexipoint now appears to be dead ignorant
& septipoint too may be less correct than septepoint but just easier to swallow
on the other hand quinti is technically no better than sexi or septi either except that we do have the precedence & relevancy of a strong preference for the fomatting of quintipartite sexapartite septipartite & octopartite
frozen at the south pole by the antarctic treaty since 1959 yet still earnestly maintained by at least some of the 6 parties to it is the convergency point of their 11 partially conflicting sovereign territorial claim limits
these are not in any sense boundaries because they have not been agreed
& they are in fact more truly disregarded than merely frozen
yet an undecipoint of some considerable pretentions was there & if you believe in ghosts is still there today judging from how prevalent map depictions of it continue to be
thanx to all for your care & attention & to metropolitan90 in particular for the very sensible suggestion
here are the makings for footnotes to the few that still survive in that section if anyone who knows how would like to add them
andorra http://article.gmane.org/gmane.culture.discuss.boundary-point/1124/
bulgaria http://groups.yahoo.com/group/boundarypointpoint/message/1701/
dominican republic http://www.lib.utexas.edu/maps/americas/dominican_republic_pol_04.jpg & the wikipedia articles for the 4 respective provinces
gabon http://groups.yahoo.com/group/boundarypointpoint/message/1703
jamaica http://www.lib.utexas.edu/maps/americas/jamaica_pol_2002.jpg & the wikipedia articles for the 4 respective parishes
libya http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Lybian_Shabiat_2007_with_numbers.svg
mauritania http://www.lib.utexas.edu/maps/africa/mauritania_pol95.jpg
uganda http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Uganda_Districts.png
vietnam http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:VietnameseProvincesMap.png
& one that even i consider too enthusiastic & original but which also could be added if anyone is so exuberant
http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:ffCpWgpWKAMJ:en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bir_Tawil+halaib+quadripoint&cd=1&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=us —Preceding
unsigned comment added by
Egull (
talk •
contribs)
17:24, 1 November 2010 (UTC)
yes yes great thanx & hilarious too that the punctilious boundary pointing crowd is as leery of wikipedia as wikipedia is leery of it
but i am totally with you on famous quadripoints & famous near misses
& you know i saluted your excellent 20th century history of bwnazmzw by continuing it with my sketch of the relevant & perhaps even more incredibly fascinating 21st century history of it
& which was justly disallowed & admonished & now decorates nay emblazons the very abolishment bill we are considering
so i understand you are sensibly idling & just waiting to see if we get any more wind for our sails
but if the article survives it will immediately beg to be enlarged & enhanced by the very exhibits 1 & 2 of the indictment
& i would submit this is actually not trivial
the inherent question of whether a particular border exists or not is not trivial inconsequential irrelevant nor unimportant
the tripoint articles yes & their lists yes are trivial yes certainly by comparison & even absolutely yes trivial literally
but quadripoints & the greater pluripoints are far more remarkable & rare than mere trivia & the world knows it Egull ( talk) 01:39, 2 November 2010 (UTC)
hi olenglish & thanx for your consideration
i understand i can just hit an undo button
but if its only my mainiac newenglish you are rightly objecting to then maybe we can negotiate & or finesse this —Preceding unsigned comment added by Egull ( talk • contribs) 17:53, 4 November 2010 (UTC)
ok good all points well taken likewise those by skookum & especially aymatth hence the following
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/boundarypointpoint/message/1725 Egull ( talk) 17:03, 5 November 2010 (UTC)
I removed the re-insertion of the bogus claim that the NT-NU-MB-SK location is called Four corners by a Canadian government website....Egull, if only you'd READ sources instead of thinking they say what you want them to say. See HERE and note this paragraph:
Oh, and this one too:
Not affiliated with ANYBODY. And decidedly NOT a Canadian government usage - no more than the Parliament of Canada "intended to create a quadripoint" or will at some point hold a Boundary Commission just to keep you happy. Stop fabricating stuff, and stop adding meaningless obscurities like internal boundaries in the Dominican Republic. Skookum1 ( talk) 06:22, 9 November 2010 (UTC)
[undent]Oh, I had a look at that CDTC site - to me it's clearly a tax writeoff, has no real useful information - check out the dorky maps, which cost them money for crown copyright maps but are really sad - and while they have "featured members" and seem to have a login for members, my bet is that any of their members who advertise on it write off their ad copy, just the same way the CDTC itself, and donations to it, are a write-off for the companies sponsoring it....it's a money dump. Only exists as a way to waste money and not do anything useful....other than provide a way to fluff up the tax losses.... Skookum1 ( talk) 18:16, 9 November 2010 (UTC)
well i am glad all this happened tho including the detour into the more important places because it points to the importance even here of really understanding & properly representing official texts
& also of dropping any sense of aggravation & culpability etc since presumably thats not useful or wanted by anyone
& i do think we are beginning to create a far better negligible article on a slight subject than ever before
but let me ask here while we are talking candidly tho the question arose elsewhere
how is it possible to consider the grand quadripoint or four corners of some countries as somehow more significant or more remarkable or credible than that of others
i can see giving the usa special treatment because its quad is arguably best known & perhaps even an archetype or progenitor of sorts
& canada & mexico must rank high by association as well as by general comparison
it appears we all have no problem with that much
or would all have no problem if we all really studied the texts
yet what has become of our cyclopedic purview & impartiality if we cant allow bulgaria or any other member of the turtle bay country club an equality of distinction for its national 4corners or quadripoint
i submit if 1 or 2 or 3 or 8 then all 192 official countries are officially in play here or should be tho i think youll find only a couple dozen would even bother showing up it is so negligible so nothing to worry about if you worry about such stuff
& as far as documentation & substantiation goes i apologize if my links werent working for you all as well as they were for me & will try to correct & or improve that both specifically & in general
but it seems to me a strong prima facie map appearance plus even a thin but earnest layer of backup ought to serve us well unless & until a given claim is disproved by better proof rather than arbitrarily busting everything outright & often on only technical grounds at that
as if it were a miss or worse too insignificant
just because it doesnt seem to some people to be quite as worldclass or quite as watertight yet as say azconmut or mbntnusk is
so yes lets keep having fun but lets keep playing fair too Egull ( talk) 19:27, 9 November 2010 (UTC)
ok thanxx franamax both for the inclusion criteria tag & the opinion
you seem to me to be mixing standards of proof with standards of importance here tho
& i think these are really 2 different sets of criteria so lets take them one at a time
first lets be clear & see if we can agree about importance & relevance etc
or else just agree to disagree about them
several people including yourself have characterized the topic as trivial & instances of its occurrence as trivia or trivialities
to say so little of tripoints is perhaps fair & even philologically apt insofar as tripoints are in fact both 3way in character & commonplace as a streetcorner in their occurrence & are thus quite literally trivial actualizations thru & thru
but to call quadripoints trivial is to discount their triviality by 25percent & also to fail to see that they have 33percent more conviviality than tripoints
so it seems to me all you trivialists or trivializers have actually been both shortchanging & overcharging us a hefty slice all this time just because you think you can get away with it by mere association & sleight of hand or of expression
& i myself have even been complicit in this abuse both by my long acquiescence to it & even by a few comments i too have recently made to this general effect just in order to try to harmonize better with you all
but having tried your opinion on for size & comfort i am finding i dont really believe it for a moment
for i must confess that is my true feeling
& i cant conceal it any longer just for the sake of being able to relate to you all
so from here on out i would like to respectfully ask you & your party of fellow believers if you wouldnt be kind enough to just agree to disagree with me about whether quadripoint & quadripoints really are trivial or whether conversely they might somehow be valuable & important enough to take seriously on some level
i am not necessarily trying to convince you that they are
but you all truly have not persuaded me that they arent
so lets quit pretending if thats the case
& i think the mere fact that they are a topic & have survived a termination try & constant severe trimming qualifies them for at least enough respect that their very supposed triviality should have to be as evinced & proven as the existence of particular examples of them in the world must be evinced & proven
i think this is only fair
if you are going to say they are shit as grounds for anything then you should have to demonstrate that they really are as shitty as you make them out to be
& otherwise a more nearly neutral & impartial opinion is just as fully warranted as it would be with any other topic besides shit
as for whether a given example of a quadripoint might be trivial relative to other quadripoints there could well be some discussion & guidance about exactly where we might draw the line of individual importance vs individual unimportance
but to say the entire topic is shit or out of bounds is pushing it a bit as i hope you will agree or else will quit hovering over it with such care & interest & concern
now turning to standards of proof let me just say that if mbntnusk tho already clearly qed for anyone who will just read the full plain & effective english of the nunavut act for what it is remains unaccepted then i think no standards are high enough to be realistic
rather the burden of proof on the mbntnusk deniers is now to set a standard of proof that actually reflects reality rather than only contorts & screws it up
if a proved quadripoint is still denied then we wont get anywhere at all trying to prove or disprove others
i think it only fair to set & abide by a fair & common standard
i am not suggesting we accept what is untrue or unworthy but only that we stop saying something is untrue or unworthy when it hasnt actually been demonstrated but only repeatedly alleged to be
& give yourselves a break
slighting & demeaning & belittling the topic or anything else wouldnt appear to be doing anyone any good Egull ( talk) 03:46, 10 November 2010 (UTC)
