Wikipedia talk:Mediation Cabal/Cases/2009-06-23/United Nations


 * The current map of the United Nations includes Taiwan on the ground that it is also on this map of the UN. However, this map does not represent the point of view of the UN (as can be seen in the bottom right corner of the map), so some users argue that it should not be used as the only source to build the map.
 * Some users argue that Taiwan is part of China according to the UN but no source has been provided for that statement.
 * Apart from United Nations General Assembly Resolution 2758, which has already been mentioned to you many times. --Joowwww (talk) 09:23, 24 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Again, assuming that Taiwan is part of China based on something that is not said is blatant original research. Laurent (talk) 15:46, 25 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Assuming it isn't is too. The seat of "China" covers the mainland and Taiwan, as it did before 1949. That has never changed. Only its representation has changed. --Joowwww (talk) 08:58, 26 June 2009 (UTC)


 * The map does not represent the point of view of a number of countries, including the US and Japan among others, which consider the status of Taiwan to be "undetermined".
 * The map's caption clearly states "according to the UN", the POV of individual member states on Taiwan's status is irrelevant, as has already been mentioned to you. --Joowwww (talk) 09:23, 24 June 2009 (UTC)
 * That's not correct, this is the map's caption: "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". In other words, the map has no official value and its information should not be taken as facts as we are doing on Wikipedia. Also, unlike the UN, we have no obligations to be "politically correct" on Wikipedia, so we can actually create a more accurate map than the one the UN is allowed to provide. This is why the BBC and other non-governmental sources can state that Taiwan is not part of the UN. Laurent (talk) 15:46, 25 June 2009 (UTC)
 * I was talking about the caption under the Wikipedia map (before you changed it), not the UN map. If the original caption of "according to the UN" was put back, then the caption would be accurate. --Joowwww (talk) 08:58, 26 June 2009 (UTC)
 * It's beyond me why you keep repeating it's "according to the UN" when the UN map clearly states that it does not represent the view of the UN. The caption "according to the UN" would be inaccurate which is why I've changed it. Laurent (talk) 10:39, 26 June 2009 (UTC)


 * There is also the simple fact that the 23 millions Taiwanese people are not represented in the UN so having the island on the map is very misleading.
 * Again, "according to the UN", they are, as the "legitimate representatives" of China (the China seat) is the PRC government. Before 1971 the 1.3 billion mainland Chinese were represented by the ROC government in the China seat. --Joowwww (talk) 09:23, 24 June 2009 (UTC)
 * In 1971, Wikipedia didn't exist. If it did, I would also be arguing that mainland China should be excluded from the map for the exact same reasons. Laurent (talk) 15:46, 25 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Irrelevant. Before 1971 the UN recognised the government in Taipei as the representatives of the "China" seat, a seat that includes the mainland and Taiwan, as it did in 1945. After 1971 the representation of that seat was switched to the government in Beijing. --Joowwww (talk) 08:58, 26 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Technically, the UN has no authority to decide what the border of a country is so we should not give undue weight to its resources (especially non-official ones). We should instead document, as accurately as we can, the status of the various countries on the map based on other reliable sources. The BBC, for instance, states in its UN profile that Taiwan remains non-member. In general, if the status of a country is unclear, it should be mentioned on the map.
 * Yet again, the map is not a map of disputed areas of the world. It is a map of UN member states "according to the UN". Showing Taiwan having a "disputed" status would set an unwelcome precedent, the map would then need to show every disputed region on the planet to avoid POV, which is far out of the map's scope. --Joowwww (talk) 09:23, 24 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Then what is the point of this map? It doesn't show the UN's position, nor does it show the position of most UN's members. To sum up, I think we are doing a very poor job at informing readers through this map. We need to make it less ambiguous and more neutral, one way or the other. Laurent (talk) 15:46, 25 June 2009 (UTC)
 * The map has been on the article for years and you are the only one to have made significant objections to it. The map adds educational value to the article, which is the entire purpose of Wikipedia. The site's purpose is not for people with a pro-ROC POV to score points while disrupting that educational value. --Joowwww (talk) 08:58, 26 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Please refrain from making personal attacks and assuming that I have some sort of political agenda, I don't appreciate it. I sincerely believe that the current map is in fact quite misleading, and despite what you say I'm not the only one to think so. Just a quick search brought up these discussions among others, and there are many more in the archives:
 * Simply put, if people keep asking why Taiwan is included on the map, it means its educational value is not as good as you claim it to be. I've suggested many solutions on how to make it less ambiguous but you've ignored them so far and didn't propose anything yourself. Laurent (talk) 10:39, 26 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Giving examples of people who don't know why Taiwan is coloured in blue is no reason for it not to be. Wikipedia is here to educate, not to provide false information based on what people think should be true. --Joowwww (talk) 10:25, 1 July 2009 (UTC)
 * A map should include all the information required to understand it. Readers shouldn't have to go to the talk page to make sense of it. Laurent (talk) 20:20, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

