This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
United Nations General Assembly Resolution 68/262 article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
![]() | This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to multiple WikiProjects. | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Apart from that picture, I've been unable to find any official UN source for the individual votes. It would improve the article if we could cite a proper official UN printed source. If such a source exists, the UN doesn't make it easy to find, a practice perhaps dating back to a time when many or most member states wanted their heroic 'anti-imperialist' speeches reported back home, but not their often much less heroic actual votes - perhaps that time has never ended. Or maybe the West wants us to know that 100 of 193 members condemned Russia but doesn't want to make it easy to work out that the states that didn't vote against Russia represent a majority of the world's population. And so on. But does anybody know whether the UN eventually produces a proper record of the vote, and how long that normally takes, so I can perhaps remember when to come looking again in the hope of citing it in this article? Tlhslobus ( talk) 01:33, 29 March 2014 (UTC)
"There were also 58 abstentions, and a further 24 states did not vote through being absent when the vote took place." Um, is this correct? Shouldn't this read "being present"? -- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 09:03, 28 April 2014 (UTC)
In the European map (
here), Greenland should appear green (the same colour as Denmark), as it does on the world map (
here), not grey as it is currently shown. It is not a UN memeber, but, unlike Kosovo, its status is not in dispute - it has home rule within Denmark, which handles its foreign affairs and thus Danish votes at the UN are also votes on behalf of Greenland. Otherwise every home rule entity in Europe and the world would have to be shown in grey (Denmark's Faroe Islands; in the UK, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland, as well as the Falklands/Malvinas, Gibraltar, and many other British overseas territories; in Spain, Catalonia, the Basque Region, and who knows what other Spanish regions; French Guyana in Latin America; and so on, almost ad infinitum.
And if for some strange reason it's decided that Greenland should stay grey on the Europe map, then logically it should then also be changed to grey on the world map, to avoid an article that clearly contradicts itself.
If you think this ought to be discussed on the map's own Talk Page, I'm inclined to agree with you, but unfortunately, before I created it, that Talk Page displayed a big official-looking notice saying:
Consequently I am raising the issue here, and then adding a link to here from that talk page, and then presumably doing something similar to 'contact the graphics lab'. Tlhslobus ( talk) 02:04, 30 April 2014 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on United Nations General Assembly Resolution 68/262. 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, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{
Sourcecheck}}
).
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) 00:04, 21 July 2016 (UTC)
Could there be a link included so that visitors can jump to a full listing of all UN draft resolutions? It is difficult to navigate right now to other UN resolutions from that, ideally in a time-based manner e. g. sorted by the year. 2A02:8388:1641:4700:BE5F:F4FF:FECD:7CB2 ( talk) 06:43, 13 April 2017 (UTC)
Make Ivory Coast colored purple or absent as they did not vote for the resolution - Fenetre Jones UTC: 9:31 February 22, 2018
Why is there a “percentage of world’s population” column in the table (added by user:Ykvach)? I don’t see this in other articles with UNGA vote tallies. What is its significance (with references, please)? It is unsourced, and presumably original research.
I can appreciate the curiosity about such figures, but unless there a compelling reason to list them, I will remove the column. — Michael Z. 2018-08-22 16:45 z
Summary of dispute by Nozoz User:Mzajac chose to remove the "% of world population" statistic, claiming that it constitutes original research and synthesis of published material because it represents the world population % of many countries in one figure.
I say this does not constitute original research or synthesis, and I point out that other information on the same page that Mzajac has not shown any interest in removing is example of the same thing: Both the "% of votes" and "% of total UN members" stats are exactly the same case. Mzajac has no interest in removing those stats, but defended the other two stats saying "The percent figure is derived from the numbers. It’s another, clarifying view of the same data." Well, that's also exactly what the '% of world population' stat is. Literally, all 3 stats are the same in being exactly that.
I came across their profile on Quora and found they are focused on and very opinionated on topics relating to Ukraine/Crimea/Russia, and as a rule push information in favour of Ukraine and attack and dismiss information that appears to benefit Russia:
User:Mzajac's posting is heated and also is consistently opinionated to one side, and so I think that Mzajac's desire to remove the "% of world population" stat while preserving the "% of votes" and "% of total UN members" stats, despite them all being examples of the same thing, is due to a desire to remove the one stat out of three that is unflattering to creating an impression of a global front against Russia on the matter of Crimea. However, I find that all 3 stats are helping in looking at the UN vote results in context. The % of world population stat did add to my view of the overall situation, and I think that's what Mzajac doesn't like.
