Talk:Union of South American Nations

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
          This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects:
WikiProject South America / Venezuela (Rated C-class, High-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject South America, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of articles related to South America on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
C-Class article C  This article has been rated as C-Class on the project's quality scale.
 High  This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by WikiProject Venezuela (marked as High-importance).
 
WikiProject Latin America (Rated C-class, High-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Latin America, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of articles related to Latin America on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
C-Class article C  This article has been rated as C-Class on the project's quality scale.
 High  This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.
 
WikiProject Organizations  
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of the WikiProject Organizations. If you would like to participate please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks.
 ???  This article has not yet received a rating on the project's quality scale.
 ???  This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.
 
WikiProject International relations (Rated C-class, Mid-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject International relations, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of International relations on Wikipedia.
If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks.
C-Class article C  This article has been rated as C-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Mid  This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
 
WikiProject Politics (Rated C-class, Mid-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Politics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of politics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
C-Class article C  This article has been rated as C-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Mid  This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
 

Flag is not official[edit]

The southamerican Union not have official flag, —Preceding unsigned comment added by 201.239.200.160 (talk) 16:38, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

I agree. It should removed from Wikipedia's articles. Besides, this so-called flag is disgustingly reminescent of communism...

It is not up to you to like or dislike a flag and remove it according to your 'taste'. There is a flag, the references were mentioned on previous talk page (now archived). So please do not remove referenced material, without knowledge.
The official flag was presented during the Brasília Summit on May 23, 2008. See references: (Andina: Alan García gives the Unasur flag to Michelle Bachelet, O Popular: Bachelet, García and Lula show flag of Unasur, Presidency of Brazil: Photo of Unasur's flag) Unasur/Unasul official flag is: [1]. Limongi (talk) 12:49, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

That doesn't seem official. It's just a flag designed by the peruvian president. His intention was for it to become official, but that hasn't happened yet. The fact that it appears on those news sites doesn't confirm its validity as an official flag, as they do not represent Unasur. As long as no official flag is confirmed in the Unasur website, having a flag on this article seems uncalled for. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 190.160.70.232 (talk) 00:10, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

There is no official flag of UNASUR. The red/gold flag was proposed by Alan García and was just a gift; but this hasn't been used officialy by UNASUR. The only symbol is the white whirl over a skyblue background: the South American Defense Committee uses it and you can see it in different pics here (2005) and here and here (2008). I've removed the non-official flag --B1mbo (talk) 02:34, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

Please, stop adding that non official flag... there is no reliable reference that UNASUR has adopted that flag, except pictures of García giving the flag as a gift to Bachelet. Even Bachelet never said that the flag was the one of UNASUR. --B1mbo (talk) 23:20, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

Shouldn't the flag be added again to the article since it is now prominently featured on the unasur website? Arg2k (talk) 03:16, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

It seems that the flag has been de-facto adopted as the official UNASUR flag, so I'm adding it back --Kmaster (talk) 05:27, 3 December 2009 (UTC)
It's not an official website. Has it ever seen in other official website? According to its WHOIS is registrated to Telefónica del Perú S.A.A. and the page is full with advertisment. On the other hand, the site of the Council of South American Defense is linked from the Ministery of Defense and the only emblem shown is the skyblue-white one. --B1mbo (talk) 22:42, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

CARICOM[edit]

How exactly does it work that two full members of USAN are also full members of CARICOM if both aim to have a common pasport and currency? Are countries like Suriname really just associate members of one and full members of the other? Can't find much info on the issue. Goodleh (talk) 01:03, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

External Links[edit]

There is very little information about Unasur on the Web in English, but as part of my graduate thesis research on Unasur I have created a blog bringing together a lot of relevant information. I know that blogs are considered untrustworty, but I would recommend a link to my academic research page <http://southaffairs.blogspot.com/search/label/Research> and for analysis on Unasur and the South American integration process <http://southaffairs.blogspot.com>

I am placing a link in the external links section and would respectfully request that you take a good look at the page before removing it on the basis of a bias against blogs in general. Nhgill (talk) 17:46, 13 February 2008 (UTC)Nathan Gill

Observers/Bolivia[edit]

Where does it say that Mexico and Panama are observers? and what happened with Bolivia joining MERCOSUR? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.36.229.191 (talk) 05:53, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

