Jump to content

Talk:United Nations General Assembly Resolution 68/262

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Nice work, but is there any official source for the votes, other than the picture of the voting screen?

[edit]

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)[reply]

And if the picture of the voting screen is the source, can it be included in the article, or is that a breach of copyright?Tlhslobus (talk) 01:44, 29 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I see the BBC has a photograph here showing lots of people (diplomats and/or journalists) taking mobile phone pictures of the voting results screen, so perhaps they're not expecting a proper printed version from the UN anytime soon. Tlhslobus (talk) 02:02, 29 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
See UN press release. Currently, it looks like there is still no online version of the resolution available on the UN website. Brandmeistertalk 08:26, 1 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, but unfortunately that press release reports speeches and the result, but not who voted which way, so it's not much good as a source for us, so we remain stuck with the picture of the voting screen.Tlhslobus (talk) 09:26, 1 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
See [1].--Henares (talk) 10:49, 11 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, Henares, that was exactly what I was asking for. Tlhslobus (talk) 16:02, 13 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
It's useful to know that a UN General Assembly Resolution has no legal weight. As a non-binding resolution it is only an opinion poll of the members and has no other purpose and carries no weight except as an opinion survey. Santamoly (talk) 06:26, 4 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

abstentions

[edit]

"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)[reply]

I'm not sure whether you are just trying to be humorous. But if you are asking the question seriously, then the answer is: No, officially they are recorded as absent, and as good little Wikipedians we can't question that without citing a reliable source, which would presumably be rather hard to find given that even the official details of the vote were hard to find. If you feel the wording is awkward, you might try to re-word it slightly, but definitely NOT by stating or implying that the 24 states were present (unless you have the afore-mentioned reliable source to back it up). Presumably being 'absent', unlike abstaining, allows states convenient fictions (and on rare occasions even truths) such as 'we were going to vote for you but unfortunately we got stuck in the New York traffic and/or got held up by muggers and/or had to rush to the vet as our cat was having kittens and/or got abducted by extra-terestrials and/or were having far too good a time in your local brothels and/or any other excuse your government might be prepared to pretend to believe", etc. Tlhslobus (talk) 02:00, 30 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Incidentally, I have now discovered there is an apparent need in the Template for a 'Present not voting' count (which I'm considering adding), at least for some early Security Council Resolutions, though not for our Resolution here. Tlhslobus (talk) 05:13, 1 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Greenland should appear green, not grey

[edit]

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:

Creating File talk:United Nations General Assembly resolution 68-262 vote in Europe.svg ... There are many things this page is NOT for: ...Requesting corrections to the image (try the talk page of an article that the image is used in, or contact the graphics lab.).

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)[reply]

I've now posted a request here for the Graphics Lab to make this change. Tlhslobus (talk) 03:23, 30 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
My thanks to Frenzie23 from the Graphics Lab, who has now fixed this matter. Tlhslobus (talk) 10:32, 11 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

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).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 00:04, 21 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

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)[reply]

Fix Africa Map

[edit]

Make Ivory Coast colored purple or absent as they did not vote for the resolution - Fenetre Jones UTC: 9:31 February 22, 2018

Population

[edit]