Summary of dispute by Mzajac Regarding the content edits: the UN presents their voting results by listing the number of votes for, against, abstaining, and absent. They do not include population statistics associated with each vote, because they are not directly relevant. The impulse to add that information, I speculate, is backed by an impulse to add a moral element. For example, implying that the single vote of the People’s Republic of China represents the will of its 1,400 million people. I believe this violates WP:SYNTH, which states “Do not combine material from multiple sources to reach or imply a conclusion not explicitly stated by any of the sources.” If we do allow this, imagine what new columns of stats will start to get added to every single article about a UN Resolution.
Regarding User:Nozoz’s argumentation style, I am perturbed that she or he is finding social-media profiles that he or she presumes represent me, and is posting links to selected log entries as part of this dispute-resolution processs to try to characterize me as “very opinionated” and trying to “dismiss information that appears to benefit Russia.” If our social-media profiles are on trial here, I would welcome User:Nozoz to post a list of links to her or his social media accounts so our personalities can be judged fairly, if that were relevant to the question. But I believe this is skirting violation of WP:DOX. — Michael Z. 2019-04-24 14:21 z
3O Response: These discussions should assume good faith and focus on the edits, not the editors. It's not nice to imply someone is conducting vandalism (
Wikipedia:Yelling "Vandalism") and then things get worse. I made a report through
Wikipedia:Oversight requesting that all mention of (possible) real names and social media accounts be redacted from this page, and would note that outing is grounds for an immediate block.
There is nothing wrong with an editor being opinionated, BTW, so long as they don't push their POV in their mainspace edits. I don't see anything in the edit under discussion that I would consider a problem or conflict of interest. Mzajac's arguments have been concise and consistent throughout the discussion, and I applaud this editor's patience and civility in the face of ad hominem attacks.
As for the edit in question, I support the removal of the column. It was unsourced, without so much as a footnote or wikicomment to explain how the figures were arrived at. (The other %columns are the result of simple math, easily checked by the "quantity" column which itself can be checked by counting the states or through the source for the table.) I don't see anything in this article to verify the population figures. The presence of the column implies that population is somehow important to the vote, which is not stated or sourced in the article, and so seems to be original research pushing a fringe POV. Frankly, it appears to be non-notable trivia, and once trivia is present it has a habit of accumulating. While this column may have been in the stable version of the article for a while, it doesn't appear to have any validity for being there. If an editor finds sources showing that population was notable and important to the vote or resolution, I would suggest working it into the text of the article. The table is long and we should be careful about adding unnecessary information which might prevent it from displaying well on some platforms. This is a non-binding third opinion, but I hope it settles this. – Reidgreg ( talk) 13:07, 26 April 2019 (UTC) Reidgreg ( talk) 13:07, 26 April 2019 (UTC)
Serbia is shown absent with Kosovo being within Serbian territory also coloured pink
Kosovo should be coloured grey as NON-UN Member in the graph.
/info/en/?search=United_Nations_General_Assembly_Resolution_68/262#/media/File:United_Nations_General_Assembly_resolution_68-262_vote_in_Europe.svg — Preceding unsigned comment added by IllyricumShqip ( talk • contribs) 04:42, 27 January 2022 (UTC)
Is there any veto power with regard to this resolution? The article should at least mention and explain if and how veto power applies in this situation.
It seems obvious that Russia would veto such a resolution if it had the power. So why does it not? If the reason is due to Russia being a party to the dispute, then why does the article mention previous attempts at passing resolutions on the same issue that failed due to Russian vetoes, namely, draft resolution S/2014/189? How is this situation different?
If Russia were forced to abstain (which does not appear to be so as the map shows it voted against the resolution), then why wouldn't China step in and veto the resolution on Russia's behalf? President Xi and President Putin appeared to present a united front on their nations' international disputes. While that may all have been for show, it's at least worth addressing in the article.
My guess would be that this resolution does not fall under the vetoable category, but I'm not entirely sure why. I've read through several Wikipedia articles on the subject and tried a few google searches to no avail. If there are ways around the veto power of the five permanent members of the security council, then why even have the veto power at all? Why introduce any resolutions through a method subject to veto power?