Mexico is indeed not an observer state, so I'm just going to erase it right now.--141.30.219.173 (talk) 20:05, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
It says on Mexico's Ministry of Foreign Affairs article that the country is an observer to Unasur as well as in this same article in the spanish Wikipedia. Mexico is indeed an observer to the CSN (I don't know if that changed with the name change to Unasur). There's nothing on observer states in Unasur's Constitutive Treaty though. Seems someone already fixed the observer section as I was writing this, thank you Mitxel (talk) 18:56, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

Pro Tempore Secretariat[edit]

The permanent secretariat is now in Quito. They are almost done with the construction of those buildings. So, if nobody minds, I'll replace Brasilia with Quito. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 141.30.219.173 (talk) 20:56, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

Observer[edit]

Can someone please explain in the article what it means to be an observer state. Thanks. ~ UBeR (talk) 06:32, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

Infobox/World Map[edit]

Having the EU in green when USAN is in blue makes it difficult to see that French Guinea is not part of USAN- the two colours blur together. (For me, at least)

I don't actually see why the EU status of French Guinea needs to be shown on the world map at all. It's a little confusing given that the rest of the EU states are not coloured....


Oh, and I took out the section on the flag because it was based on a single link from 2004 which is now dead.

Furius (talk) 07:20, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

Future sovereignty?[edit]

Are there plans for it to legislate over member states in future? Will it gain sovereignty over certain areas, such as agriculture, like the EU? How much integration should be expect to see in future? 79.78.7.174 (talk) 08:03, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

Bolivar[edit]

The article on SImon Bolivar reads like an ad. Please change it. Remember, NPOV!99.224.132.115 (talk) 13:17, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

Bolivar should not even be mentioned. Should there be articles on Hitler and Napoleon on the EU page? 193.132.242.1 (talk) 17:42, 25 May 2008 (UTC)
I fully disagree. Bolivar was for integration of South America and there ARE currently leaders in South America who claim to be Bolivarian. No European leader calls himself Napoleonic or Hitlerian. Also, Napoleon and Hitler were not for European integration in the sense Bolivar was for integration of South America. 201.80.215.210 (talk) 22:49, 8 December 2008 (UTC)
While I agree with the former contributor's opinion on Bolivar's influence on current events. The fact is that Bolivar was promoting pan-Hispanic-American unification, not South American unification.68.148.123.76 (talk) 06:57, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

Beef with "Most active regional blocs" table[edit]

The "Member states" part of this table could be misleading. Specifically the parts that have formulas with exponents. (eg CARICOM, (14+1) cubed) Now what I assume is intended is, "14 or 15, depending what you count, see footnote 3" but as it is written now, it is 3375. A star, cross, or other footnote indicator would be better than using an exponent here especially with the brackets - it makes it look like it is intended to be a formula. 216.36.188.184 (talk) 14:44, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

Migration for work?[edit]

The current draft describes free movement for tourism, but doesn't cover migration for work purposes. If anyone noticed mention of this in a source (even if it says it's not known) please put that in. Thanks. Wnt (talk) 16:56, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

Population[edit]

What is the deal with the population thing on the cbox. It was already inncorrect, since the European Union is actually third worldwide if we count organizations. And, I'm not too sure on this, but wouldn't that mean we would have to count things like NATO and whatnot? --PlasmaTwa2 18:24, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

I agree. I have no problem with having the combined population in the infobox, since that's pretty useful. It's the claim that this makes it that 4th largest country that doesn't make sense. AnthonyUK (talk) 18:28, 24 May 2008 (UTC)
That makes no sense either, it is not a country. Only the EU has stuff like that, though this is based upon that... Just taking a look at the infobox you have on the page, the AU ASEAN, EU, NAFTA, and SAARC all ahve more people then the South American Union. --PlasmaTwa2 18:30, 24 May 2008 (UTC)
I don't understand why you're arguing with me - I agree with you! Discussing whether it is 3rd or 4th biggest is meaningless - as you say, other blocs are much bigger as shown later in the article. So I've removed the 'rank' for population and area completely. AnthonyUK (talk) 18:44, 24 May 2008 (UTC)
I'm arguing with you? That wasn't the plan... --PlasmaTwa2 18:48, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

Map Color & Key[edit]