I had a look at the two refs used to backup the statement/definition that "a quadripoint is....etc" but they're not definitions; in the second case it's not clear what the context of that phrase is, and whether or not the word "quadripoint" even APPEARS in Geographic Magazine. As for the main one from the googlebook on the Caprivi strip, there are http://books.google.com/books?id=0-TSdvAg2IgC&pg=PA201#v=onepage&q=quadripoint&f=false THREE instances in that book] (and three only) of the word Quadripoint - two of them as titles, and one using it as a construct - "the quadripoint theory" - as in a theory about whether boundaries at a certain location do intersect, or not. NEITHER CITATION is relevant to the opening sentence. Skookum1 ( talk) 04:19, 10 November 2010 (UTC)
if it were only akweenda alone then yes perhaps your cavils would be justified
but akweenda is standing on the shoulders of that real giant & true culprit brownlie
nor would i so lightly turn you on your ear or ask you to cross your eyes & my apologies for it but this poorly collated copy attached to the bottoms of the following 3 pages in succession is evidently the only full copy of brownlies 5 theses of bwnazmzw available online [ [3]] [ [4]] [ [5]]
yes theses not feces
plus besides grandfather azconmut & the fl3laorospo 4corners we do have the oregon 4corners in casual use [ [6]]
mbntnusk or possibly another 4corners besides in normal nonpromotional usage [ [7]]
generic 4corners in common usage & could be anywhere [ [8]]
but the thing is once you have a 4corners national monument thingy it is hard not to use the expression loosely & generically
& on top of that azconmut is almost never called a quadripoint
so i wish you would just stand up & take responsibility & push that undo button for me this time
i dont see that you would lose anything & in my estimation you could only gain in stature for agreeing to this simple & natural & normal equivalency Egull ( talk) 05:25, 10 November 2010 (UTC)
I can't post teh search results because of the way the USGS/GNIS search engine works, but there are 137 places of various kinds named "Four Corners" or including that as part of the name in USGS. In CAnada, there are by comparison, searching CGNDB, only three - one each in Saskatchewan and New Brunswick that are unincorporated areas, and in Ontario a "Four Corners Water", which is a bay. Four Corners certainly needs to be disambiguation, or at least Four Corners (disambiguation) needs to exist since the "most common usage" could be argued to be NM-UT-CO-AZ. But my wager is most of these places have to do with intersections of streets - but hey, those are "quadripoints" too if that term is applied to everwhere two intersecting lines meet, which is the principle that's been being applied here....there's items also like Four Corners Dam in Idaho..... Skookum1 ( talk) 18:07, 10 November 2010 (UTC)
I don't think there was ever a quadripoint between Arkansas, Missouri, Indian Territory, and Unorganized Territory. As far as I can tell, Indian Territory was not more than an informal name for an unorganized territory until the creation of Kansas Territory. Take a look at the map at Territorial evolution of the United States and the various sources there. It is possible there was a point between some of the Indian Reservations established in that area, but the reservation borders were changed quite a lot over a short period of time before Kansas Territory was created. In short, I just don't see evidence for this. Pfly ( talk) 00:23, 12 November 2010 (UTC)
oh ok i see what you mean
interesting
yet when i checked the footnote for those maps numbered 34 it led to this diagram http://www.tngenweb.org/tnletters/territories/ar-terr.html which does show as of 1828 a quadripoint of missouri arkansas & choctaw with unorganized territory
this is also described & shown in the usgovt pub bus&ss1976 diagram27 so i dont much doubt it
& the question then appears to become how long did choctaw remain a separate entity & maintain that quadri configuration along n36d30m
i believe the portion of it north of the arkansas river became cherokee in the 1830s without changing the quadripoint
but am not sure when cherokee & all of indian territory was officially extended from the quadripoint at 36n30 up to n37 aka kansas
i later found this 1844 map that shows no quad http://www.lib.utulsa.edu/speccoll/collections/maps/gregg/Gregg%20%20complete.jpg
but possibly the change was as early as 1836 or earlier if this map is rightly dated http://en.wikivisual.com/images/c/c7/Map_of_Indian_territory_1836.png
& yikes this version says 1830 http://www.pbs.org/weta/thewest/places/trails_ter/indian.htm
so evidently the quadripoint was 1828 to perhaps 1830s or 1840s
& i should & will certainly change what i wrote about the 1889 end date whooops as soon as i can nail & source the true end date Egull ( talk) 03:58, 12 November 2010 (UTC)
thanxx skookum for the comments & changes
& i dont think i imputed our topical term itself to the sources but only the thing we and the term are trying to describe
but how do you figure i did that
& if you really do then at what chronological date are you thinking we may say a quadripoint is or becomes a quadripoint
also whats not right about speaking in terms of the oldest or earliest known instance of a thing at the start of a history section
please elaborate on these points
but also are you not indulging in anachronism yourself when you describe mercian subdivisions as ancient counties tho they werent yet even shires
& there seems to be an inadvertent grammatical lapse or something still in need of a fix there too if you would prefer to take care of it yourself
thanx Egull ( talk) 00:19, 14 November 2010 (UTC)
thanx franamax & you do appear to be right about there being no formal definition available anywhere in any field or any sense
so i guess we are it
at least until we find something better
but i have looked at all 72 gbooks hits you mention
& while many are mathematical or even more remote & irrelevant trademark usages etc & a good bit of what is left is legal just as you say nevertheless my impression of the available field is of an equal or greater weight of nontechnical vernacular usages such as 2008 http://books.google.com/books?id=SABf5bkvbJIC&pg=PA16&dq=quadripoint&hl=en&ei=z0ffTIGiL8P98AakvfkV&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=2&ved=0CCgQ6AEwATgK#v=onepage&q=quadripoint&f=false & 2007 http://books.google.com/books?id=1LpwLDoIkHwC&pg=PA252&dq=quadripoint&hl=en&ei=z0ffTIGiL8P98AakvfkV&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=6&ved=0CD4Q6AEwBTgK#v=onepage&q=quadripoint&f=false & 1981 http://books.google.com/books?id=4w8VAAAAYAAJ&q=quadripoint&dq=quadripoint&hl=en&ei=xUrfTNfxA8qs8Aad77nRDw&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=7&ved=0CD4Q6AEwBjgU going back it seems to the 1970 ferry shootup fyi & fwiw but not earlier so far as i can see or have found either there or anywhere else in any field
but the procedence & age & areas of application of the term dont seem to me nearly so important as something we ourselves first have to decide in any case
is our article going to be about a thing called a quadripoint & thus about things that are quadripoints or is it only going to be about the word quadripoint & which we ourselves may not even use to describe the thing
is this a normal situation or some weird contortion developing Egull ( talk) 03:29, 14 November 2010 (UTC)
also skookum please answer my above questions first too before criticizing my english
& to call self evident facts pov & synth is pushing your luck & pulling your rank too Egull ( talk) 04:51, 14 November 2010 (UTC)
right but not all self evident truths are so easy to document because most people dont belabor the obvious much
nor do they constitute new definitions but just simple observations
& it seems whenever i do bring examples to bear here just as citations of usage or simple fact rather than scholarly dissertation they are ignored or disallowed as being not scholarly enough when that wasnt my intention at all anyway
we are actually looking at some rather simple facts here
& i think you may be missing the fact that we must & do make decisions all the time regarding what to call simple things
when we decide to call only certain quadripoints quadripoints & all the others something else & indeed anything else but quadripoints then we are not only making decisions on what to call things but very poor decisions indeed imo Egull ( talk) 06:13, 14 November 2010 (UTC)
since our present moresnet map is slightly confusing because it actually shows a quintipoint can i suggest we switch to this less pretty but clearer possibility http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/a/ac/TMK_vierlandenpunt.jpg/170px-TMK_vierlandenpunt.jpg —Preceding unsigned comment added by Egull ( talk • contribs) 22:32, 14 November 2010 (UTC)
"it may not have been used before 1964, by the Geographer of the United States." Taken from the lead. It pretty much makes little to no sense to me. Is it supposed to say the Geographer didn't start using the term until after 1964? – Kerαunoςcopia◁ galaxies 08:49, 9 February 2011 (UTC)
MapQuest shows a quadripoint between four California counties: Stanislaus, San Joaquin, Alameda, and Santa Clara. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.225.88.174 ( talk) 15:07, 3 July 2011 (UTC)
It not clear how a detailed land-survey could answer the question. Surely we would need to go back to the original documents relating to the transfer of the Caprivi Strip to Germany in 1890? And judging by Ian Brownlie's remarks, they did not make the facts clear - probably because at that time nobody thought it mattered ... i.e., noone could foresee that a dispute would actually arise 80 to 90 years later. I do know that in the 1970s, the Rhodesian authorities were quite adamant that it was a quadripoint.-- DLMcN ( talk) 16:26, 9 July 2011 (UTC)
The Washington State counties of Whatcom and Okanogan and the British Columbia regional districts of Fraser Valley and Okanagan-Similkameen meet at a common point. -- Denelson 83 07:37, 31 May 2012 (UTC)
Clarifying my edit of a few minutes ago, it is perhaps worth repeating what I wrote on 9th July 2011 (above), i.e. - "... we would need to go back to the original documents relating to the transfer of the Caprivi Strip to Germany in 1890? And judging by Ian Brownlie's remarks, they did not make the facts clear - probably because at that time nobody thought it mattered" - > > because the three territories to the northeast and southeast were all British, so the various parties did not apparently bother to specify what touched what, and to what precise degree. -- DLMcN ( talk) 20:13, 1 October 2012 (UTC)
....and continues to grow with more and more specious statistics; even the title is OR. An AFD has been tried here before; jejune arguments were used to keep it, it's establishing currency for a term that has no place in geography nor any relevance in the real world. Wikipedia should not be used to create reality/analysis, it should only mirror legitimate subjects. This is not one; and it's being used as a citation for the sources it cites......Time to go, kiddies, this is a playpen of irrelevance.... Skookum1 ( talk) 02:55, 4 February 2013 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to 2 external links on
Quadripoint. Please take a moment to review
my edit. If necessary, add {{
cbignore}}
after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{
nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}}
to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.