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

Yeah, after nearly two months, I’m more convinced than ever that this is original research. The population of a state does not affect the weight or validity of its vote. We could add columns for other things like population of subjects ruled for authoritarian states, or population of voters governing for democratic ones, to reflect different points of view, but this is still not based on any precedent. I'm removing that column now. —Michael Z. 2018-10-17 23:02 z
Hi Mzajac. The world population figures are, by definition, not original research (original research being "facts, allegations, and ideas—for which no reliable, published sources exist"), since they're verified technical facts, cited from UN data. They have been present on this Wikipedia page from the start, AFAIK, and they have been helpful in creating context in interpreting the voting results. The % of total UN members and % of votes are likewise not mentioned in the UN's reports on the resolutions, and so if we remove the % of global population stat then we'll have to also remove the % of UN members column on the same grounds. But, neither should be removed.
Your argument, "We could add columns for other things like population of subjects ruled for authoritarian states, or population of voters governing for democratic ones, to reflect different points of view, but this is still not based on any precedent", is frankly not analogous and not serious.
A little searching of your Wikipedia profile details and also seeing your answers and argumentative comment history on Quora reveals that you are not personally detached from this matter, nor do you give measured responses to the subject, and so I wonder if this is an act of vandalism from you.
The % of world population in 2014 column appears equally relevant as much of the other information on the page, and I know it's been helpful to me and to other people, and so I'm going to re-add the column. If you have further questions or comments, please discuss them with me here.
Nozoz (talk) 22:48, 23 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
No. The percent figure is derived from the numbers. It’s another, clarifying view of the same data. Adding population figures implies some significance to them in this context. It violates WP:NOR and WP:SYNTH. Please file a dispute resolution request before reverting me again.
By the way, your “analysis” of my Wikipedia profile is irrelevant and inappropriate. I suggest you stick to the question and don’t try to write about me. —Michael Z. 2019-04-24 05:02 z
Michael, WP:NOR and WP:SYNTH protect against making personal inferences and research. Reporting the percentages reported elsewhere is not personal research and isn't an inference. It is matter of official fact. If, for example, China is officially reported to represent 18.1% of the world's population, and India is officially reported to represent 17.5% of the world's population, and if they're grouped together in one column, then they represent 35.6%. That isn't original research, and that's not what the Wikipedia terms and rules exist to describe.
As I've said, which you somehow failed to comment on, the exact same argument you've made applies also to the % of votes and % of total UN members columns. Yet, you haven't removed those. I think that this shows impartiality and ulterior motive to your reasoning. If you're going to remove the % of world population stat, then we have to do the same to the other columns as well. It's better than we don't remove any of them, because they're all helpful to understand the votes, and they're all statistical facts.
Edit: You actually said of the other 2 stats: "The percent figure is derived from the numbers. It’s another, clarifying view of the same data." That's literally exactly what the "% of world population" stat is. There's literally no difference there between that stat and the other 2. Either they're all original research and synthesis, or none of them are. You can't have it both ways.
My "analysis" of your heated attachment to Ukraine/Crimea/Russia topics is really just reading your content on Wikipedia and, even more revealing, on Quora as Michael Zajac, where you are combatively and in many cases non-objectively pro-Ukraine and anti-Russia in your claims and your comments towards other posters. My impression is that your character is driving your judgment and behaviour in this matter in a manner that is non-impartial, so I think that driving-force behind the dispute is to be discussed.
Do you find it rational that a person would be so insistent and aggressive over such a detail, using selective reasoning while not applying it to the other stats on the page? Personally, I don't. This is not about the Wikipedia rules, for you - that is clear.
Per your request, I've created a dispute resolution page: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Dispute_resolution_noticeboard#Talk:United_Nations_General_Assembly_Resolution_68/262#Population Nozoz (talk) 10:18, 24 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Edit: As the dispute resolution has been closed with the recommendation of further discussion and soliciting a 3rd opinion first, and as you're added your response to the dispute below, I'll also insert my dispute text here for easy reference:

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:

https://www.quora.com/log/revision/675723535 https://www.quora.com/log/revision/680009624 https://www.quora.com/log/revision/680972797 https://www.quora.com/log/revision/679695836 https://www.quora.com/log/revision/679318114 https://www.quora.com/log/revision/678373285

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.

The request was closed, with comments. Before that, I wrote a summary, and I’ll repost it here for purposes of this discussion. —Michael Z. 2019-04-24 14:44 z