Ok, I'm not sure if it's me/my computer, but the map and color key don't match up, the color key says the nations in the dark green color nesxt to it are the member-states, yet the map has them in a brownish-yellow. In the case that it's not just me (which I doubt), this really should be fixed. IkonicDeath —Preceding comment was added at 00:20, 25 May 2008 (UTC)


EU support ?[edit]

IS the EU in some way involed in the UNASUR since its modelled on it ? im thinking advisors and so on. 85.225.162.213 (talk) 16:57, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

Not neccessarily, I mean it is sort of obvious why they modelled it after the EU, since the EU is the most succesful of the two supranational unions, so it makes sense tomodel it after them. They may haved asked some EU figures for advice, but I sincerely doubt the EU has had anything to do with it on any serious level though.

-IkonicDeath

I don't think that the EU modeled UNSAR, UNSAR modeled itself on the EU. Ijanderson977 (talk) 11:41, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

Observers[edit]

According to the Constitutive Treaty, there are no observer nations. Mexico and Panama were observers at the Cuzco Declaration; but they were not invited to be part of the organization. The website [2] of the Secretary of External Relations of Mexico states that México no fue invitado a participar en esta reunión... ("Mexico was not invited to participate in that meeting" - in refering to the Brasília Summit). Therefore, the observers will be removed from the article. Limongi (talk) 22:27, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

Abbreviation[edit]

The correct abbreviation for the Union of South American Nations is either UNASUR or UNASUL. Nearly all the references in english use UNASUR see: [3].Limongi (talk) 15:30, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

For what it's worth, UNASUR is fine with me (after all, we have Mercosur as the article title). I haven't come across a single English-language reference to "UNASUL", but there are plenty to "UNASUR". Fvasconcellos (t·c) 15:53, 26 May 2008 (UTC)
Aye, I agree with using UNASUR. —Nightstallion 18:05, 26 May 2008 (UTC)
It is UNASUR in Spanish, UNASUL in Portuguese, and USAN in English. UNASUR is the common English usage, but it isn't accurate. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.60.217.234 (talk) 13:32, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

Quotations section[edit]

I removed the whole of the quotations section, as they are old, unsourced quotes and don't really add anything to the article as they are. It may be that one of the quotes can be added to the main body of the article instead of having a seperate quotes section? The text I removed is below, if anyone wants to use them elsewhere in the article:

We are here to make Simón Bolívar's dream real. [...] Sooner, rather than later, we shall have a single currency, a single passport... Sooner, rather than later, we shall have a parliament with directly elected representatives for this new nation that we are creating today.

—Former Peruvian President Alejandro Toledo, 8 December 2004.

Step by step CAN and Mercosur will converge becoming the South American Community, but gradually disappearing at the same time. But in spite of the haste there’s no rush, because we could end with an empty declaration. [...] My idea is that in a few months time CAN should be known as South American Community-CAN and Mercosur, South American Community MS, so we have time to get in touch with the new initials.

—Former Argentine president Eduardo Duhalde, president of the Mercosur Representatives Committee.


AnthonyUK (talk) 11:19, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

Single Currency[edit]

Is there any possibility of a single currency, like the EU's Euro, the AU's proposed Afro, the proposed NAU's Amero, the GCC's currency, etc.?

(Mr. Met 13 (talk) 03:12, 19 August 2008 (UTC))

Side Note: there is no proposed Amero, nor a NAU. The NAU is proposed, and the Amero would then be theoretically proposed. However the original concept for the Amero is that it would have been the common currency for the FTAA.68.148.123.76 (talk) 06:50, 2 January 2009 (UTC)


About 7 years ago the once 4 countries of Mercosur talked about creating a common currency which would be called "Guarany" and someone even purposed it should depict the image of a Guarany Indian adoring the Sun in the plains of Chaco and thing, but it was forgotten and nobody talked about it again for a long time, until Hugo Chavez came up with such bs that the currency should be called "Sucre". I prefered it was called Guarany instead. Alberto 189.106.198.49 (talk) 15:57, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

Top Level Domain?[edit]

Any word if they're planning on having a tld like the EU's .eu? Jigen III (talk) 02:11, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

I think they should ask Russia for .su (Sudamerican Union); .us, .sa, .an, and .ua, are all taken, and .un would be misleading. 68.148.123.76 (talk) 10:49, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

