Sorry for not replying sooner, only just noticed this was taking place.
Anyway this situation seems very clear to me and whilst i understand people object to it and might be confused at first, i see no reason why the map should be changed. The description / notes of the map makes very clear why Taiwan is coloured in, because it is considered part of China.
The United Nations has a One China Policy, the article China and the United Nations goes into detail explaining the relationship and current situation along with recent quotes by the UN Secretary General accepting that the UN still has a one china policy. It isnt fair but sadly we can not change this. Until there is a resolution that overrides Resolution 2758 which expelled all representitives of the Republic of China and gave its seat to the Peoples Republic of China stating they are the ONLY ones representing all of China there is nothing we can do. In the eyes of the United Nations (no matter what some of its members think, or what other international organisations think, or common sense) there is only ONE china and that China includes Taiwan. BritishWatcher ( talk) 11:55, 7 July 2009 (UTC)
Hi. I was going to have a go at mediating this: my first time, so be gentle...
Maybe we can make one hard question into two simpler ones. Can I suggest discussing this in two parts:
Adell 1150 ( talk) 09:01, 1 July 2009 (UTC)
Hi. Your dispute on this is with User:Laurent1979, is that right? Perhaps I should hang on till he (or someone else who wants the map changed) writes something here. Adell 1150 ( talk) 11:24, 1 July 2009 (UTC)
This is an education! Didn't know any of this... So, does everyone agree that the map correctly identifies membership of the United Nations as viewed corporately by the UN itself? If so, would a rewriting of the caption to make this clear suffice? Could anyone suggest a good wording along those lines? Adell 1150 ( talk) 17:02, 7 July 2009 (UTC)
I've just noticed that the cute little animation of the timeline of accession to the UN halfway down the article has this as a caption:
An animation showing the timeline of accession of UN member states, according to the UN. Note that Antarctica has no government; political control of Western Sahara is in dispute; and the territories administered by the Republic of China (Taiwan) and Kosovo are considered by the UN to be provinces of the People's Republic of China and Republic of Serbia, respectively.
It's a rather awkward piece of text (IMHO), but quite informative. Might everybody be happy with something along these lines replacing the main map caption? Adell 1150 ( talk) 09:38, 8 July 2009 (UTC)
It's all very interesting, this. I found this frighteningly long List of territorial disputes, which includes PRC/Taiwan. Maybe some skilled person among you could put all of these on a map for that article. Adell 1150 ( talk) 10:08, 9 July 2009 (UTC)
Readin: what do you understand the map as representing? As I understand it, the editors who want to keep the map as it is see it as representing the corporate view of the UN as to which countries are members and what their territories are. So, do you want the map to represent something else? Or do you not accept that it is the corporate view of the UN that Taiwan is part of greater China (or whatever the term is)? Why would the existing map with the proposed caption not suffice here? Adell 1150 ( talk) 20:10, 10 July 2009 (UTC)
Mr Mediator here. From the material I've read (and I came to this without much knowledge or any strong priors) it seems to me reasonably clear that the official policy of the UN is that China and Taiwan are one country and that the UN recognises the PRC as the government of both. Further discussion on this point doesn't seem productive to me. However, it is also the case that the UN position is unpopular with some countries (notably the USA) and doesn't reflect the facts on the ground (since the PRC in practice does not govern Taiwan). Therefore, I suggest what needs to be discussed is whether that map should reflect the official UN view, or should be adjusted to show areas where the official view is disputed by significant groups. In either case case we also need to find a suitable form of words for the maps' caption.
Please, do not reply with further arguments about the UN's official position. Adell 1150 ( talk) 08:35, 11 July 2009 (UTC)
The current map design only allows for two colors, blue and white. If those are the only two colors, and if we are to draw the map according to how the UN sees things, hen we have a problem as Laurent rightly points out of how to decide what the UN's view is in the absense of resolutions that have been voted on through the UN processes as defined in the UN Charter. What we have is the statement of the UN Secretary General that was not approved by either the Security Council or the General Assembly, and a similar statement by a Spokesman that was also not approved by the Security Council or the General Assembly. If this were a civil trial where we had to rule yea or nay based on the preponderance of evidence, we would likely have to go with those two statements as the only evidence available. Whether such statements can be considered the official position of the UN remains a legitimate question, but one I think we can lay aside for now.