My views on this matter
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)

Mediation
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:


 * 1) How do good examples of maps of international bodies (the British Commonwealth, OPEC, other maps of the UN and so on) represent non-members or disputed members? (I've just noticed that the Western Sahara is on our map as a disputed territory);
 * 2) Is the status of Taiwan in the UN disputed?

Adell 1150 (talk) 09:01, 1 July 2009 (UTC)


 * The Commonwealth, OPEC, the EU, the OECD, the G20 and the WTO, all have maps of member states. Although none of them specifically show disputed areas, I doubt any of those organisations have any opinion regarding the borders of nation states either. Not having a map on the UN article would severly detract from the article's educational value, and would remove consistency from other international organisation articles.
 * The UN considers the island of Taiwan to be represented under the "China" seat, which also includes mainland China, Hong Kong and Macau. This seat was represented by the ROC from 1945 to 1971, when the representation of the seat was switched to the PRC, and remains the situation today. --Joowwww (talk) 10:21, 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)


 * Hi, here are my answers to your questions:


 * How do good examples of maps of international bodies (the British Commonwealth, OPEC, other maps of the UN and so on) represent non-members or disputed members? (I've just noticed that the Western Sahara is on our map as a disputed territory);


 * I don't know about the Commonwealth and OPEC maps, but the EU map on Wikipedia shows the disputed borders of Kosovo and Palestine among others, even though the "official" map doesn't show them. The point I've been trying to make is that we don't have to blindly follow the map provided by the UN, especially since it is not an official one. We can create a more accurate representation by highlighting in some way the disputed areas. It has been done for the EU map so there's no reason it can't be done for the UN one.
 * To improve the map, my proposition is to highlight disputed areas in a different color and, if needed, provide a case by case description as to why the area is disputed.


 * Is the status of Taiwan in the UN disputed?


 * There is no agreement among UN members regarding the status of Taiwan. The UN consider that there is only one China but they are not explicit as to what "China" means. Some countries, like France, consider that Taiwan is part of China, others like Japan or the US consider its status to be undetermined. Finally, some countries, like the Holy See or Paraguay, make the distinction between mainland China and Taiwan. Laurent (talk) 20:20, 1 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Individual member states' views on Taiwan are irrelevant. We are talking about the UN's view, the view of the collective Security Council. Individual member states' views do not change the collective view of the Security Council. --Joowwww (talk) 09:41, 2 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)


 * That would be fine with me. --Joowwww (talk) 09:52, 8 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Is there any documentation that says Taiwan is considered by the UN to be a province of the People's Republic of China? I believe that was one of the points Laurent has been making.  Despite the wish of the PRC and many editors that the UN would consider Taiwan to be part of the PRC, we have yet to see the proof.  All we have are statements that UN considers the PRC to be "China" without defining what that means.  I'm certainly not happy Wikipedia providing unreliable information that is clearly biased. Readin (talk) 19:06, 8 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Taiwan and the United Nations covers this in some detail. I didn't think anyone here disputed what the collective position of the UN itself was on this question. Individual Governments, such as the United States and Taiwan itself, have a different view, and my understanding is that some editors wanted those views expressed on the map. The tentative solution I want to put to you is that the map is preserved, but with a caption that makes it plain that it represents the official UN view, along the lines of the quote above. Adell 1150 (talk) 22:28, 8 July 2009 (UTC)