South Africa uses .za because .sa was already taken, and even though .za is based on Africaans. Suggest .zu based on Dutch!? Tabletop (talk) 07:24, 10 April 2009 (UTC)
.za stands for Zuid Afrika (Africaans for "South Africa"). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 189.25.42.44 (talk) 05:12, 31 October 2009 (UTC)
That's not true. .za stands for the Dutch word Zuid-Afrika, not the Afrikaans word Suid-Afrika. Just for the record. Velocitas (talk) 00:51, 13 November 2012 (UTC)

Just because the EU has two character Top Level Domain doesn't mean the Union of South America would have one. Take Asia for example; they have/use .asia. The Union of South America might use something like .sau for South American Union as .usa for Union of South America would confuse it with the United States of America. I highly doubt this will be brought up any time soon until they're fully reconized by other countries, the UN, and by ICANN. --Derrick Bullard (talk) 13:48, 13 May 2009 (UTC)


The Netherlands Antilles (.an) is to be disbanded on October 10, 2010 99.184.229.206 (talk) 07:20, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

Sao Paulo Forum[edit]

This article should mention in "see also" the Sao Paulo Forum, an earlier, still active effort at integration. Also, it's no coincidence the UNASUR flag is red and yellow - or is it just rigt-wing paranoia? 201.80.215.210 (talk) 22:52, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

Acronym[edit]

Why do we use the Spanish acronym 'UNASUR' throughout the article? Why not USAN? YeshuaDavid (talk) 17:28, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

Because it's not in common usage. Jigen III (talk) 05:24, 11 July 2009 (UTC)
Because some like USA...N —Preceding unsigned comment added by 190.48.128.154 (talk) 04:23, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

(Dutch, Portuguese, Spanish)[edit]

Is it necessary to include translations of each official name to Dutch, Portuguese, Spanish? It makes reading difficult. Anna Lincoln 09:39, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

I dont think it is. Especially Dutch, which are far as I know is not commonly used or an official language in the region. I'll remove them if noone has any objections. ValenShephard (talk) 20:57, 27 August 2010 (UTC)
Yes, it is necessary. Dutch is one of the official languages of the Union of South American Nations (it is the official language of Suriname). The general consensus for these types of articles (international organizations) is to translate the name to all the official languages. See European Union, African Union, ASEAN, United Nations, for example. As for "making reading difficult" - it is a collapsible box with the ability to hide or show the translated name. Limongi (talk) 01:17, 28 August 2010 (UTC)
No. The only information that needs to remain is in the lead, the three languages. It is not needed through the article. I've never seen an article which does this. I am reverting all changes, except in the lead. ValenShephard (talk) 01:21, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

More importantly, two users were in agreement here, so you need to convince us (get consensus) before you revert changes. Until then, the changes will remain. ValenShephard (talk) 01:24, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

I don't see any problems at all with that. Neither did any of the other editors, as the article has been this way for the past 2 years. This article is about a supranational organization that has three official languages. Similar articles include translations into the official languages. Since you are the one removing content, you are the one who should seek consensus before making changes. And no, one other editor is not consensus. I invite all other editors to submit their input. Limongi (talk) 02:13, 28 August 2010 (UTC)
Why is this such a contentious issue? I just want the article to be easier to read. Three massive translations all around the article (it appears some have been removed now) is not doing that. This is English wikipedia after all. ValenShephard (talk) 02:19, 28 August 2010 (UTC)
What use does it do to have translations of things which do not need to be translated? Like talk about a committee. It just clutters up the article, and is of little use to English users of wikipedia. Its important to have the translations in the lead, as this seems to be standard, but all throughout the article is not needed. I am sure someone went to hard work doing that, but unfortunately it is not suitable or needed. ValenShephard (talk) 02:23, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

OECD irrelevant?[edit]

In the membership section there are listed the "precursors" unions of CAN and MERCOSUR. I could also understand listing CARICOM (how Guyana and Suriname would be simultaneously members of both UNASUR and CARICOM I don't understand, but this is a different question). But I think OECD is unrelated and Chile should be listed just as "others" (see history of the article). Alinor (talk) 19:19, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

New map[edit]

Given that we already have pop charts and other data that doesn't need a mpa to be showed, what is the real improvement of this map: the cities?, the roads? Then:
a) What is the criteria for selecting highways?
b) What is the criteria for selecting cities?
Some notable absences make me doubt about this. Salut, --IANVS (talk) 21:49, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