The more serious NPOV question is whether we should adopt the POV of the UN on matters where their POV is so obviously in conflict with reality. Until she died, Anna Anderson claimed to be Grand Duchess Anastasia, yet her Wikipage says she was born "16 December 1896 Pomerania, Kingdom of Prussia, German Empire". It doesn't say Anna Anderson was born "June 18, 1901(1901-06-18) Peterhof, Russian Empire, according to Anna Anderson". The Republic of China article shows a map with only Taiwan colored, it doesn't show a map of China, Taiwan, and Mongolia the caption, "The area of the Republic of China according to the Republic of China". Wikipedia is supposed to show things as they are, not as someone wishes they were or thinks they should be. Whatever the UN thinks its territory should be, we should be showing what it actually is. Perhaps the caption could say "Territories under the Jurisdiction of UN Member States". That would eliminate confusion and remove questions as to how we determine the UN position.
As has been pointed out, the map that was used as a source was printed by the UN and even it doesn't claim to be able discern UN's view of things. We are a bit arrogant to presume we know more about the UN position than the UN does. Readin ( talk) 17:10, 11 July 2009 (UTC)
Perhaps we're getting somewhere! Could I solicit some contributions from you all on what the caption to the map could be? I guess that we should probably also mention at least the former Yugoslavia and the Western Sahara. Adell 1150 ( talk) 18:01, 11 July 2009 (UTC)
I still think the best caption would simply say "Territories under the Jurisdiction of UN Member States". Then we just show in blue those areas of the world that are actually under the jurisdiction of UN members. We would
This would require changing the map to accurately reflect the UN's reach, but accurately reflecting the UN's reach is what the map should be doing anyway. Readin ( talk) 22:38, 20 July 2009 (UTC)
What would 'Jurisdiction' mean in this context? Is Jurisdiction something you can reliably put on a map? Presumably there are lots of parts of the world which are not (or not fully) in the control of their nominal government. Would we not have to include them all? I think your point (1) above reintroduces the question of what the UN's own position is, which, again, I strongly recommenr we consider as settled. Adell 1150 ( talk) 08:22, 21 July 2009 (UTC)
OK. Mr Moderator again. I'm heartened by how close we now seem. Here is a rewriting of the original note on the animation which gives Taiwan more prominence and adds links to the articles on the relevant disputes:
A map of the United Nation's member states (the blue areas). Note that this map gives the UN's official view, which does not always reflect the position on the ground. Most notably:
- territories administered by the Republic of China (Taiwan) are considered by the UN to be provinces of the People's Republic of China; and
- Kosovo is considered a province of Republic of Serbia.
Two areas are shown in grey:
Is that acceptable? Feel free to mutilate this. Adell 1150 ( talk) 07:03, 23 July 2009 (UTC)
I just realized there are two maps on the page. The historical map and the map in the infobox. I've been concerned about the map in the infobox. It needs to have a clarifying caption as well. As for the historical, it is an even bigger problem because of the China situation prior to 1973 when China had no representation in the UN. For a historical map that is surely worth mentioning as well. If the caption were as neatly laid out as shown here, with the line spacing and all, I suppose it would be ok. Although I think we're still putting to much emphasis on repeating UN propaganda rather than reporting the reality. The wording below would be much clearer; it leaves the propaganda in but also includes the reality:
A map of the United Nation's member states (the blue areas). Note that this map gives the UN's official view, which does not always reflect the position on the ground. Most notably, the following regions are not governed by any UN member state and are unable to select ambassadors to represent them to the UN:
- territories administered by the Republic of China (Taiwan) are considered by the UN to be provinces of the People's Republic of China; and
- Kosovo is considered a province of Republic of Serbia.