An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.
Cheers.— cyberbot II Talk to my owner:Online 11:35, 16 January 2016 (UTC)
Arizona, Colorado, New Mexico and Utah all meet at a common point: does this mean that Arizona and Colorado border each other? or Utah border New Mexico? -- Holapaco77 ( talk) 06:55, 28 June 2017 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 5 external links on Quadripoint. 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:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 11:22, 25 January 2018 (UTC)
Just curious, why was Ilemi Triangle deleted? Jeff in CA ( talk) 21:10, 25 February 2018 (UTC)
The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion:
Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. — Community Tech bot ( talk) 14:35, 30 October 2018 (UTC)
It's pretty clear reading this talk page that this article was quite a battle ground in the 2007-2012 time frame. While not dismissing anybody's opinion, the following is quite obvious to me
As such I would like to take 15 minutes to clean up the lead. I assure the warring factions my edits are not picking sides, just acknowledging the lead is in bad shape and cleaning it up to what I see as the least painful way to do it. Dave ( talk) 17:28, 14 July 2019 (UTC)
glad to see somebody is keeping an eye on this page as it seems much improved lately great thanks
in the interest of conciseness i have been trying to pare down the growing & potentially overwhelming list of examples of major quadripoints
til recently the criteria introducing the list i think had wisely specified entirely primary subdivisions of countries & that spec has caused many otherwise lovely offerings to be weeded out by me over the year swhenever i chanced to visit
lately tho i see the spec has become modified perhaps inadvertently i dont know in such a way as to invite all manner of international quadripoints however minor they may be geopolitically & of course this only enlarges a list that as several people have observed was already overblown years ago
so i would just like to suggest in case anyone is checking in here if we did restore that single golden criterion it cwould shrink the list significantly & keep it shrunk
would love to hear other opinions
Looking at the GIS mapping tool by the Mexican Geological Survey here, the existence (and thus inclusion in the list) of the Mexico quadripoint seems somewhat dubious. The map suggests that these coordinates are actually the northern of two tripoints that are separated by some distance, apparently over 10 kilometers. While there is a marker at the given coordinates (based on photos, including the Wikimapia content provided as a reference for this entry), I can't find anything that confirms that the marker is there to indicate a quadripoint. Is "mojonera de los cuatro estados" actually the name of this marker, or is this something that's been propagated based on the content of this article and/or the Wikimapia entry (which of course is also user-generated content)? Anything I find appears to be mirroring one or the other. The use of the word "effectively" to describe the presumptive quadripoint seems weasely as well: either this is a quadripoint or it isn't, and there needs to be something to suggest that it is to merit inclusion. Otherwise, the entire mention of it is violating verifiability. -- Kinu t/ c 06:36, 9 July 2022 (UTC)
Either this article has been copied from https://civilstuff.com/what-is-a-quadripoint/?utm_content=cmp-true or vice versa, but someone is behaving dishonestly here! 92.40.197.84 ( talk) 16:33, 5 July 2023 (UTC)
I love the phrasing of the "variously claimed, disputed, recognized, ignored, disowned, and reclaimed" text (and there were more - the US and German, but I think the first section here is a little misleading - the entire area is "Antarctic Treaty regulated territory", regardless of the existence of the claims.
The situation has got a bit simpler since this was written (I think in about 2011?) - in 2015 the Norwegian territorial claim ( Queen Maud Land) was defined to stretch as far as the Pole, rather than having an undefined southern boundary as was previously the case, leaving only one "void area" on the continent. I think this means (going clockwise from the meridian) there is now Norway, Australia, France, Australia, New Zealand, unclaimed, Chile only, Chile/UK, Chile/UK/Argentina, UK/Argentina, UK only. So 7-9 distinct claims (depending if you count "unclaimed" & if you count Australia twice), 11 if you count all the overlaps as distinct.
I'll try to think of a way to reword this but I'm conscious I'm not quite familiar with the terminology here. Andrew Gray ( talk) 19:01, 1 February 2024 (UTC)
The borders between Cameroon, Chad, Nigeria and British Cameroon (not 'UK') did not form a quadripoint because the intersection of the Nigeria-Cameroon-British Cameroon borders is about 20 miles/32 km south of the intersection of the Nigeria-Chad-Cameroon borders. In other words, the borders of the four territories in question formed two tripoints separated by about 32 km. This is clearly shown in the official map produced by the British-administered government survey department in Lagos in 1949. The map is in Wikimedia commons, here:
https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/b/bb/Map_of_British_Cameroons_in_1949.jpg.
And by the way, British Cameroon was never part of the United Kingdom, so using 'United Kingdom' in the name of 'quadripoint', and in the heading, is wrong, it should have been 'British Cameroon' as per the name of the Wikipedia article on the territory.
I suggest the section be corrected in the same way as the Kazungula 'quadripoint' was. Strayan ( talk) 06:54, 12 February 2024 (UTC)
This article was nominated for deletion on 31 October 2010 (UTC). The result of the discussion was keep. |
This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||
|
what about Russia, Mongolia,China Kazakhstan border?
hmm not sure what you could mean by this but there is surely no cnkzmnru quadpoint by any name
This article still needs a lot of work. I am planning to write an article tripoint and then come back to quadripoint and fix it up. By way of explanation, this article began as a translation by me of the Dutch article nl:Vierlandenpunt. However, I don't know any Dutch; I just ran it through a machine translator and then figured it out based on similarity to English and German. One thing I realized is that the Dutch word "Vierlandenpunt" is not the same thing as the English word "quadripoint": a Vierlandenpunt is literally a four-country point, while a quadripoint can be four subnational units (e.g. the U.S. Four Corners). In German, the word is "Vierländereck" meaning "four-country corner"; not quite the same thing as "four-country point" but close.
Among other things the images in this article need to be fixed up but I am hopeless at stuff like that. No need for such a large image of Lake Chad, but it needs to be large enough to see that within the lake are two tripoints rather than a single quadripoint. It would be great to have this image from the Dutch wiki. Also there must be photos of the Sweden/Norway quadripoint mentioned in the article. There's a monument at the Manitoba/Saskatchewan/NWT tripoint which may have become a quadripoint with Nunavut (see article); three photos are on this page. Also I like this photo even though it's a bit out of focus.-- Mathew5000 21:57, 20 June 2006 (UTC)
"three regions meet at a point on the line...": sorry, if a house has four rooms that meet at a point, there are still four corners, even if not all 90 degrees. So explain your point better. -- User:Jidanni 2006-10-29
>> The Zambia/Zimbabwe/Botswana/Namibia [possible] quadripoint is very similar to the one shown in that ^^ diagram -- 85.62.18.5 ( talk) 20:05, 22 September 2011 (UTC) -- DLMcN ( talk) 20:07, 22 September 2011 (UTC)
Looks to me like some kind of borders of Solomon Islands, Tuvalu, Kiribati, Nauru all meet at a point. Going by the various articles, these are not the territorial waters; are they the Exclusive Economic Zone? It might be worth mentioning in any case. jnestorius( talk) 19:47, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
The external link Local Curiosities has a sister page USA County curiosities which lists a possible quintipoint involving 3 counties of Colorado: Jefferson, Boulder and Broomfield. This large scale map suggests that where the SW fragment of Broomfield meets the main body, you have (clockwise from north-west) Boulder-Bloomfield(main)-Jefferson(pincer#1)-Bloomfield(fragment)-Jefferson(pincer#2). However, these detailed maps from the Bloomfield site north-east of quintipoint and south-west of quintipoint suggest either the fragment is an exclave, or it is linked to the parent by a corridor. (Or possibly by an infinitely thin line? Can they do that??) Anyway, no quintipoint. jnestorius( talk) 00:58, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
Before 19th century tidying up of local boundaries, the stone did mark the convergence of four counties: Oxfordshire, Warwickshire, Gloucestershire, and a detached portion of Worcestershire. FGB —The preceding unsigned comment was added by FatGravyBoat ( talk • contribs) 10:24, 15 February 2007 (UTC).