Also, Venezuela is not yet Mercosur member [4] - it is acceding state with a membership signed, but not yet ratified (Paraguay pending). Alinor (talk) 06:53, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

Question: why is the Falklands/Malvinas colored in such a way as to suggest it is part of Argentina? French Guiana is not colored, why is the Falklands/Malvinas colored? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.190.116.28 (talk) 10:09, 26 December 2010 (UTC)

members list[edit]

There is no need for the list of members to be put in the picture frame of the map. Also, Venezuela is not yet member of Mercosur (pending Paraguay ratification) and it is not associated member of the Andean Community (CAN) [5]. Additionally - Caricom as organization is not part of the Union of South American Nations process (two of its members participate - on their own - and that's it) - just as also LAIA, LAES, Rio Group, etc. are not. Only CAN and Mercosur are. Thus it is wrong to list Caricom as "third organization". I didn't removed the "observers" - but these where there before and other editors deemed their presence at treaty signing ceremony as not enough to warrant inclusion in "participating states" section (since they don't actually participate - they were only present when the other states signed the treaty). Alinor (talk) 06:48, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

Organization comparison[edit]

 Arab League  UNASUR  European Union
Population 360,029,936 387,948,000 501,259,840
Area 13,953,041 km² (5,382,910 sq mi) 17,731,457 km² (6,846,154 sq mi) 4,324,782 km² (1,669,807 sq mi)
Population Density 24.33/km² (63 /sq mi) 21.9/km2 (56.7/sq mi) 115.9/km² (300.2/sq mi)
Headquarters Cairo proposed (Secretariat Headquarters) Quito and (Parliament seat) Cochabamba Brussels
Largest City Cairo - 6,758,581 (17,856,000 Metro) São Paulo - 11,037,593 (19,889,559 Metro) London - 7,429,200 (12,300,000 Metro)
Organization Type regional organisation and Political union regional organisation and Political union Economic and Political union
Official languages Arabic language Portuguese, Spanish, Dutch and English (by population rates). European Languages
Main Religions 91% Islam (5.8% Christianity), 4% Others, Majority Christianity. not known, Majority Christianity.
GDP (nominal) $1.898 trillion ($7,672 per capita) $2.879 trillion (7,421 per capita) $14.793 trillion ($29,729 per capita)

--Ferosdc (talk) 04:29, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

Falkland Islands/Malvinas[edit]

Several of the maps are colored in a way that indicate that the Falkland Islands/Malvinas are a part of Argentina. Could someone fix this and make the color white like French Guiana? — Preceding unsigned comment added by S4b3r (talkcontribs) 10:26, 26 December 2010 (UTC)

I agree. The Falklands may be claimed but that does not make that country part of UNASUR, it's UK sovereignty and Falklands Law exercized there not Argentine. The same misleading map appears in the South America article. Apcbg (talk) 21:17, 28 December 2010 (UTC)
I agree, and have removed the POV maps from both articles. Pfainuk talk 23:06, 28 December 2010 (UTC)
Hey hey guys! Relax Ok, you can always find out who made the map and ask him to fix it. Don't just be changing stuff around. I am on it, it's a simple fix.--Camilo Sanchez (talk) 22:48, 29 December 2010 (UTC)
Hey Camilo Sanchez, I just want to say that your maps and other artwork are very beautiful! — Preceding unsigned comment added by S4b3r (talkcontribs) 08:11, 30 December 2010 (UTC)
MERCOSUR, UNASUR and CAN officially recognise the Argentine claim over the Falkland Islands, and officially deny recognition to the government of the Falkland Islands. See: Mercosur and UNASUR. This has to be stated. Salut, --IANVS (talk) 22:54, 29 December 2010 (UTC)
That's as may be. But it doesn't mean that we can or should reflect this POV in mapping.
For the maps in particular, what I'd suggest is that the bottom end of the map not show Antarctica at all, and if possible do the same with SGSSI on the eastern end. We could then use the legend to cover the sea where the Falklands (and if necessary SGSSI) are. This will allow the maps not to mention the dispute at all.
I do not agree that UNASUR/Mercosur support for Argentina has to be mentioned in this article. That said, we do already mention the Argentine claim to the FI/SGSSI in this article and it does not seem unreasonable, given this, to mention UNASUR in that context. This might be done through removing the words though claimed by Argentina, and then adding a sentence directly after that point: Argentina claims sovereignty over these territories, a claim backed by UNASUR. Pfainuk talk 23:12, 29 December 2010 (UTC)
The Falkland Islands sovereignty dispute should be mentioned in the UNASUR and MERCOSUR maps, as those institutions do recognise the claim and expressly do not recognise the government of the islands. And those stances are to be mentioned in the article too, as the territorial integrity of the South American sovereign states is one of the principles underlying both organisations. That said, UNASUR does not endorse the Argentine stance, but recognise the dispute and the Argentine rights, and do not recognise the government of the islands. Salut, --IANVS (talk) 23:19, 29 December 2010 (UTC)
Ok guys, we are not gonna argue about something that has been argued for years. I will leave the Falklands in white. Any reference to it's claim by Argentina or Unasur at large can be added on the article itself. As for the Antartic claims I believe they have an educational added value so I will leave them, in particular because in the maps of their claimers they are usually included officially. Thanks and Happy New Year--Camilo Sanchez (talk) 02:38, 30 December 2010 (UTC)
As per above, the islands should not be shaded in white, but in some other colour defined as "disputed" territory, as that is the actual official stance of the organisation at large. Salut, --IANVS (talk) 02:43, 30 December 2010 (UTC)
Hi IANVS, I understand the dispute issue over the Malvinas, but if I was to add a specific color for such islands then I would have to go shading also the disputed territories within South America itself (such as Venezuela and Guiana for instance). So for the sake of the article I am just leaving it white, I think the article includes the sovereignty issue very well...and what's with the "Salut"? lol. Thanks --Camilo Sanchez (talk) 03:40, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