 * I looked over that article. I found this :
 * Ban Ki-moon came under fire for this statement from the ROC, which states that Resolution 2758 merely transferred the UN seat from the ROC to the PRC, but did not address the issue of Taiwan's representation in the UN. They emphasize that the PRC government has never held jurisdiction over Taiwan and that the United Nations has never taken a formal stance regarding the sovereignty of Taiwan. Additionally, both the ROC and international newspapers such as the Wall Street Journal have criticized Ban Ki-moon for rejecting the ROC's July 2007 application without passing it on to the Security Council, a violation of the UN's standard procedure,[2] and for saying that Resolution 2758 stated that Taiwan was part of China.[3]
 * I didn't find anything that says the UN considers Taiwan part of China. What I did find is criticism for someone who had that common misconception.  If the justification is going to be that the UN considers Taiwan part of China, then we should find some evidence for that claim. Readin (talk) 19:33, 10 July 2009 (UTC)


 * The area represented by the China seat has never changed, only the representation of it. --Joowwww (talk) 09:44, 9 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)


 * I have no problem with the suggested changes to the caption for that map being made, it could explain the situation more clearly. In truth i thought we were talking about that Timeline map through out this dispute, didnt remember about the info box map lol. Just as long as the map itself isnt changed, colouring in bits with our own point of view is totally unacceptable. Thanks for ur contribution Adell, i think u picked a good case to start mediation on ;) BritishWatcher (talk) 10:24, 9 July 2009 (UTC)


 * if the territorial dispute is between two member states or between two non-member states, there is no question of how to draw the map. It is only when the dispute is between a member and a non-member that there could be a question.  Should we favor the member's POV, or do we reflect the reality of which state controls the territory? Readin (talk) 19:36, 10 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)


 * I have yet to see any proof that the corporate view of the UN is that Taiwan is part of the PRC. From everything I've see, the UN has no corporate position on the matter. Readin (talk) 20:31, 10 July 2009 (UTC)
 * You have your evidence, look at the China and the United Nations it explains very clearly that the UN has a one china policy and accepts the Peoples Republic of China are the only government that represents the WHOLE of china (which includes Taiwan). Please read that article. BritishWatcher (talk) 20:33, 10 July 2009 (UTC)
 * You'll need to be more specific. All I found at the link you gave was this line, "...demonstrating U.N. members' upholding the One China Policy.[20]"  However I will remove that line because it is a POV violation as it is based on a quote from a Chinese Foreign Ministry spokesman, hardly a neutral source. Readin (talk) 20:38, 10 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Also, for a body that claims to represent the world, it seems to be a bit of a POV violation to simply accept a map of what they claim are territories they represent, rather than a map of territories actually controlled by their members. Readin (talk) 20:38, 10 July 2009 (UTC)
 * - "only legitimate representatives of China to the United Nations" . That includes Taiwan. The United Nations should be fair but it isnt, it is influenced and controlled by its member states. It just so happens that the Peoples Republic of China maintains a veto at the security council meaning they can block any change to Taiwans status. BritishWatcher (talk) 20:47, 10 July 2009 (UTC)


 * What do you mean it includes Taiwan? Where did you get that from?  According to UN rules, the PRC may be able to block Taiwan's entrance into the UN (I'm not sure the security council can actually veto membership questions), but I'm pretty sure the PRC cannot unilaterally make Taiwan part of the PRC according to UN rules. Readin (talk) 20:51, 10 July 2009 (UTC)
 * - "Rejecting the application on Tuesday, the UN cited its adherence to the One China policy agreed under the 1971 resolution, which acknowledges Taiwan is a part of China." BritishWatcher (talk) 20:53, 10 July 2009 (UTC)


 * I suppose if a UN spokesman is entitled to make policy for the UN, then the UN does indeed have a policy of pretending that Taiwan is part of the PRC.
 * That still leaves the question of whether Wikipedia should have a similar policy, or whether Wikipedia should accurately reflect the fact that the PRC does not control Taiwan and that Taiwan (the ROC) is not in fact part of the UN and the fact that the government of the people of Taiwan is not represented at the UN. Is it normal for an article about a subject to embrace that subject's POV, or does Wikipedia generally try to remain neutral? Readin (talk) 20:59, 10 July 2009 (UTC)
 * You may also find this interesting, its Chinas response to the United Nations on the matter of Taiwan. ofcourse it states Chinas point of view but it lists some of the history in more detail of UNs actions and policy. Now that map we use ONLY represents the view of the world according to the United Nations, if we can make the caption more clear on it im fine with that. But in the eyes of the UN Taiwan is part of China there for it must be coloured in as all parts of UN member states are.