I'm not sure about this one. I've looked at the relevant OS 1:50,000 map (sheet 141) and it seems to show a Rutland/Lincs/Northants tripoint and a Lincs/Cambs/Northants tripoint about 600m apart, with a 2-300m wide 'tongue' of Lincolnshire keeping Rutland and Cambridgeshire(Peterborough UA) apart. FatGravyBoat 10:33, 15 February 2007 (UTC)FatGravyBoat
Tetrapoint redirects here should we mention this usage?
Since we have trillion, quadrillion, quintillion, sextillion etc, would five or more areas joining at a point logically be called, 5-quintipoint/pentapoint 6-sextipoint/hexapoint 7-septapoint/heptapoint 8-octopoint 9-nonopoint/enneapoint 10-decapoint etc.
Octopoint is mentioned. Am I talking rubbish or are these ever used? Carlwev ( talk) 17:55, 24 February 2008 (UTC)
no you are right to raise this but because tripoint along with quadripoint & quintipoint are at least somewhat common & latinate & tetrapoint & pentapoint etc are almost unheard of it has become fairly standard to extend the series with latin based terms rather than greek based ones
so quintipoint sexipoint septipoint & octapoint i would suggest btw rather than octopoint since octo is the number & octa is the combinative prefix
& probably not beyond 8s because there is not at the moment any occasion or reason to use them
one admittedly crazy exception tho is the former hypothetical sexinational hendecapoint at the south pole involving as it did adjoining & overlapping territorial claims rather than any agreed boundaries where the greek prefix hendeca has volunteered itself in the absence of any latin counterpart
but the perfectly good alternative is simply not to name or even mention it in the same article since it is not really a boundary multipoint at all as are all the others Egull ( talk) 01:29, 25 October 2010 (UTC)
According to the several maps and sat images available in Map sources/GeoHack at the coordinates for Jungholz, at a high zoom it shows the area does not form a quadripoint although it is close. see here 47°33′20″N 10°27′17″E / 47.5555°N 10.4546°E
Carlwev ( talk) 12:59, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
I'm thinking of the near misses with Brazilian states, whether any of them is relevant enough for inclusion. The states of Acre, Amazonas and Rondônia almost converge on a point on the Bolivian border; also, the Piauí-Tocantins-Maranhão and Piauí-Tocantins-Bahia tripoints are very close together.
The one which might have the most interest, however, I think would be the Distrito Federal - Minas Gerais border, with the two tripoints with Goiás state (Formosa and Cristalina municipalities) less than three kilometers apart. This DF-MG border is what makes an Eulerian path of Brazilian states possible. Amorim Parga ( talk) 13:09, 8 September 2008 (UTC)
thanx & i would submit that lots of near misses are not really interesting in an article like this
in fact one or two should suffice for people to get the idea & focus on the actual topic at hand rather than on what misses the point of it Egull ( talk) 01:39, 25 October 2010 (UTC)
I would like to see some text on where this term comes from, and preferably a couple of reputable references for its usage. Nice term though it is, it does not seem to be a dictionary word, and seems to have little usage outside the wikipedia sphere so may be a case of WP:OR? Cheers — SteveRwanda ( talk) 10:57, 21 August 2009 (UTC)
[undent]I read through that chapter/appendix.....the context of the wording "quadripoint" is NOT "theory of quadripoints" but "theory that this quadripoint actually exists"; i.e. theory concerning which boundaries are valid towards A theoretical quadripoint/four-way boundary meeting. It's not about some abstract theory about quadripoints, but about one particular four-state boundary convergence. Big difference, and still not sufficient rationale for this bloated article's continued existence; that the word exists if fine, and can go in wiktionary; but there's no valid grounds for a wiki article since it just becomes a trivia-pissing/checking contest.... Skookum1 ( talk) 05:34, 31 October 2010 (UTC)
According to Google Maps there is no point were Saskatchewan borders Nunavut. Since the zig-zagging eastern border of Saskatchewan its is very likely that Google hasn't made a mistake.-- 78.21.167.224 ( talk) 20:24, 28 December 2009 (UTC)
Somone put this back in:
Manitoba, Northwest Territories, Nunavut, and Saskatchewan meet in a multi-point in Canada.
And I've taken it back out; it's a nonsensical claim based on poor-resolution maps and does not warrant inclusion in this article which is near-entirely original research to start with. The MT-SK and NU-NT boundaries do NOT coincide, there is no so-called quadripoint. It's also original research to brand the fictional/illusory point in Canada as "Four Corners", as that's not a proper name, nor is it in any site/citation than the one that coined the term (and the false claim). Skookum1 ( talk) 23:25, 17 March 2010 (UTC)
Why do you keep removing the section? People are going to keep coming here to read about it, so you may as well have a few sentances explaining why it isn't a quadripoint even though it looks like one. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 205.193.96.10 ( talk) 18:25, 29 October 2010 (UTC)
hahas kookum why do you think i am flattering myself & indeed why shouldnt i if i do & moreover what is rank about originality & enthusiasm
i ask because i truly dont understand but am tickled pink
am also curious if when you abolish quadripoint & enthusiasm & originality will you be killing tripoint too or just combining everything into larger articles on multipoint & or trypointing etc Egull ( talk) 23:17, 31 October 2010 (UTC)
I'm too non-plussed by process to launch the AFD myself, but it's time this rank and overweeing pile of original research was tossed to the circular file where it belongs. "Quadripoint" is an invention of the original page-author and is not a term in topology, geography or in any actual field of study, and many entries are not "real" but "probably" or "near misses" or just, well, downright irrelevant to anything useful or meaningful. It's an assmebly of geopolitical trivia, and as with what I removed here much of it is purely speculative or false-claims or just so wishy-washy as to be laughable. Long overdue for an AfD, imo.... Skookum1 ( talk) 23:48, 25 October 2010 (UTC)
hi friend
i agree with you about near misses & have tried to eliminate those that are farthest from being near
if you will check the footnotes to the quadripoint article you will find the term has been in scholarly use since 1979 or earlier
i would also add that the original research can be checked on large scale maps if anyone cares to invalidate it but please dont arbitrarily disallow it for lack of scholarly citations
it is after all original research & carefully done & checked
soviet topos are generally best for the third world
also the canadian quadripoint is established by law in the nunavut enabling act
if you dont appreciate it or the topic in general it may just be time to focus on a different topic
best regards Egull ( talk) 01:48, 26 October 2010 (UTC)
hi friend & thanx good points
the lowercase enabling act i meant is the one quoted in boldface above
& the mbntnusk quad may or may not only be hypothetical in any case
& i dont know if we want to get into the range of possible distinctions that can be drawn in the evolution of multipoints but in law & boundary art an existing demarcation supplants & trumps its verbal delimitation & the ntnu delimitation convergent with the quadripoint is inherited from the previous federal subdivisional boundary terminus within the earlier nwt which was effectively demarcated my mbsk at least in 1962 & probably with federal participation at that time or at least with federal acquiescence ever since
so in view of that the bold citation may or may not really be self contradictory
yet i would still agree a hypothetical quad perhaps but at least a highly presumptive one
& it is just a question of whether this article wants to get into all that
best Egull ( talk) 15:04, 26 October 2010 (UTC)
thanx good points
i mean for starters sir ian brownlies 1979 african boundaries a diplomatic & legal encyclopedia in which he devotes 10 pages to what he calls the quadripoint issue
unless you consider law & international relations beneath our scientific & or academic dignity
& you must know enjoy can mean to take pleasure but also just to experience as a condition
myself i confess i rather enjoy quads not to mention quints sexes etc
& know the usa at least does take pleasure in azconmut
& i also confess seeing as utterly final determinations are so elusive i am guilty of presumption all the time in scouting & determining the pluripoints or megapoints or however you might like to name & characterize & regard or disregard conjunctions of more than 3 entities
but i only continue to presume if the best available evidence really looks good
& i agree we should be quick to drop all interest in near misses or else collect them in a whole nother article if indeed anyone cares to
cheers Egull ( talk) 15:04, 26 October 2010 (UTC)
yes thanx if i might insert this here to clarify immediately & then follow below as well
for i dont just mean close enough geographically since that must be an exact fit or its a no go
the close enoughness that is really operative here is purely technical
maps & texts of canada have indicated these 4 corners since 1902 if not earlier
your finding of fault in the latest documentation over the apparent discrepancy between stated geocoordinates & stated geopolitical boundary convergency is vacuous tho both in the absence of geodetic datum & in the presence of monumentation
also it is hard to imagine a ntnu boundary commission not using the established nwt mbsk marker for its point of beginning since it is the only real point on the ntnu boundary at this time
you are just trying to create a technical case or space for the quad not to positively exist within & i appreciate that
but the discrepancies between textual delimitations & demarcations on the ground are common & well known & dont need to be belabored
your latest change in the article text seems to me to carry on a great deal over not much of real significance
yet maybe all this really does need to be made explicit every time it comes up or even potentially arises Egull ( talk) 17:05, 27 October 2010 (UTC)more below
