This   level-5 vital article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Politics Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Politics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of politics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PoliticsWikipedia:WikiProject PoliticsTemplate:WikiProject Politicspolitics articles Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Why does the edit history show this page being created in the summer of 2007? I know a Wikipedia page with this title and approximately this same content existed in 2003. I listed it then, or maybe in 2002, on the partition disambiguation page. Michael Hardy ( talk) 01:13, 29 November 2007 (UTC) reply

Not sure, but I imagine that at one point the page was deleted or merged into another, then recreated again. I think doing so deletes the edit history of the original page. -- Jfruh ( talk) 01:35, 29 November 2007 (UTC) reply

Well, partition disambig dates back to 23:57, March 2, 2003, but I don't think it had 'similar' content. That is, it listed some political partitions but no definitions (see for example this archival version from 2004).-- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk} 01:37, 29 November 2007 (UTC) reply

Should the following also be included?

• North Vietnam-vs-South Vietnam;
• East Germany-vs-West Germany;
• North Korea-vs-South Korea;
• The Turkish Republic of Northern Cyprus-vs-the (Greek) Republic of Cyprus.

Michael Hardy ( talk) 01:13, 29 November 2007 (UTC) reply

I don't think they are partitions, they are splits. Partitions needs an outside party to take part of country's territory; the above examples were related to various factions in a single country estabilishing their owns (other examples would include splits of Yugoslavia, Czechoslovakia or Soviet Unions, and a related term is secession).-- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk} 01:30, 29 November 2007 (UTC) reply

The Confederate secession of 1861 then clearly doesn't belong. — Tamfang ( talk) 06:09, 26 August 2010 (UTC) reply

What???? Obviously when Germany was split into two countries called East Germany and West Germany, it resulted from a war in which the USSR invaded eastern Germany and France, Britain, and the USA invaded western Germany. How is that an instance of "factions in a single country establishing" anything?

And northern Cyprus was INVADED by Turkey in 1974; that's how that split came about.

And the Korean War obviously involved the USA. Michael Hardy ( talk) 01:39, 29 November 2007 (UTC) reply

While Germany is an interesting case, its division into zones was not followed by annexation of that territory into occupying forces. We would need to expand the article and find more refs to decide whether the term partition can be applied in the case of post-WWII Germany or not (or Cyprus, or Korea). Indeed, outside powers where involved into many of those conflicts, and border changes occurred, but the heartland of those countries was not annexed by outside power - at worst, it was split between two contenders, or assigned to one (partition of Israel/Palestine comes to mind, btw).-- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk} 01:53, 29 November 2007 (UTC) reply

"While Germany is an interesting case, its division into zones was not followed by annexation of that territory into occupying forces"

So what? The article doesn't say a partition involves annexation into occupying forces. You seem to be changing the rules as you proceed. Michael Hardy ( talk) 02:27, 29 November 2007 (UTC) reply

One of those things on my list, to make secession, partition, separatism a little more consistent with each other. IN the interim, here's an interesting article I just found and will read at some point that will at least shed some light on the subject. Just 355 fair use words, part of the intro. Check it out! http://www.qub.ac.uk/cibr/WPpdffiles/MFWPpdf/w27_bol.pdf

WORDING MATTERS: PARSING PARTITION partition n. & v.—n. 1. division into parts, esp. Polit. of a country with separate areas of government. 2. a structure dividing a space into two parts, esp. a light interior wall. v.tr. 1. divide into parts. 2 (foll. by off) separate (part of a room etc.) with a partition. �� partitioned adj. partitioner n. partitionist n. [ME f. OF f. L partitio –onis (as PARTITE)] (Concise Oxford Dictionary, 1990: 868). partition n. (15c) 1: the action of parting: the state of being parted: DIVISION 2: something that divides: esp. an interior dividing wall 3: one of the parts or sections of a whole. partition vt (1653) 1a. to divide into parts or shares b: to divide (as a country) into two or more territorial units having separate political status 2: to separate or divide by partition (as a wall)—often used with off partitioner n partitionist n. (ca. 1900): an advocate of political partition. (Merriam-Webster’s Collegiate Dictionary, 11th ed., 2003: 904). The standard dictionaries of English suggest that partition and division are synonyms. Partition, in a general sense, is the division of an entity into parts. It may be analytical: a mathematician partitioning one side of an expression to develop a proof divides nothing in the physical world, even though the deductions may be recorded in writing. But partition may be actual; something that exists is divided; independently of what observers think, a unified entity is divided into parts, as when a butcher dismembers a sheep’s body. Partition may also be subjective: one observer testifies to the division of an entity into parts, but another may deny that it was a unified entity. A political partition objectively divides a previously unified territorial entity into two or more parts, which may be marked with borders, codified in new maps, and operationalized, for example in demarcated lines, perhaps accompanied by fences, walls, paint or barbed wire, or punctuated with official posts where passes or passports may be demanded. Reactions to a political partition are subjective, but in a systematic manner—there will be proponents, opponents and the indifferent, who are always with us.

Carol Moore 03:02, 29 November 2007 (UTC) User:Carolmooredc User talk:Carolmooredc

In politics, a partition is a change of political borders cutting through at least one territory considered a homeland by some community.

Does this mean that the partition of Czechoslovakia was not a partition? or that the partition of India, if done with more sensitivity to local preferences, might not be a partition? — Tamfang ( talk) 21:21, 3 April 2023 (UTC) reply

I propose that the list of examples be split into a separate page. It's extremely long and weighs down readability in my opinion. Yr Enw ( talk) 15:38, 26 August 2023 (UTC) reply