This issue should be touched upon in this article and explained in detail in the Wikipedia article on UN Veto Power. 66.91.36.8 ( talk) 21:20, 22 February 2022 (UTC)
This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
United Nations General Assembly Resolution 68/262 article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
![]() | This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to multiple WikiProjects. | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Apart from that picture, I've been unable to find any official UN source for the individual votes. It would improve the article if we could cite a proper official UN printed source. If such a source exists, the UN doesn't make it easy to find, a practice perhaps dating back to a time when many or most member states wanted their heroic 'anti-imperialist' speeches reported back home, but not their often much less heroic actual votes - perhaps that time has never ended. Or maybe the West wants us to know that 100 of 193 members condemned Russia but doesn't want to make it easy to work out that the states that didn't vote against Russia represent a majority of the world's population. And so on. But does anybody know whether the UN eventually produces a proper record of the vote, and how long that normally takes, so I can perhaps remember when to come looking again in the hope of citing it in this article? Tlhslobus ( talk) 01:33, 29 March 2014 (UTC)
"There were also 58 abstentions, and a further 24 states did not vote through being absent when the vote took place." Um, is this correct? Shouldn't this read "being present"? -- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 09:03, 28 April 2014 (UTC)
In the European map (
here), Greenland should appear green (the same colour as Denmark), as it does on the world map (
here), not grey as it is currently shown. It is not a UN memeber, but, unlike Kosovo, its status is not in dispute - it has home rule within Denmark, which handles its foreign affairs and thus Danish votes at the UN are also votes on behalf of Greenland. Otherwise every home rule entity in Europe and the world would have to be shown in grey (Denmark's Faroe Islands; in the UK, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland, as well as the Falklands/Malvinas, Gibraltar, and many other British overseas territories; in Spain, Catalonia, the Basque Region, and who knows what other Spanish regions; French Guyana in Latin America; and so on, almost ad infinitum.
And if for some strange reason it's decided that Greenland should stay grey on the Europe map, then logically it should then also be changed to grey on the world map, to avoid an article that clearly contradicts itself.
If you think this ought to be discussed on the map's own Talk Page, I'm inclined to agree with you, but unfortunately, before I created it, that Talk Page displayed a big official-looking notice saying:
Consequently I am raising the issue here, and then adding a link to here from that talk page, and then presumably doing something similar to 'contact the graphics lab'. Tlhslobus ( talk) 02:04, 30 April 2014 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on United Nations General Assembly Resolution 68/262. 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, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{
Sourcecheck}}
).
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) 00:04, 21 July 2016 (UTC)
Could there be a link included so that visitors can jump to a full listing of all UN draft resolutions? It is difficult to navigate right now to other UN resolutions from that, ideally in a time-based manner e. g. sorted by the year. 2A02:8388:1641:4700:BE5F:F4FF:FECD:7CB2 ( talk) 06:43, 13 April 2017 (UTC)
Make Ivory Coast colored purple or absent as they did not vote for the resolution - Fenetre Jones UTC: 9:31 February 22, 2018
Why is there a “percentage of world’s population” column in the table (added by user:Ykvach)? I don’t see this in other articles with UNGA vote tallies. What is its significance (with references, please)? It is unsourced, and presumably original research.
I can appreciate the curiosity about such figures, but unless there a compelling reason to list them, I will remove the column. — Michael Z. 2018-08-22 16:45 z
Summary of dispute by Nozoz User:Mzajac chose to remove the "% of world population" statistic, claiming that it constitutes original research and synthesis of published material because it represents the world population % of many countries in one figure.
I say this does not constitute original research or synthesis, and I point out that other information on the same page that Mzajac has not shown any interest in removing is example of the same thing: Both the "% of votes" and "% of total UN members" stats are exactly the same case. Mzajac has no interest in removing those stats, but defended the other two stats saying "The percent figure is derived from the numbers. It’s another, clarifying view of the same data." Well, that's also exactly what the '% of world population' stat is. Literally, all 3 stats are the same in being exactly that.
I came across their profile on Quora and found they are focused on and very opinionated on topics relating to Ukraine/Crimea/Russia, and as a rule push information in favour of Ukraine and attack and dismiss information that appears to benefit Russia:
User:Mzajac's posting is heated and also is consistently opinionated to one side, and so I think that Mzajac's desire to remove the "% of world population" stat while preserving the "% of votes" and "% of total UN members" stats, despite them all being examples of the same thing, is due to a desire to remove the one stat out of three that is unflattering to creating an impression of a global front against Russia on the matter of Crimea. However, I find that all 3 stats are helping in looking at the UN vote results in context. The % of world population stat did add to my view of the overall situation, and I think that's what Mzajac doesn't like.