Obvious example: the bulk of the western US-Canada border is regularly said to be the 49th parallel. A great many otherwise reliable sources make this claim. But the actual, legal border runs along short line segments from survey monument to survey monument. It does not ever precisely follow the 49th parallel. These points may be insignificant to most people, but to those who care about boundaries, surveys, and precise coordinates, it does matter. I think Wikipedia should take care to point out the underlying reality of borders, despite the common perception. In short, the true reality of political boundaries is not so much in the terms of the establishing legislation (which often cites whole number lines of latitude and longitude), but in the survey markers placed on the ground, for better or worse. Those markers are what carry enduring legal weight. They are what really count, when you get down to it. Pfly ( talk) 11:39, 27 October 2010 (UTC)
yes precisely & here you have made my point above i think
with your permission & after a decent interval for reflection i think i will offer a compromise draft that reflects our discussion best Egull ( talk) 17:05, 27 October 2010 (UTC)
well i have followed thru now a few hours later & hope you like it or can rerevise it to your liking Egull ( talk) 22:32, 27 October 2010 (UTC)
fwiw both google maps & google earth are now showing the boundary quadriconvergency at exactly n60d00m00s00h00 w102d00m00s00h00 wgs84
& converting the presumably empirical nad27 coords given in degminsecdec at the corner corner site into wgs84 would place the marker roughly 1000 feet due west of the point google shows
& the variability of an empirical reading in degminsecdec is probably on the order of 100 feet
but coords expressed only in integral degmin without datum as these are in the enabling act could vary & shift on the order of up to 10000 feet Egull ( talk) 23:58, 27 October 2010 (UTC)
thanx & yes of course i understand & agree wholeheartedly
hence the fwiw above
the respective orders of discrepancy or fudge factors of roughly 100 & 1000 & 10000 feet which i computed & mentioned are evidently still applicable tho
& my apologies for inadvertently forging ahead
i will gladly & patiently wait for you now that i realize your revision is coming
cheers Egull ( talk) 03:02, 28 October 2010 (UTC)
wow nice we seem just about totally in agreement
& yeay for footnotes
i would only add it seems to me the survey general would not be free to decide whether to honor the existing & presumptive monumentation
on the contrary
i think he would be quite constrained by many convergent realities to begin nowhere but at monument 157 & to not even think of contemplating any possible alternative
& expect at least a virtual demarcation sooner rather than later because the land is valuable & exploitable whether it holds diamonds or not
in fact such a vast expanse & long frontier is practically bound to include at least a few things of value
so happily i dont think we will remain in any suspense much longer Egull ( talk) 13:56, 28 October 2010 (UTC)
great & i am glad of our mutual understanding
& would answer your question that the jog may be more illusory than real
or more mental than physical
for any expressible meridian is technically not a sharp line but rather the band sometimes quite narrow of the delimitation of its own expression
so a meridian expressed as crudely as just some integral degree of longitude like say the hundredth meridian could be understood & until recently preferred to be understood as a band of longitude with a width of 1 degree or say many km even in northern canada
& if you express your meridian in degminsecplus5 youll get a submillimetrically wide or rather truly narrow band which is for all practical purposes as thin as a line yet still is not a line but a band at the bandwidth of your command
but coarsen your expression to degminsecplus3 & your band will be fatter than a tape measure
& if you express it in just plain degmin then your band is a mile wide
& if you do that without giving a datum then your mile wide band is roughly redoubled in width
& thats precisely or imprecisely what the enabling text creates
it stipulates noncontradictorily a marker that stands within the stated bandwidths of longitude & latitude & it doesnt pretend to any more exactitude than to say something very clearly in two distinct but equally clear ways albeit that one of these ways could have been misunderstood to contradict rather than confirm & be reaffirmed by the other
so since marker 157 does indeed fall within that nicely & not at all clumsily stated neck of the woods we already have a lock on a de jure quadripoint whether ntnu is ever surveyed or not
nor is this text unique in expressing the location of a monument so apparently crudely
far from it
this happens all the time as you yourself have remarked in several ways
& the only jog that is needed in such a case is to jog the mind into realizing that the stated terms actually are a perfect mutual lock & no miss at all
& yes technology has come a long way but only a very short distance in survey art since the 1960s
i would guess about a millimeter in geodetic accuracy
anyway i hope this helps or at least amuses Egull ( talk) 20:32, 28 October 2010 (UTC)
very nicely done indeed & thank you
it inspires me to continue to contribute improvements elsewhere in the article
regarding the above i think we might agree to disagree if need be so i will only offer this hopefully final observation
for tho i read you loud & clear about everything else i still find it strange & inconsistent that you are able to follow & grasp the delimitation of mbnu along the 60th parallel westward from hudson bay to mbntnusk157 notwithstanding that the inherited demarcation might be said to be technically a few seconds offline while in the case of the ensuing 102nd meridian leg of the delimitation you suddenly reject the inherited demarcation point for ntnu within mbntnusk157 as being somehow less good than all its mates to the east & than its own latitude component & somehow subject to being rejected & supplanted by some higher order of truth
for why not accord all the other inherited mbnu markers the same reserve as you hold for number 157 & expect their locations to be adjusted too
it seems to me you should be equally fastidious or aloof about previous demarcations of both stripes whether of latitude or longitude
& the text does expressly equate 60x102 & mbntnusk as being one & the same point
it even uses the word being
being means which is the same thing as
& it is used repeatedly in this sense in the delimitation
so if n60 is considered the same as mbnu how can w102 not be considered the same as ntnu
i dont get it but can certainly leave it be Egull ( talk) 02:47, 29 October 2010 (UTC)
Anyway, my main point is that I don't think either Nunavut or NWT have inherited the boundary markers set by the Manitoba-Saskatchewan boundary commissions and laws. Perhaps the northern boundaries of those provinces have force for the two territories, but the boundary between the provinces should not. But yes, we can agree to disagree--and I could easily be wrong! Pfly ( talk) 04:42, 29 October 2010 (UTC)
ok great & glad you are still with us enthusiasts
what would be a real shift tho & a total novelty is the idea that ntnu & mbsk might not be in communication with each other
the above ntnu delimitation text is primarily concerned with & most explicit about this absolute geopolitical conjunction
only secondarily does it remark that the point of conjunction happens to fall within or coincide with a certain minute of longitude
not with any certain second of longitude but only with a certain minute & very round minute at that
& it does this with the intention of clarifying rather than obfuscating the turnpoint it has just stipulated
moreover this expressly inherited demarcation point has indeed been found to lie within the stated minute by any definition
so there is no intrinsic problem here
but even if there had been some mistake or technical lapse within this delimitation there would still be no basis for the belief that a new mbnt or nusk boundary of any length could ever be demarcated unless it too had first been delimited
no such delimitation presently exists nor is one even conceivable unless existing laws are first rescinded Egull ( talk) 12:15, 29 October 2010 (UTC)
Just did some copyedits. Removed this paragraph about maritime boundaries:
I rewrote the section to say that this article does not address maritime boundaries and quadripoints at sea. But I have to wonder, why not? The reason given in this text I removed doesn't seem quite right. First, some maritime boundaries are as real as political boundaries on land. I cited a couple on the page. Two, the bit about "not a meaningful quadripoint" makes me want to ask, "says who?" I understand the "mere allocational lines" idea, but I'm not convinced that makes the quadripoints "not meaningful". Maybe not meaningful in terms of political jurisidiction. Even then I'd like a reference explaining just what power such lines do have. Then again, there are obviously many kinds of maritime borders. Maybe some of them are "meaningful" enough to warrant inclusion on this page. I think there are at least two quadripoints at sea on maritime international borders of sovereignty, by treaties. Pfly ( talk) 20:06, 29 October 2010 (UTC)
ok good
there actually are no sovereign territorial quadricountry points on land or sea
the mentioned allocational lines & polygons are not agreed boundaries at all but only cartographical conventions
& since the spurious allocational quadripoint or imaginary line intersection is so often confused & mistaken for the real thing & proclaimed as such perhaps that is a good reason to include some caveat or disclaimer about it
agreed eez boundaries on the other hand are real boundaries tho they dont actually delimit sovereign territory
they only delimit the portions of the high seas over which certain sovereign rights may be exercised
the law of the sea provides that fully sovereign maritime territories extend only up to 12nm seaward from coastal baselines
still there is no reason to exclude & every reason to include eez quadripoints so long as they are characterized & distinguished as such
right on Egull ( talk) 21:10, 29 October 2010 (UTC)
ahh much better now great thanxx to both of you
& skookum happily i believe you are right about there not actually being any punctilious eez quadripoints
& pfly for my money & for all i can tell your time has been very well spent
& just one lingering question
seeing as the great international law professor & jurist sir ian brownlie devoted 10 pages of his globally renowned legal & diplomatic encyclopedia to the inherent question & intrinsic focus of this article & since he & it have just been deleted by our own diligence in the very year of his own demise dont we perhaps owe him & his quadripoint dissertation & landmark boundary bible at least a sideways glance say in a bracketed parenthesis to a footnote or something Egull ( talk) 13:29, 30 October 2010 (UTC)