 * The issue of China/Taiwan is a very heated matter and puts this little dispute over a map into proportion. China and Taiwan are not even articles on the sovereign states because of the disputed status, there are separate articles for the sovereign states at Peoples Republic of China and Republic of China. Now if wikipedias policy on dealing with these things are to change, its via those articles not the UN one.


 * I totally accept its not fair, but the United Nations isnt fair and equal like it should be. BritishWatcher (talk) 21:05, 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)


 * Sorry to bring back the issue then, but I'd like to at least clarify what "according to the UN" means. Is it according to the UN members? to the Secretariat? to the Security Council? to the PRC? Perhaps if we could clarify that it would be easier to find sources (or not) for it, and to make the caption more accurate. The reason I keep mentioning the issue is that I have yet to see any source that would confirm what the UN think about the status of Taiwan. There's a huge WP:V issue here - we simply cannot prove the statement "Taiwan is part of China according to the UN". It seems like it's not written anywhere on any official UN papers. Also note that press releases by the PRC are not acceptable to prove the "according to the UN" statement. Laurent (talk) 11:37, 11 July 2009 (UTC)


 * It's important that this discussion doesn't simply go round in circles, so I think everyone should now take it as read that the UN considers Taiwan part of China and confine the discussion to (a) whether it's justifiable to put information on disputed areas on the map, regardless of the UN's own collective view and (b) what a good explanatory caption for the map might be. If you're going to persist with this line you're going to have to find a new moderator, sorry. Adell 1150 (talk) 12:37, 11 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Laurent i provided a link above to a BBC news article which states very clearly the UNs position, the BBC is a reliable source so UNs position is clear and verifiable.
 * On if we should change the map and point out disputed territories even if the UN does not see it that way, i would say no. The current map is perfectly acceptable aslong as the captions are clear. Its a map showing United Nations member states, as has been accepted above and it should show all territory accepted as part of a UN memberstates in blue (which would include Taiwan). BritishWatcher (talk) 13:37, 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.


 * Good. I strongly recommend that you all set this aside and accept that this is the view of the UN, however daft or illegitimate you feel it is. Adell 1150 (talk) 17:34, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

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.


 * Right. Clearly having a map showing Taiwan as part of China needs a qualification of some sort. I'm sure everyone is agreed on that. I thought the caption mentioned above might be a good start, as it covers this case and the other significant unclear cases. (If I can show my ignorance here, is "Territories under the Jurisdiction of UN Member States" the correct term? Does the UN have jurisdiction over things?) Adell 1150 (talk) 17:34, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

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


 * 1) Avoid having to guess at what the "UN position" is, because the UN doesn't even know.
 * 2) Show those areas of the world whose government are represented in the UN and whose government are in theory bound by UN decisions.

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)


 * I never agreed that the UN's official position was settled, I was just hoping that we could avoid having to figure it out.  Unfortunately, we don't know what the map we have represents.  We only know that it doesn't represent the opinion of the Secretariat of the United Nations.  At best our caption can say "UN membership as shown on a map found at the UN web site."  And then we'll need two disclaimers.  The first is for fealty to the source.   We'll have to say "This map does not imply the opinion of the Secretariat of the United Nations".  And then even more importantly, we'll need to clarify that "Some areas shown in blue, most notably Taiwan, are not under the jurisdiction of any UN member state and are to select an send ambassador to represent them at the UN".  So with the current map, the full caption comes to:
 * UN membership as shown on a map found at the UN web site. Some areas shown in blue, most notably Taiwan, 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."
 * I say "most notably Taiwan" because none of the other areas about which a question can be raised has anywhere close to 23 million people (more than Australia) or a similar economic significance. If that's the caption I can live with it, even though the map still doesn't represent the information that people want to know. Readin (talk) 13:44, 21 July 2009 (UTC)