Two areas are shown in grey:
Readin ( talk) 14:44, 23 July 2009 (UTC)
Sounds good to me. I'm just leaving some messages so other people can come and have a look. Adell 1150 ( talk) 15:55, 23 July 2009 (UTC)
I modified slightly, adding "to the UN" after "select ambassadors to represent them". Readin ( talk) 16:26, 23 July 2009 (UTC)
Laurent ( talk) 19:39, 23 July 2009 (UTC)UN membership as shown on a map found at the UN web site. Some areas shown in blue, most notably Taiwan and Kosovo, are not under the jurisdiction of any UN member state and are to select an send ambassador to represent them at the UN. This map does not imply the opinion of the Secretariat of the United Nations.
This:
Some areas shown in blue, most notably Taiwan and Kosovo, are not under the jurisdiction of any UN member state and are to select an send ambassador to represent them at the UN
isn't clear to me. What does "and are to select an send ambassador to represent them at the UN" mean?
This:
This map does not imply the opinion of the Secretariat of the United Nations.
Implies, to me anyway, that the map does not accurately represent the collective opinion of the United Nations, which it quite plainly does, at least where Taiwan is concerned. Adell 1150 ( talk) 19:54, 23 July 2009 (UTC)
"Not currently governed by" is wording that borders on POV. It is policy for Wikipedia not to take sides in the PRC/ROC dispute. Use a more neutral alternative. -- Joowwww ( talk) 21:15, 23 July 2009 (UTC)
United Nations
| |
---|---|
![]() A map of the United Nation's member states (the blue areas) from a UN Web site. This map does not imply the opinion of the Secretariat of the United Nations,
[2] nor does it always reflect the position on the ground. Most notably, the following regions are not governed by any UN member state and are unable to select ambassadors to represent them to the UN:
Two areas are shown in grey: | |
Headquarters | International territory in Manhattan, New York City |
Official languages | Arabic, Chinese, English, French, Russian, Spanish |
Membership | 192 member states |
Leaders | |
Ban Ki-moon | |
Establishment | |
26 June 1945 | |
• Ratification of Charter | 24 October 1945 |
Website http://www.un.org/ |
Hi. That must have been a lot of work. It certainly looks much worse as a list (the way I proposed it) than as straight sentences. I'm still worried a little about the "do not imply the expression of any opinion whatsoever" .. sentence. I appreciate that it's actually on the original map but I worry that out of context it could be read as meaning that the map is not the collective view of the UN. My slight revision is below. Nearly there, I think. Thanks everyone. Adell 1150 ( talk) 21:16, 26 July 2009 (UTC)
United Nations
| |
---|---|
![]() A map of the United Nation's member states (the blue areas) based on an original from a UN Web site
[4] Note that territories governed by the Republic of China (Taiwan) are
considered by the UN to be a province of the People's Republic of China and Kosovo
is considered a province of Republic of Serbia.
Further, Antarctica
has no government and
political control of Western Sahara is in dispute. Refer to the original map
[4] for legal information and disclaimers. | |
Headquarters | International territory in Manhattan, New York City |
Official languages | Arabic, Chinese, English, French, Russian, Spanish |
Membership | 192 member states |
Leaders | |
Ban Ki-moon | |
Establishment | |
26 June 1945 | |
• Ratification of Charter | 24 October 1945 |
Website http://www.un.org/ |
The designations employed and the presentation of material on this map do not imply the expression of any opinion whatsoever on the part of the Secretariat of the United Nations concerning the legal status of any country
The designations employed and the presentation of material on this map do not imply the expression of any opinion whatsoever on the part of the Secretariat of the United Nations concerning the legal status of any country
The designations employed and the presentation of material on this map do not imply the expression of any opinion whatsoever on the part of the Secretariat of the United Nations concerning the legal status of any country
Sorry for not replying sooner, only just noticed this was taking place.