Please IANVS do not remove the maps. I fixed the Falklands in white. They do not officially belong to South America, they are internationally recognized as British territories for now.--Camilo Sanchez (talk) 03:48, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

They are not "internationally recognised" as British territory, least by UNASUR itself, as there is a continuing dispute over sovereignty. See: Falkland Islands sovereignty dispute. The clarification regarding UNASUR stand on the islands has to be made anyway. Salut, --IANVS (talk) 03:50, 30 December 2010 (UTC)
Let's start by finding out whether you are POV or not. You are an Argentinian citizen, that by definition makes your opinion a biased one. Now, I am also Latin American, and I would love to say that the Malvinas belong to us, but the fact of the matter as of right now (2010) is that the Falklands are controlled and inhabited by British citizens. It doesn't matter who recognizes what, the current waving flag on Port Stanley is a British one whether we like it or not. So that means as of right now, the Falklands belong to the United Kingdom until Argentina either gains sovereignty through the diplomatic means or by force. Either way, the facts are the facts, it is not our duty to decide what belongs or doesn't belong to Unasur. Even if Unasur supports the Argentinian claim, Unasur elected officials would acknowledge the current status of the Falklands. With this said, I think the map is a simple interpretation of the current territories that officially belong to Unasur, on the other hand, if you up to the task of changing the map yourself you are welcome to download Inkscape or buy Adobe Illustrator and make the changes. Thanks. --Camilo Sanchez (talk) 04:03, 30 December 2010 (UTC)
You don't understand. It does not matter what do we think, wherever we are from. UNASUR does not recognise the legitimacy of the government of the Falkland Islands and recognises a sovereignty dispute. This is, the "current situation" is deemed "illegal" and subject to a negotiation. That's objective. Ok now? Salut, --IANVS (talk) 04:28, 30 December 2010 (UTC)
If Unasur does not recognise the legitimacy of the FIG, and recognises a dispute, that does not mean that the dispute has to be included on the map. These are supposed to be maps of Unasur members, not maps according to Unasur.
There are, as Camilo rightly notes, many other areas in South America where sovereignty is disputed - including territories that are large enough to be included on the map. This would include the Southern Patagonian Ice Field (unless that's been resolved now?), and significant amounts of territory in areas currently administered by Guyana and France (see Guayana Esequiba and Borders of Suriname).
If you want to mention Unasur's position on the islands, as I say, I do not find this unreasonable given that the dispute already gets a mention. I suggest that this is where the focus of effort should go on this point. Pfainuk talk 15:59, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

Antarctica (map)[edit]