Summary of dispute by Mzajac Regarding the content edits: the UN presents their voting results by listing the number of votes for, against, abstaining, and absent. They do not include population statistics associated with each vote, because they are not directly relevant. The impulse to add that information, I speculate, is backed by an impulse to add a moral element. For example, implying that the single vote of the People’s Republic of China represents the will of its 1,400 million people. I believe this violates WP:SYNTH, which states “Do not combine material from multiple sources to reach or imply a conclusion not explicitly stated by any of the sources.” If we do allow this, imagine what new columns of stats will start to get added to every single article about a UN Resolution.
Regarding User:Nozoz’s argumentation style, I am perturbed that she or he is finding social-media profiles that he or she presumes represent me, and is posting links to selected log entries as part of this dispute-resolution processs to try to characterize me as “very opinionated” and trying to “dismiss information that appears to benefit Russia.” If our social-media profiles are on trial here, I would welcome User:Nozoz to post a list of links to her or his social media accounts so our personalities can be judged fairly, if that were relevant to the question. But I believe this is skirting violation of WP:DOX. — Michael Z. 2019-04-24 14:21 z
3O Response: These discussions should assume good faith and focus on the edits, not the editors. It's not nice to imply someone is conducting vandalism (
Wikipedia:Yelling "Vandalism") and then things get worse. I made a report through
Wikipedia:Oversight requesting that all mention of (possible) real names and social media accounts be redacted from this page, and would note that outing is grounds for an immediate block.
There is nothing wrong with an editor being opinionated, BTW, so long as they don't push their POV in their mainspace edits. I don't see anything in the edit under discussion that I would consider a problem or conflict of interest. Mzajac's arguments have been concise and consistent throughout the discussion, and I applaud this editor's patience and civility in the face of ad hominem attacks.
As for the edit in question, I support the removal of the column. It was unsourced, without so much as a footnote or wikicomment to explain how the figures were arrived at. (The other %columns are the result of simple math, easily checked by the "quantity" column which itself can be checked by counting the states or through the source for the table.) I don't see anything in this article to verify the population figures. The presence of the column implies that population is somehow important to the vote, which is not stated or sourced in the article, and so seems to be original research pushing a fringe POV. Frankly, it appears to be non-notable trivia, and once trivia is present it has a habit of accumulating. While this column may have been in the stable version of the article for a while, it doesn't appear to have any validity for being there. If an editor finds sources showing that population was notable and important to the vote or resolution, I would suggest working it into the text of the article. The table is long and we should be careful about adding unnecessary information which might prevent it from displaying well on some platforms. This is a non-binding third opinion, but I hope it settles this. – Reidgreg ( talk) 13:07, 26 April 2019 (UTC) Reidgreg ( talk) 13:07, 26 April 2019 (UTC)
Serbia is shown absent with Kosovo being within Serbian territory also coloured pink
Kosovo should be coloured grey as NON-UN Member in the graph.
/info/en/?search=United_Nations_General_Assembly_Resolution_68/262#/media/File:United_Nations_General_Assembly_resolution_68-262_vote_in_Europe.svg — Preceding unsigned comment added by IllyricumShqip ( talk • contribs) 04:42, 27 January 2022 (UTC)
Is there any veto power with regard to this resolution? The article should at least mention and explain if and how veto power applies in this situation.
It seems obvious that Russia would veto such a resolution if it had the power. So why does it not? If the reason is due to Russia being a party to the dispute, then why does the article mention previous attempts at passing resolutions on the same issue that failed due to Russian vetoes, namely, draft resolution S/2014/189? How is this situation different?
If Russia were forced to abstain (which does not appear to be so as the map shows it voted against the resolution), then why wouldn't China step in and veto the resolution on Russia's behalf? President Xi and President Putin appeared to present a united front on their nations' international disputes. While that may all have been for show, it's at least worth addressing in the article.
My guess would be that this resolution does not fall under the vetoable category, but I'm not entirely sure why. I've read through several Wikipedia articles on the subject and tried a few google searches to no avail. If there are ways around the veto power of the five permanent members of the security council, then why even have the veto power at all? Why introduce any resolutions through a method subject to veto power?
This issue should be touched upon in this article and explained in detail in the Wikipedia article on UN Veto Power. 66.91.36.8 ( talk) 21:20, 22 February 2022 (UTC)