Anyway this situation seems very clear to me and whilst i understand people object to it and might be confused at first, i see no reason why the map should be changed. The description / notes of the map makes very clear why Taiwan is coloured in, because it is considered part of China.
The United Nations has a One China Policy, the article China and the United Nations goes into detail explaining the relationship and current situation along with recent quotes by the UN Secretary General accepting that the UN still has a one china policy. It isnt fair but sadly we can not change this. Until there is a resolution that overrides Resolution 2758 which expelled all representitives of the Republic of China and gave its seat to the Peoples Republic of China stating they are the ONLY ones representing all of China there is nothing we can do. In the eyes of the United Nations (no matter what some of its members think, or what other international organisations think, or common sense) there is only ONE china and that China includes Taiwan. BritishWatcher ( talk) 11:55, 7 July 2009 (UTC)
Hi. I was going to have a go at mediating this: my first time, so be gentle...
Maybe we can make one hard question into two simpler ones. Can I suggest discussing this in two parts:
Adell 1150 ( talk) 09:01, 1 July 2009 (UTC)
Hi. Your dispute on this is with User:Laurent1979, is that right? Perhaps I should hang on till he (or someone else who wants the map changed) writes something here. Adell 1150 ( talk) 11:24, 1 July 2009 (UTC)
This is an education! Didn't know any of this... So, does everyone agree that the map correctly identifies membership of the United Nations as viewed corporately by the UN itself? If so, would a rewriting of the caption to make this clear suffice? Could anyone suggest a good wording along those lines? Adell 1150 ( talk) 17:02, 7 July 2009 (UTC)
I've just noticed that the cute little animation of the timeline of accession to the UN halfway down the article has this as a caption:
An animation showing the timeline of accession of UN member states, according to the UN. Note that Antarctica has no government; political control of Western Sahara is in dispute; and the territories administered by the Republic of China (Taiwan) and Kosovo are considered by the UN to be provinces of the People's Republic of China and Republic of Serbia, respectively.
It's a rather awkward piece of text (IMHO), but quite informative. Might everybody be happy with something along these lines replacing the main map caption? Adell 1150 ( talk) 09:38, 8 July 2009 (UTC)
It's all very interesting, this. I found this frighteningly long List of territorial disputes, which includes PRC/Taiwan. Maybe some skilled person among you could put all of these on a map for that article. Adell 1150 ( talk) 10:08, 9 July 2009 (UTC)
Readin: what do you understand the map as representing? As I understand it, the editors who want to keep the map as it is see it as representing the corporate view of the UN as to which countries are members and what their territories are. So, do you want the map to represent something else? Or do you not accept that it is the corporate view of the UN that Taiwan is part of greater China (or whatever the term is)? Why would the existing map with the proposed caption not suffice here? Adell 1150 ( talk) 20:10, 10 July 2009 (UTC)
Mr Mediator here. From the material I've read (and I came to this without much knowledge or any strong priors) it seems to me reasonably clear that the official policy of the UN is that China and Taiwan are one country and that the UN recognises the PRC as the government of both. Further discussion on this point doesn't seem productive to me. However, it is also the case that the UN position is unpopular with some countries (notably the USA) and doesn't reflect the facts on the ground (since the PRC in practice does not govern Taiwan). Therefore, I suggest what needs to be discussed is whether that map should reflect the official UN view, or should be adjusted to show areas where the official view is disputed by significant groups. In either case case we also need to find a suitable form of words for the maps' caption.
Please, do not reply with further arguments about the UN's official position. Adell 1150 ( talk) 08:35, 11 July 2009 (UTC)
The current map design only allows for two colors, blue and white. If those are the only two colors, and if we are to draw the map according to how the UN sees things, hen we have a problem as Laurent rightly points out of how to decide what the UN's view is in the absense of resolutions that have been voted on through the UN processes as defined in the UN Charter. What we have is the statement of the UN Secretary General that was not approved by either the Security Council or the General Assembly, and a similar statement by a Spokesman that was also not approved by the Security Council or the General Assembly. If this were a civil trial where we had to rule yea or nay based on the preponderance of evidence, we would likely have to go with those two statements as the only evidence available. Whether such statements can be considered the official position of the UN remains a legitimate question, but one I think we can lay aside for now.