Dear Camilo, thanks for fixing the Falklands colour on your nice map. Perhaps you could fix also another aspect of its, namely the two Antarctic additions. First, they are rather confusing than educating, because they show the Antarctic Peninsula twice, and then in different colours. And second, none of these additions represents the actual situation in that part of Antarctica. Indeed, this is not a map by UNASUR, it is a map about UNASUR, and claims are claims (by the way, to present just two claims while these are overlapping with a third one — which is not shown — is POV), however the people living/working in that area are subject not to Argentine or Chilean Law which applies only to Argentines and Chileans there, respectively. There are Antarctic bases of some twenty nations in that region, and Brazilians there are subject to Brazilian Law, Chinese — to Chinese Law, Russians — to Russian Law, Spaniards — to Spanish Law etc. etc. Moreover, the fundamental conventions and regulations that govern the most important aspects of human presence and activities there are taken by 28 nations (Consultative Parties to the Antarctic Treaty, including Argentina and Chile) by consensus. That's how it is there, not under the two colours shown on the map. Therefore, the present two Antarctic additions represent a POV that does not reflect the actual situation in a NPOV way, and ought to be removed. Best, Apcbg (talk) 08:47, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

I will remove the Antarctica claims. I might just create a map for all the current territorial disputes. Thanks--Camilo Sanchez (talk) 18:35, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

Antarctica (article text)[edit]

I believe that it is not serious to have "Argentine and Chilean Antarctic bases in their Antarctic territorial claims" listed as "Participating non-South American territories". If those bases are part of UNASUR, then the Brazilian, Uruguayan, Peruvian and Ecuadorian Antarctic bases on King George and Greenwich Islands are part of what? The Russian, Polish, Chinese and Korean bases on King George Island are part of what? The Spanish and Bulgarian bases on Livingston Island are part of what? The British bases on Signy Island, Adelaide Island and Alexander Island are part of what? The US base on Anvers Island is part of what? Apcbg (talk) 16:37, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

GDP Map[edit]

Unasur gross domestic product producto interno bruto.svg

An anonymous user keeps removing this map I have made. This map has been created based on the data found here The user keeps removing it under the argument that Argentina's GDP should be superior to Venezuela's. I am simply making a graphic based on the information. If the map is wrong then the data on the list would be wrong too. I believe the information is correct. I have reverted the user's edits. Thanks. --Camilo Sanchez (talk) 00:45, 22 January 2011 (UTC)


It should be stated that the data is from 2009, and that they are GDP nominal values. BTW, the standard GDP data (both nominal and ppp) used in Wikipedia for country infoboxes is the data from the IMF, which is updated to 2011, right in the same WP list you mention, no the left column. Salut, --IANVS (talk) 03:03, 22 January 2011 (UTC)
BTW, adding per capita GDP would be more informative, also. --IANVS (talk) 03:05, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

I suggest the map to be removed or updated. In the standard IMF data used in wikipedia, Argentina's economy is larger. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 167.230.104.96 (talk) 14:14, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

Union of South American Republics ?[edit]

I believe the name "Union of South American Republics" is a popular translation. While it may be incorrect, a search on google reveals that term is used very often. I think that the term "Union of South American Republics" should be mentioned and/or redirected to this article. 99.40.191.140 (talk) 16:34, 28 January 2011 (UTC)

Yes check.svg Done. Thanks --Camilo Sanchez (talk) 01:46, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

Add March 11th, 2011 detail? From Portal:Current events/2011 February 15.[edit]

The UNASUR Constitutive Treaty of the Union of South American Nations will come into force on March 11th, following the deposit of its ninth instrument of ratification, by the Uruguayan government.


http://www.itamaraty.gov.br/sala-de-imprensa/notas-a-imprensa/entrada-em-vigor-do-tratado-constitutivo-da-unasul ("Brazilian Foreign Ministry" presumably means Ministry of External Relations (Brazil), commonly referred to in Brazilian media and diplomatic jargon as "The Itamaraty".) 99.190.84.7 (talk) 18:53, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

Sounds reasonable. However, the article does not write much about the constitution presently. There should be a section about the treaty, and there the date 11 March 2011 should be mentioned.
This has more than curio interest. According to the treaty, new members may be admitted into the union, but not until five years have lapsed after the treaty came into force. In other words, other Caribean or Latin American states may be admitted - after 11 March, 2016. JoergenB (talk) 18:45, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

UNASUR's GDP[edit]

Would it be possible to update the GDP to their 2010 values? I tried to do it but it does not allow me to save it, it does not stick. Please update those values, the values you have are from 2008 and the economy of all countries have grown radically, some countries like Argentina and Peru have grown more than 9%.