ahh thanx pals for the corrections & admonishment & the evident consideration
i knew my little essay would not last long & was actually hoping for & inviting editorial attention so no harm done i assume
for whatever use it might be the deleted portion under review was as follows
after or while resolving the conflicting delimitations & disputed interpretations
official political discussions have been proceeding fitfully for the past decade because some & at times all 4 of the parties have been collaborating in the creation of a bridge that is projected of necessity & by chance to span the immediate boundary quadriconvergency directly between the present ferry slips at kazungula zm & kasane bw
indeed this critically important bridge link has been delayed for 10 years less for lack of vision or funding than for lack of boundary clarity
zw pres mugabe in 2004 did officially concede that a short bwzm boundary does exist between zw & na rather than any nazw boundary at all
& incidentally bwzm does exist de facto & in widespread belief not just because of the visible existence of the ferry connection but also owing to the unique prestige of the international boundaries research unit which has led academic speculation about the net effect of the various de jure delimitations into this direction as well
yet the best available official cartography which also happens to be zimbabwean does not support this concession belief or speculation
indeed all the best maps appear to agree that there could not possibly be a bwzm border but rather only a nazw border because territory not of botswana & zambia but only of namibia & zimbabwe are what appear to meet in these studied depictions or opinions
moreover these territories appear to meet on these maps exactly where the existing verbal delimitations indicate a territorial overlap
brownlie who in 1979 lamented the lack of adequate cartography still believed in the possibility of a quadripoint however remote
nevertheless all present evidence including surface & aerial photography he also never saw appears to refute all claims & expectations not only of a quadripoint but of any bwzm connection overlap border or boundary at all
indeed both the hypothetical bwnazmzw & the hypothetical bwzm today appear to be equally & only imaginary by perhaps as much as a few hundred meters
as the apparently responsible party for minting the coinages quintipoint sexipoint septipoint & octopoint all circa 2002 i would like to suggest that we take responsibility for quietly correcting at least the dog latin if now popular term sexipoint to the philologically more natural format of sexapoint
the following table is offered for guidance http://home.comcast.net/~igpl/NWR.html
from it you can judge i was only winging it thru the prefixes quinti sexi & septi by analogy or mimicry of tri & quadri til i hit a brick wall at octi & so finally decided only there to deflect from obvious outlandishness into a more natural sounding octo
& luckily octo is not wrong
but sexipoint now appears to be dead ignorant
& septipoint too may be less correct than septepoint but just easier to swallow
on the other hand quinti is technically no better than sexi or septi either except that we do have the precedence & relevancy of a strong preference for the fomatting of quintipartite sexapartite septipartite & octopartite
frozen at the south pole by the antarctic treaty since 1959 yet still earnestly maintained by at least some of the 6 parties to it is the convergency point of their 11 partially conflicting sovereign territorial claim limits
these are not in any sense boundaries because they have not been agreed
& they are in fact more truly disregarded than merely frozen
yet an undecipoint of some considerable pretentions was there & if you believe in ghosts is still there today judging from how prevalent map depictions of it continue to be
thanx to all for your care & attention & to metropolitan90 in particular for the very sensible suggestion
here are the makings for footnotes to the few that still survive in that section if anyone who knows how would like to add them
andorra http://article.gmane.org/gmane.culture.discuss.boundary-point/1124/
bulgaria http://groups.yahoo.com/group/boundarypointpoint/message/1701/
dominican republic http://www.lib.utexas.edu/maps/americas/dominican_republic_pol_04.jpg & the wikipedia articles for the 4 respective provinces
gabon http://groups.yahoo.com/group/boundarypointpoint/message/1703
jamaica http://www.lib.utexas.edu/maps/americas/jamaica_pol_2002.jpg & the wikipedia articles for the 4 respective parishes
libya http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Lybian_Shabiat_2007_with_numbers.svg
mauritania http://www.lib.utexas.edu/maps/africa/mauritania_pol95.jpg
uganda http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Uganda_Districts.png
vietnam http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:VietnameseProvincesMap.png
& one that even i consider too enthusiastic & original but which also could be added if anyone is so exuberant
http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:ffCpWgpWKAMJ:en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bir_Tawil+halaib+quadripoint&cd=1&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=us —Preceding
unsigned comment added by
Egull (
talk •
contribs)
17:24, 1 November 2010 (UTC)
yes yes great thanx & hilarious too that the punctilious boundary pointing crowd is as leery of wikipedia as wikipedia is leery of it
but i am totally with you on famous quadripoints & famous near misses
& you know i saluted your excellent 20th century history of bwnazmzw by continuing it with my sketch of the relevant & perhaps even more incredibly fascinating 21st century history of it
& which was justly disallowed & admonished & now decorates nay emblazons the very abolishment bill we are considering
so i understand you are sensibly idling & just waiting to see if we get any more wind for our sails
but if the article survives it will immediately beg to be enlarged & enhanced by the very exhibits 1 & 2 of the indictment
& i would submit this is actually not trivial
the inherent question of whether a particular border exists or not is not trivial inconsequential irrelevant nor unimportant
the tripoint articles yes & their lists yes are trivial yes certainly by comparison & even absolutely yes trivial literally
but quadripoints & the greater pluripoints are far more remarkable & rare than mere trivia & the world knows it Egull ( talk) 01:39, 2 November 2010 (UTC)
hi olenglish & thanx for your consideration
i understand i can just hit an undo button
but if its only my mainiac newenglish you are rightly objecting to then maybe we can negotiate & or finesse this —Preceding unsigned comment added by Egull ( talk • contribs) 17:53, 4 November 2010 (UTC)
ok good all points well taken likewise those by skookum & especially aymatth hence the following
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/boundarypointpoint/message/1725 Egull ( talk) 17:03, 5 November 2010 (UTC)
I removed the re-insertion of the bogus claim that the NT-NU-MB-SK location is called Four corners by a Canadian government website....Egull, if only you'd READ sources instead of thinking they say what you want them to say. See HERE and note this paragraph:
Oh, and this one too:
Not affiliated with ANYBODY. And decidedly NOT a Canadian government usage - no more than the Parliament of Canada "intended to create a quadripoint" or will at some point hold a Boundary Commission just to keep you happy. Stop fabricating stuff, and stop adding meaningless obscurities like internal boundaries in the Dominican Republic. Skookum1 ( talk) 06:22, 9 November 2010 (UTC)
[undent]Oh, I had a look at that CDTC site - to me it's clearly a tax writeoff, has no real useful information - check out the dorky maps, which cost them money for crown copyright maps but are really sad - and while they have "featured members" and seem to have a login for members, my bet is that any of their members who advertise on it write off their ad copy, just the same way the CDTC itself, and donations to it, are a write-off for the companies sponsoring it....it's a money dump. Only exists as a way to waste money and not do anything useful....other than provide a way to fluff up the tax losses.... Skookum1 ( talk) 18:16, 9 November 2010 (UTC)
well i am glad all this happened tho including the detour into the more important places because it points to the importance even here of really understanding & properly representing official texts
& also of dropping any sense of aggravation & culpability etc since presumably thats not useful or wanted by anyone
& i do think we are beginning to create a far better negligible article on a slight subject than ever before
but let me ask here while we are talking candidly tho the question arose elsewhere
how is it possible to consider the grand quadripoint or four corners of some countries as somehow more significant or more remarkable or credible than that of others
i can see giving the usa special treatment because its quad is arguably best known & perhaps even an archetype or progenitor of sorts
& canada & mexico must rank high by association as well as by general comparison
it appears we all have no problem with that much
or would all have no problem if we all really studied the texts
yet what has become of our cyclopedic purview & impartiality if we cant allow bulgaria or any other member of the turtle bay country club an equality of distinction for its national 4corners or quadripoint
i submit if 1 or 2 or 3 or 8 then all 192 official countries are officially in play here or should be tho i think youll find only a couple dozen would even bother showing up it is so negligible so nothing to worry about if you worry about such stuff
& as far as documentation & substantiation goes i apologize if my links werent working for you all as well as they were for me & will try to correct & or improve that both specifically & in general
but it seems to me a strong prima facie map appearance plus even a thin but earnest layer of backup ought to serve us well unless & until a given claim is disproved by better proof rather than arbitrarily busting everything outright & often on only technical grounds at that
as if it were a miss or worse too insignificant
just because it doesnt seem to some people to be quite as worldclass or quite as watertight yet as say azconmut or mbntnusk is
so yes lets keep having fun but lets keep playing fair too Egull ( talk) 19:27, 9 November 2010 (UTC)