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

User:Nozoz, if you revert my last edit again, you will violate WP:3RR. Please don't start a revert war, but try one of the other options offered by the admin who closed your dispute request. —Michael Z. 2019-04-24 21:42 z
User:Mzajac said: "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."
This is a subjective and speculative argument. I would say the opposite: The '% of world population' rather adds useful, actual context, and compliments the other 2 % stats. Your same argument applies in reverse: 'Not showing the additional world population context can polarize impressions on how much of the world a vote was made on the behalf of'. When I saw the '% of world population' vote, that created realization in myself and helped me to understand the votes better without assuming that all the people in those countries hold the same view. So, I know the value to it is real, in contradiction of your aim of having it not be considered by people. And guess what? The people in the countries that voted in support of the resolution likewise don't all share their government's view. The crux here is that the '% of world population' stat displays something that raising a contrasting, though not conflicting, awareness of the other 2 % stats. If it bolstered the impression of the other 2 % stat votes, you'd have no desire to remove the '% of world population' column.
User:Mzajac said: "If we do allow this, imagine what new columns of stats will start to get added to every single article about a UN Resolution."
You try to make it sound like we have to wonder. We don't because the '% of world population' column has been present on this page since March 2014, and was a part of the original creation of all the columns on the page. User:Ykvach created all three columns in March 2014 while leaving the '% of world population' column empty, and User:AnonMoos filled in the '% of world population' stat on April 1st, 2014. Since then, no additional columns have been added. So, your theory that everything falls apart if you don't censor the column you take issue with is demonstrably fear-mongering.
User:Mzajac said: "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"
This petition reads to me like a intellectually-dishonest lawyer argument, where the lawyer's goal isn't the truth but to bias a situation in their favour via a disingenuous insinuative sentiment-based argument. I didn't post your personal information: You did. In Wikipedia you give you name as Michael Z, and your username as Mzajac - which clearly indicates 'Michael Zajac'. From there, your Quora account is easily found as it is the first one that appears when entering "Michael Zajac" into the Quora search bar. Your profuse discussions of Ukraine/Crimea/Russia, with all your responses polarized towards Ukraine and against Russia, are immediately visible from there.
In summation, yours are conning, FUD, and inconsistent arguments: Is this dispute about 'original research', is it about moralizing the vote, or is it about runaway column-adding to a page that hasn't had any columns added since the first 3 were created in March 2014?
A person who has found a genuine issue doesn't need 3 shaky arguments, but just one demonstrably-true one. You haven't met that burden of responsibility. The picture is that you simply want the stat to be gone from the page, and so throwing out widely different disparate excuses for it seems to you like it's piling on the reasons to remove it. However, it's showing that there isn't a principled reason over which you feel genuine conviction about behind your desire to remove the stat, and that you just plain want it gone for ulterior motive. If we look at your individual arguments (the 'what will happen' FUD argument, the moralizing the vote argument, the 'original research' argument), then we see that none of them presents a solid case:
- The 'what will happen / runaway column adding' FUD argument is, honestly, silly, and shown to have no merit since the '% of world population' stat has been present since the first month of the creation of this page and it has not led to anything falling apart, or any new columns being added.
- The 'moralizing' argument is a subjective view I didn't think about before you mentioned it, and I immediately saw that the same also applies to the '% of votes' stat and the '% of total UN members stat' if the '%of world population' stat isn't present to look at the other two in context with. It is also another FUD argument, claiming that some helpful information must be removed because if it's there then those malleable readers won't know how to think the right way that some editor wants them to.
- The 'original research' argument has not been substantiated and if compounding % in a single column constitutes original research, then all 3 % columns are equally original research and they must all be removed on the same grounds.
You've been tossing out many very different arguments hoping that one of them sticks. We should stick with your original argument which is the reason for this dispute: That the '% of world population' column represents original research. And, to that argument, we can say: Either, no, it doesn't and so all the original % columns, which are examples of the same % aggregation, are fine, or that, yes, it does represent original research and so all the original % columns have to be removed. Nozoz (talk) 23:02, 24 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
User:Mzajac said: "User:Nozoz, if you revert my last edit again, you will violate WP:3RR. Please don't start a revert war, but try one of the other options offered by the admin who closed your dispute request."
User:Mzajac, you are trying to play a game, misrepresenting WP rules such as 'original research', 'synthesis', and 'no doxing', and now playing with '3RR' to try to ostensibly and technically work your way to a result apart from making your case logically and reasoning with the other person. You're gaming the system, abusing it. You, who has been an editor at WP since 2005, know the WP rules aren't what you've tried to cast them as, but you're do it anyway - and that would be because you're not aiming for an honest discussion that achieves truthful recognition of facts, but simply getting your determined end result to censor a stat you find unflattering to your propaganda interests that are fully visible on Quora. It should be me who tells you to not start an edit war in the aftermath of your arguments being addressed and shown why they do not hold up. I will ask for additional opinions. Nozoz (talk) 23:08, 24 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
User:Nozoz You seem to be capable of generating a lot of energy. Tell you what: if you can contribute as much uncontroversial, constructive editing to articles in the next week as you have added to this talk page in the last day, I will let you revert this table and never challenge it, and never ask anyone else to (but I won’t defend it). Deal? —Michael Z. 2019-04-25 05:30 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)[reply]

Thank you, User:Reidgreg. —Michael Z. 2019-04-27 01:38 z

Fix Europe Map

[edit]

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.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/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)[reply]

Veto Power

[edit]

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)[reply]

There are no vetos in the General Assembly. Vetos are in the Security Council only. AnonMoos (talk) 08:23, 23 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:United_Nations_General_Assembly_Resolution_68/262&oldid=1208141391"