The more serious NPOV question is whether we should adopt the POV of the UN on matters where their POV is so obviously in conflict with reality. Until she died, Anna Anderson claimed to be Grand Duchess Anastasia, yet her Wikipage says she was born "16 December 1896 Pomerania, Kingdom of Prussia, German Empire". It doesn't say Anna Anderson was born "June 18, 1901(1901-06-18) Peterhof, Russian Empire, according to Anna Anderson". The Republic of China article shows a map with only Taiwan colored, it doesn't show a map of China, Taiwan, and Mongolia the caption, "The area of the Republic of China according to the Republic of China". Wikipedia is supposed to show things as they are, not as someone wishes they were or thinks they should be. Whatever the UN thinks its territory should be, we should be showing what it actually is. Perhaps the caption could say "Territories under the Jurisdiction of UN Member States". That would eliminate confusion and remove questions as to how we determine the UN position.
As has been pointed out, the map that was used as a source was printed by the UN and even it doesn't claim to be able discern UN's view of things. We are a bit arrogant to presume we know more about the UN position than the UN does. Readin ( talk) 17:10, 11 July 2009 (UTC)
Perhaps we're getting somewhere! Could I solicit some contributions from you all on what the caption to the map could be? I guess that we should probably also mention at least the former Yugoslavia and the Western Sahara. Adell 1150 ( talk) 18:01, 11 July 2009 (UTC)
I still think the best caption would simply say "Territories under the Jurisdiction of UN Member States". Then we just show in blue those areas of the world that are actually under the jurisdiction of UN members. We would
This would require changing the map to accurately reflect the UN's reach, but accurately reflecting the UN's reach is what the map should be doing anyway. Readin ( talk) 22:38, 20 July 2009 (UTC)
What would 'Jurisdiction' mean in this context? Is Jurisdiction something you can reliably put on a map? Presumably there are lots of parts of the world which are not (or not fully) in the control of their nominal government. Would we not have to include them all? I think your point (1) above reintroduces the question of what the UN's own position is, which, again, I strongly recommenr we consider as settled. Adell 1150 ( talk) 08:22, 21 July 2009 (UTC)
OK. Mr Moderator again. I'm heartened by how close we now seem. Here is a rewriting of the original note on the animation which gives Taiwan more prominence and adds links to the articles on the relevant disputes:
A map of the United Nation's member states (the blue areas). Note that this map gives the UN's official view, which does not always reflect the position on the ground. Most notably:
- territories administered by the Republic of China (Taiwan) are considered by the UN to be provinces of the People's Republic of China; and
- Kosovo is considered a province of Republic of Serbia.
Two areas are shown in grey:
Is that acceptable? Feel free to mutilate this. Adell 1150 ( talk) 07:03, 23 July 2009 (UTC)
I just realized there are two maps on the page. The historical map and the map in the infobox. I've been concerned about the map in the infobox. It needs to have a clarifying caption as well. As for the historical, it is an even bigger problem because of the China situation prior to 1973 when China had no representation in the UN. For a historical map that is surely worth mentioning as well. If the caption were as neatly laid out as shown here, with the line spacing and all, I suppose it would be ok. Although I think we're still putting to much emphasis on repeating UN propaganda rather than reporting the reality. The wording below would be much clearer; it leaves the propaganda in but also includes the reality:
A map of the United Nation's member states (the blue areas). Note that this map gives the UN's official view, which does not always reflect the position on the ground. Most notably, the following regions are not governed by any UN member state and are unable to select ambassadors to represent them to the UN:
- territories administered by the Republic of China (Taiwan) are considered by the UN to be provinces of the People's Republic of China; and
- Kosovo is considered a province of Republic of Serbia.