 * I agree with Readin - I would prefer it if we could update the map and exclude the areas that are not represented at the UN, but if that's not possible then the caption proposed by Readin is fine for me. Laurent (talk) 20:29, 21 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Why "most notably Taiwan"? What makes Taiwan so special from all the other areas not represented at the UN? --Joowwww (talk) 08:46, 22 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Taiwan has 23 million inhabitants. Do any other areas have even 5 million?  Taiwan's GDP ranks 26th in the world?  Do any other areas even come in the top 100?  Taiwan is the worlds 16th largest exporter.  Do any other areas even show up in the top 100?  Taiwan doesn't just surpass other areas in terms of population and impact on the world economy, it does so by order of magnitude.  That is what makes Taiwan more notable than other areas. Readin (talk)


 * There's also the fact that Taiwan has been applying for 17 years for UN membership and every year its application is well reported in media. That makes it one of the most notable unrepresented area. Laurent (talk) 01:51, 23 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: Two areas are shown in grey:
 * 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.
 * Antarctica, which has no government; and
 * Western Sahara, where political control is in dispute.

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: Two areas are shown in grey: Readin (talk) 14:44, 23 July 2009 (UTC)
 * 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.
 * Antarctica, which has no government; and
 * Western Sahara, where political control is in dispute.

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)


 * This caption is good but to be honest I think the first one proposed by Readin was better as it was more to the point. Without detailing the status of every unrepresented country, we could simply list their names with a link to the relevant page. Also perhaps we don't need to mention Antartica and Western Sahara since it's already clear they are no part of the UN as they are in grey on the map. The caption could be for instance: "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." Laurent (talk) 19:39, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

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)


 * I think Laurent just forgot to include the word "unable". I believe he meant to say "and are unable to select and send ambassador to represent them at the UN".


 * The source used for creating the map in the infobox is given as .  That map clearly says that it does not imply the opinion of the Secretariat of the United Nations.  That is why the text is necessary.




 * The references for this map are given on the map file's page (click on the map itself). The references are


 * Base image: Image:BlankMap-World-v7.png (Public domain) by Vardion
 * UN member join dates: http://www.un.org/members/growth.shtml
 * Changes in country borders: wikipedia:List of national border changes since World War I


 * Given that the country borders source is a Wikipedia page, and given the rules about citing wikipedia, it looks like we don't have any source at all for the borders for this image. Readin (talk) 20:05, 23 July 2009 (UTC)


 * If you want to make an issue with the map's borders then you will need to also make an issue with the borders of the thousands of maps across Commons that is based on the same one as that is. As for the caption, I think a more concise alternative would be preferable. Infoboxes shouldn't generally contain prose.
 * Secondly, the reference is void as while the PDF map states it doesn't represent the opinion of the UN Secretariat (no decision making powers in the UN whatsoever, and completely unconnected to member states decisions), it DOES represent the opinion of the Security Council, the General Assembly, and the Secretary-General. --Joowwww (talk) 21:13, 23 July 2009 (UTC)


 * If you can point to those maps, we should indeed start correcting them.


 * I agree that having long prose is not optimal, and I've suggested more concise wording, but that wording requires a corrected map. I'm trying to be flexible. Readin (talk) 21:17, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

Test Descriptions
[[Image:UN member states animation.gif|thumb|left|400px|An animation showing the timeline of accession of UN member states, according to the UN. 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 currently governed by any UN member state and are unable to select ambassadors to represent them to the UN: Two areas are shown in grey:
 * territories governed 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.
 * Antarctica, which has no government; and
 * Western Sahara, where political control is in dispute. ]]

"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)


 * I must be missing something. Are you suggesting that who currently governs Taiwan is disputed?  If you break the law in Taiwan, it is unclear whether you will be arrested by the PRC or ROC authorities? Even the PRC refers to the ROC as the "Taiwan authorities".  Or are you having saying the word "currently" is a problem? Readin (talk) 21:30, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

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)
 * Are we still going? Or should I copy one of these to the article? Readin (talk) 15:04, 4 August 2009 (UTC)