ok thanxx franamax both for the inclusion criteria tag & the opinion
you seem to me to be mixing standards of proof with standards of importance here tho
& i think these are really 2 different sets of criteria so lets take them one at a time
first lets be clear & see if we can agree about importance & relevance etc
or else just agree to disagree about them
several people including yourself have characterized the topic as trivial & instances of its occurrence as trivia or trivialities
to say so little of tripoints is perhaps fair & even philologically apt insofar as tripoints are in fact both 3way in character & commonplace as a streetcorner in their occurrence & are thus quite literally trivial actualizations thru & thru
but to call quadripoints trivial is to discount their triviality by 25percent & also to fail to see that they have 33percent more conviviality than tripoints
so it seems to me all you trivialists or trivializers have actually been both shortchanging & overcharging us a hefty slice all this time just because you think you can get away with it by mere association & sleight of hand or of expression
& i myself have even been complicit in this abuse both by my long acquiescence to it & even by a few comments i too have recently made to this general effect just in order to try to harmonize better with you all
but having tried your opinion on for size & comfort i am finding i dont really believe it for a moment
for i must confess that is my true feeling
& i cant conceal it any longer just for the sake of being able to relate to you all
so from here on out i would like to respectfully ask you & your party of fellow believers if you wouldnt be kind enough to just agree to disagree with me about whether quadripoint & quadripoints really are trivial or whether conversely they might somehow be valuable & important enough to take seriously on some level
i am not necessarily trying to convince you that they are
but you all truly have not persuaded me that they arent
so lets quit pretending if thats the case
& i think the mere fact that they are a topic & have survived a termination try & constant severe trimming qualifies them for at least enough respect that their very supposed triviality should have to be as evinced & proven as the existence of particular examples of them in the world must be evinced & proven
i think this is only fair
if you are going to say they are shit as grounds for anything then you should have to demonstrate that they really are as shitty as you make them out to be
& otherwise a more nearly neutral & impartial opinion is just as fully warranted as it would be with any other topic besides shit
as for whether a given example of a quadripoint might be trivial relative to other quadripoints there could well be some discussion & guidance about exactly where we might draw the line of individual importance vs individual unimportance
but to say the entire topic is shit or out of bounds is pushing it a bit as i hope you will agree or else will quit hovering over it with such care & interest & concern
now turning to standards of proof let me just say that if mbntnusk tho already clearly qed for anyone who will just read the full plain & effective english of the nunavut act for what it is remains unaccepted then i think no standards are high enough to be realistic
rather the burden of proof on the mbntnusk deniers is now to set a standard of proof that actually reflects reality rather than only contorts & screws it up
if a proved quadripoint is still denied then we wont get anywhere at all trying to prove or disprove others
i think it only fair to set & abide by a fair & common standard
i am not suggesting we accept what is untrue or unworthy but only that we stop saying something is untrue or unworthy when it hasnt actually been demonstrated but only repeatedly alleged to be
& give yourselves a break
slighting & demeaning & belittling the topic or anything else wouldnt appear to be doing anyone any good Egull ( talk) 03:46, 10 November 2010 (UTC)
I had a look at the two refs used to backup the statement/definition that "a quadripoint is....etc" but they're not definitions; in the second case it's not clear what the context of that phrase is, and whether or not the word "quadripoint" even APPEARS in Geographic Magazine. As for the main one from the googlebook on the Caprivi strip, there are http://books.google.com/books?id=0-TSdvAg2IgC&pg=PA201#v=onepage&q=quadripoint&f=false THREE instances in that book] (and three only) of the word Quadripoint - two of them as titles, and one using it as a construct - "the quadripoint theory" - as in a theory about whether boundaries at a certain location do intersect, or not. NEITHER CITATION is relevant to the opening sentence. Skookum1 ( talk) 04:19, 10 November 2010 (UTC)
if it were only akweenda alone then yes perhaps your cavils would be justified
but akweenda is standing on the shoulders of that real giant & true culprit brownlie
nor would i so lightly turn you on your ear or ask you to cross your eyes & my apologies for it but this poorly collated copy attached to the bottoms of the following 3 pages in succession is evidently the only full copy of brownlies 5 theses of bwnazmzw available online [ [3]] [ [4]] [ [5]]
yes theses not feces
plus besides grandfather azconmut & the fl3laorospo 4corners we do have the oregon 4corners in casual use [ [6]]
mbntnusk or possibly another 4corners besides in normal nonpromotional usage [ [7]]
generic 4corners in common usage & could be anywhere [ [8]]
but the thing is once you have a 4corners national monument thingy it is hard not to use the expression loosely & generically
& on top of that azconmut is almost never called a quadripoint
so i wish you would just stand up & take responsibility & push that undo button for me this time
i dont see that you would lose anything & in my estimation you could only gain in stature for agreeing to this simple & natural & normal equivalency Egull ( talk) 05:25, 10 November 2010 (UTC)
I can't post teh search results because of the way the USGS/GNIS search engine works, but there are 137 places of various kinds named "Four Corners" or including that as part of the name in USGS. In CAnada, there are by comparison, searching CGNDB, only three - one each in Saskatchewan and New Brunswick that are unincorporated areas, and in Ontario a "Four Corners Water", which is a bay. Four Corners certainly needs to be disambiguation, or at least Four Corners (disambiguation) needs to exist since the "most common usage" could be argued to be NM-UT-CO-AZ. But my wager is most of these places have to do with intersections of streets - but hey, those are "quadripoints" too if that term is applied to everwhere two intersecting lines meet, which is the principle that's been being applied here....there's items also like Four Corners Dam in Idaho..... Skookum1 ( talk) 18:07, 10 November 2010 (UTC)
I don't think there was ever a quadripoint between Arkansas, Missouri, Indian Territory, and Unorganized Territory. As far as I can tell, Indian Territory was not more than an informal name for an unorganized territory until the creation of Kansas Territory. Take a look at the map at Territorial evolution of the United States and the various sources there. It is possible there was a point between some of the Indian Reservations established in that area, but the reservation borders were changed quite a lot over a short period of time before Kansas Territory was created. In short, I just don't see evidence for this. Pfly ( talk) 00:23, 12 November 2010 (UTC)
oh ok i see what you mean
interesting
yet when i checked the footnote for those maps numbered 34 it led to this diagram http://www.tngenweb.org/tnletters/territories/ar-terr.html which does show as of 1828 a quadripoint of missouri arkansas & choctaw with unorganized territory
this is also described & shown in the usgovt pub bus&ss1976 diagram27 so i dont much doubt it
& the question then appears to become how long did choctaw remain a separate entity & maintain that quadri configuration along n36d30m
i believe the portion of it north of the arkansas river became cherokee in the 1830s without changing the quadripoint
but am not sure when cherokee & all of indian territory was officially extended from the quadripoint at 36n30 up to n37 aka kansas
i later found this 1844 map that shows no quad http://www.lib.utulsa.edu/speccoll/collections/maps/gregg/Gregg%20%20complete.jpg
but possibly the change was as early as 1836 or earlier if this map is rightly dated http://en.wikivisual.com/images/c/c7/Map_of_Indian_territory_1836.png
& yikes this version says 1830 http://www.pbs.org/weta/thewest/places/trails_ter/indian.htm
so evidently the quadripoint was 1828 to perhaps 1830s or 1840s
& i should & will certainly change what i wrote about the 1889 end date whooops as soon as i can nail & source the true end date Egull ( talk) 03:58, 12 November 2010 (UTC)
thanxx skookum for the comments & changes
& i dont think i imputed our topical term itself to the sources but only the thing we and the term are trying to describe
but how do you figure i did that
& if you really do then at what chronological date are you thinking we may say a quadripoint is or becomes a quadripoint
also whats not right about speaking in terms of the oldest or earliest known instance of a thing at the start of a history section
please elaborate on these points
but also are you not indulging in anachronism yourself when you describe mercian subdivisions as ancient counties tho they werent yet even shires
& there seems to be an inadvertent grammatical lapse or something still in need of a fix there too if you would prefer to take care of it yourself
thanx Egull ( talk) 00:19, 14 November 2010 (UTC)
thanx franamax & you do appear to be right about there being no formal definition available anywhere in any field or any sense
so i guess we are it
at least until we find something better
but i have looked at all 72 gbooks hits you mention
& while many are mathematical or even more remote & irrelevant trademark usages etc & a good bit of what is left is legal just as you say nevertheless my impression of the available field is of an equal or greater weight of nontechnical vernacular usages such as 2008 http://books.google.com/books?id=SABf5bkvbJIC&pg=PA16&dq=quadripoint&hl=en&ei=z0ffTIGiL8P98AakvfkV&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=2&ved=0CCgQ6AEwATgK#v=onepage&q=quadripoint&f=false & 2007 http://books.google.com/books?id=1LpwLDoIkHwC&pg=PA252&dq=quadripoint&hl=en&ei=z0ffTIGiL8P98AakvfkV&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=6&ved=0CD4Q6AEwBTgK#v=onepage&q=quadripoint&f=false & 1981 http://books.google.com/books?id=4w8VAAAAYAAJ&q=quadripoint&dq=quadripoint&hl=en&ei=xUrfTNfxA8qs8Aad77nRDw&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=7&ved=0CD4Q6AEwBjgU going back it seems to the 1970 ferry shootup fyi & fwiw but not earlier so far as i can see or have found either there or anywhere else in any field