Two areas are shown in grey:
Readin ( talk) 14:44, 23 July 2009 (UTC)
Sounds good to me. I'm just leaving some messages so other people can come and have a look. Adell 1150 ( talk) 15:55, 23 July 2009 (UTC)
I modified slightly, adding "to the UN" after "select ambassadors to represent them". Readin ( talk) 16:26, 23 July 2009 (UTC)
Laurent ( talk) 19:39, 23 July 2009 (UTC)UN membership as shown on a map found at the UN web site. Some areas shown in blue, most notably Taiwan and Kosovo, are not under the jurisdiction of any UN member state and are to select an send ambassador to represent them at the UN. This map does not imply the opinion of the Secretariat of the United Nations.
This:
Some areas shown in blue, most notably Taiwan and Kosovo, are not under the jurisdiction of any UN member state and are to select an send ambassador to represent them at the UN
isn't clear to me. What does "and are to select an send ambassador to represent them at the UN" mean?
This:
This map does not imply the opinion of the Secretariat of the United Nations.
Implies, to me anyway, that the map does not accurately represent the collective opinion of the United Nations, which it quite plainly does, at least where Taiwan is concerned. Adell 1150 ( talk) 19:54, 23 July 2009 (UTC)
"Not currently governed by" is wording that borders on POV. It is policy for Wikipedia not to take sides in the PRC/ROC dispute. Use a more neutral alternative. -- Joowwww ( talk) 21:15, 23 July 2009 (UTC)
United Nations
| |
---|---|
![]() A map of the United Nation's member states (the blue areas) from a UN Web site. This map does not imply the opinion of the Secretariat of the United Nations,
[2] nor does it always reflect the position on the ground. Most notably, the following regions are not governed by any UN member state and are unable to select ambassadors to represent them to the UN:
Two areas are shown in grey: | |
Headquarters | International territory in Manhattan, New York City |
Official languages | Arabic, Chinese, English, French, Russian, Spanish |
Membership | 192 member states |
Leaders | |
Ban Ki-moon | |
Establishment | |
26 June 1945 | |
• Ratification of Charter | 24 October 1945 |
Website http://www.un.org/ |
Hi. That must have been a lot of work. It certainly looks much worse as a list (the way I proposed it) than as straight sentences. I'm still worried a little about the "do not imply the expression of any opinion whatsoever" .. sentence. I appreciate that it's actually on the original map but I worry that out of context it could be read as meaning that the map is not the collective view of the UN. My slight revision is below. Nearly there, I think. Thanks everyone. Adell 1150 ( talk) 21:16, 26 July 2009 (UTC)
United Nations
| |
---|---|
![]() A map of the United Nation's member states (the blue areas) based on an original from a UN Web site
[4] Note that territories governed by the Republic of China (Taiwan) are
considered by the UN to be a province of the People's Republic of China and Kosovo
is considered a province of Republic of Serbia.
Further, Antarctica
has no government and
political control of Western Sahara is in dispute. Refer to the original map
[4] for legal information and disclaimers. | |
Headquarters | International territory in Manhattan, New York City |
Official languages | Arabic, Chinese, English, French, Russian, Spanish |
Membership | 192 member states |
Leaders | |
Ban Ki-moon | |
Establishment | |
26 June 1945 | |
• Ratification of Charter | 24 October 1945 |
Website http://www.un.org/ |
The designations employed and the presentation of material on this map do not imply the expression of any opinion whatsoever on the part of the Secretariat of the United Nations concerning the legal status of any country
The designations employed and the presentation of material on this map do not imply the expression of any opinion whatsoever on the part of the Secretariat of the United Nations concerning the legal status of any country
The designations employed and the presentation of material on this map do not imply the expression of any opinion whatsoever on the part of the Secretariat of the United Nations concerning the legal status of any country