but the procedence & age & areas of application of the term dont seem to me nearly so important as something we ourselves first have to decide in any case
is our article going to be about a thing called a quadripoint & thus about things that are quadripoints or is it only going to be about the word quadripoint & which we ourselves may not even use to describe the thing
is this a normal situation or some weird contortion developing Egull ( talk) 03:29, 14 November 2010 (UTC)
also skookum please answer my above questions first too before criticizing my english
& to call self evident facts pov & synth is pushing your luck & pulling your rank too Egull ( talk) 04:51, 14 November 2010 (UTC)
right but not all self evident truths are so easy to document because most people dont belabor the obvious much
nor do they constitute new definitions but just simple observations
& it seems whenever i do bring examples to bear here just as citations of usage or simple fact rather than scholarly dissertation they are ignored or disallowed as being not scholarly enough when that wasnt my intention at all anyway
we are actually looking at some rather simple facts here
& i think you may be missing the fact that we must & do make decisions all the time regarding what to call simple things
when we decide to call only certain quadripoints quadripoints & all the others something else & indeed anything else but quadripoints then we are not only making decisions on what to call things but very poor decisions indeed imo Egull ( talk) 06:13, 14 November 2010 (UTC)
since our present moresnet map is slightly confusing because it actually shows a quintipoint can i suggest we switch to this less pretty but clearer possibility http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/a/ac/TMK_vierlandenpunt.jpg/170px-TMK_vierlandenpunt.jpg —Preceding unsigned comment added by Egull ( talk • contribs) 22:32, 14 November 2010 (UTC)
"it may not have been used before 1964, by the Geographer of the United States." Taken from the lead. It pretty much makes little to no sense to me. Is it supposed to say the Geographer didn't start using the term until after 1964? – Kerαunoςcopia◁ galaxies 08:49, 9 February 2011 (UTC)
MapQuest shows a quadripoint between four California counties: Stanislaus, San Joaquin, Alameda, and Santa Clara. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.225.88.174 ( talk) 15:07, 3 July 2011 (UTC)
It not clear how a detailed land-survey could answer the question. Surely we would need to go back to the original documents relating to the transfer of the Caprivi Strip to Germany in 1890? And judging by Ian Brownlie's remarks, they did not make the facts clear - probably because at that time nobody thought it mattered ... i.e., noone could foresee that a dispute would actually arise 80 to 90 years later. I do know that in the 1970s, the Rhodesian authorities were quite adamant that it was a quadripoint.-- DLMcN ( talk) 16:26, 9 July 2011 (UTC)
The Washington State counties of Whatcom and Okanogan and the British Columbia regional districts of Fraser Valley and Okanagan-Similkameen meet at a common point. -- Denelson 83 07:37, 31 May 2012 (UTC)
Clarifying my edit of a few minutes ago, it is perhaps worth repeating what I wrote on 9th July 2011 (above), i.e. - "... we would need to go back to the original documents relating to the transfer of the Caprivi Strip to Germany in 1890? And judging by Ian Brownlie's remarks, they did not make the facts clear - probably because at that time nobody thought it mattered" - > > because the three territories to the northeast and southeast were all British, so the various parties did not apparently bother to specify what touched what, and to what precise degree. -- DLMcN ( talk) 20:13, 1 October 2012 (UTC)
....and continues to grow with more and more specious statistics; even the title is OR. An AFD has been tried here before; jejune arguments were used to keep it, it's establishing currency for a term that has no place in geography nor any relevance in the real world. Wikipedia should not be used to create reality/analysis, it should only mirror legitimate subjects. This is not one; and it's being used as a citation for the sources it cites......Time to go, kiddies, this is a playpen of irrelevance.... Skookum1 ( talk) 02:55, 4 February 2013 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to 2 external links on
Quadripoint. Please take a moment to review
my edit. If necessary, add {{
cbignore}}
after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{
nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}}
to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.
An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.
Cheers.— cyberbot II Talk to my owner:Online 11:35, 16 January 2016 (UTC)
Arizona, Colorado, New Mexico and Utah all meet at a common point: does this mean that Arizona and Colorado border each other? or Utah border New Mexico? -- Holapaco77 ( talk) 06:55, 28 June 2017 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 5 external links on Quadripoint. 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:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 11:22, 25 January 2018 (UTC)
Just curious, why was Ilemi Triangle deleted? Jeff in CA ( talk) 21:10, 25 February 2018 (UTC)
The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion:
Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. — Community Tech bot ( talk) 14:35, 30 October 2018 (UTC)
It's pretty clear reading this talk page that this article was quite a battle ground in the 2007-2012 time frame. While not dismissing anybody's opinion, the following is quite obvious to me
As such I would like to take 15 minutes to clean up the lead. I assure the warring factions my edits are not picking sides, just acknowledging the lead is in bad shape and cleaning it up to what I see as the least painful way to do it. Dave ( talk) 17:28, 14 July 2019 (UTC)
glad to see somebody is keeping an eye on this page as it seems much improved lately great thanks
in the interest of conciseness i have been trying to pare down the growing & potentially overwhelming list of examples of major quadripoints
til recently the criteria introducing the list i think had wisely specified entirely primary subdivisions of countries & that spec has caused many otherwise lovely offerings to be weeded out by me over the year swhenever i chanced to visit
lately tho i see the spec has become modified perhaps inadvertently i dont know in such a way as to invite all manner of international quadripoints however minor they may be geopolitically & of course this only enlarges a list that as several people have observed was already overblown years ago
so i would just like to suggest in case anyone is checking in here if we did restore that single golden criterion it cwould shrink the list significantly & keep it shrunk
would love to hear other opinions
Looking at the GIS mapping tool by the Mexican Geological Survey here, the existence (and thus inclusion in the list) of the Mexico quadripoint seems somewhat dubious. The map suggests that these coordinates are actually the northern of two tripoints that are separated by some distance, apparently over 10 kilometers. While there is a marker at the given coordinates (based on photos, including the Wikimapia content provided as a reference for this entry), I can't find anything that confirms that the marker is there to indicate a quadripoint. Is "mojonera de los cuatro estados" actually the name of this marker, or is this something that's been propagated based on the content of this article and/or the Wikimapia entry (which of course is also user-generated content)? Anything I find appears to be mirroring one or the other. The use of the word "effectively" to describe the presumptive quadripoint seems weasely as well: either this is a quadripoint or it isn't, and there needs to be something to suggest that it is to merit inclusion. Otherwise, the entire mention of it is violating verifiability. -- Kinu t/ c 06:36, 9 July 2022 (UTC)
Either this article has been copied from https://civilstuff.com/what-is-a-quadripoint/?utm_content=cmp-true or vice versa, but someone is behaving dishonestly here! 92.40.197.84 ( talk) 16:33, 5 July 2023 (UTC)
I love the phrasing of the "variously claimed, disputed, recognized, ignored, disowned, and reclaimed" text (and there were more - the US and German, but I think the first section here is a little misleading - the entire area is "Antarctic Treaty regulated territory", regardless of the existence of the claims.
The situation has got a bit simpler since this was written (I think in about 2011?) - in 2015 the Norwegian territorial claim ( Queen Maud Land) was defined to stretch as far as the Pole, rather than having an undefined southern boundary as was previously the case, leaving only one "void area" on the continent. I think this means (going clockwise from the meridian) there is now Norway, Australia, France, Australia, New Zealand, unclaimed, Chile only, Chile/UK, Chile/UK/Argentina, UK/Argentina, UK only. So 7-9 distinct claims (depending if you count "unclaimed" & if you count Australia twice), 11 if you count all the overlaps as distinct.
I'll try to think of a way to reword this but I'm conscious I'm not quite familiar with the terminology here. Andrew Gray ( talk) 19:01, 1 February 2024 (UTC)
The borders between Cameroon, Chad, Nigeria and British Cameroon (not 'UK') did not form a quadripoint because the intersection of the Nigeria-Cameroon-British Cameroon borders is about 20 miles/32 km south of the intersection of the Nigeria-Chad-Cameroon borders. In other words, the borders of the four territories in question formed two tripoints separated by about 32 km. This is clearly shown in the official map produced by the British-administered government survey department in Lagos in 1949. The map is in Wikimedia commons, here:
https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/b/bb/Map_of_British_Cameroons_in_1949.jpg.
And by the way, British Cameroon was never part of the United Kingdom, so using 'United Kingdom' in the name of 'quadripoint', and in the heading, is wrong, it should have been 'British Cameroon' as per the name of the Wikipedia article on the territory.
I suggest the section be corrected in the same way as the Kazungula 'quadripoint' was. Strayan ( talk) 06:54, 12 February 2024 (UTC)