Thank you. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.219.236.195 (talk) 15:26, 23 April 2011 (UTC)

UNASUR highlighted map for respective countries articles[edit]

I think there should be for each member state's article a special map instead of the common globe map on the infobox. Like the EU which each respective country is in dark green while the rest of the EU is in light green. Or the African Union where it's dark blue sorrounded by light blue. Makes sense to me. 80.108.31.215 (talk) 12:05, 11 March 2012 (UTC)

World Economic Outlook Database[edit]

Several numbers in the article, drawn from the world economic outlook database appear incorrect -- I just looked them up and tabulated them all. I'm including the source tables I tabulated from the data pulled here, and correcting the numbers in the page.

  1. ^ UNASUR calculated in the form ∑ GDPCOUNTRY × (PopCOUNTRY / PopUNASUR) with population and nominal GDP data
  1. ^ UNASUR calculated in the form ∑ PPPCOUNTRY × (PopCOUNTRY / PopUNASUR) with population and GDP PPP data

I would update the article except that I found the 2012 data here already online, and it is very different. It also appears to have some bad PPP numbers (the PPP rate listed in 2011 for brazil is ~1.8 but the PPP is lower than the GDP). I'm going to give it a rest before trying again now that I've found the 2012 data, because that is a lot of work! --— robbie page talk 14:13, 26 June 2012 (UTC)

Participating and Non-Participating South American and Non-South American States and Territories[edit]

Participating non-South American territories: According to the article, Easter Island, Islas Aves, and Argentina's and Chile's Antarctic territories participate in UNASUR. I don't think it's necessary to mention this. Do they participate separately from Chile, Colombia, Venezuela, or Argentina? If so, this isn't clear from the way it is written... but my understanding is that they "participate" because they aren't "participants" but rather the country of which they are a part is a participant. This should be clarified. --Lacarids (talk) 17:30, 1 November 2012 (UTC)

Non-participating South American states and territories: Trinidad and Tobago is not part of South America. Panama was once part of South America (as the article mentions), however it is not any more. The "once part of Colombia" bit is misleading in this context. The Dutch and British Caribbean Territories are not part of South America. The disputed Argentine/British islands are not part of South America. The only state in this section that receives deserved mention is French Guiana. --Lacarids (talk) 17:30, 1 November 2012 (UTC)

Modeled On European Union?[edit]

The article mentions three times that UNASUR is modeled on the EU, but never cites the source for this information. I'm not saying that it is incorrect, but I've never heard it before, and I'd like to be able to verify it.

Introduction: "It is modeled on the European Union." Overview Section: "announced their intention to model the new community after the European Union including a common currency, parliament, and passport...a complete union like that of the EU should be possible by 2019." Formation Section: "The leaders announced the intention of modeling the new community in the mold of the European Union, including a unified passport, a parliament and, eventually, a single currency."

These are very specific statements that deserve citations. Thank you!--Lacarids (talk) 17:42, 1 November 2012 (UTC)

Modeled On European Union?[edit]

The article mentions three times that UNASUR is modeled on the EU, but never cites the source for this information. I'm not saying that it is incorrect, but I've never heard it before, and I'd like to be able to verify it.

Introduction: "It is modeled on the European Union." Overview Section: "announced their intention to model the new community after the European Union including a common currency, parliament, and passport...a complete union like that of the EU should be possible by 2019." Formation Section: "The leaders announced the intention of modeling the new community in the mold of the European Union, including a unified passport, a parliament and, eventually, a single currency."

These are very specific statements that deserve citations. Thank you!--Lacarids (talk) 17:42, 1 November 2012 (UTC)

POV maps & participation list[edit]

These images:

Show the Falkland Islands and Antarctica as though they were undisputedly either Argentine or Chilean. From these maps, you would never dream that neither the Falklands nor Antarctica are undisputedly controlled by either Argentina or Chile. In fact, neither Argentina nor Chile have any significant control over Antarctica (neither does Britain, which also claims similar parts of Antarctica) and the Falklands are controlled by Britain. I suggest that these maps are POV and should be removed outright.

The maps have been fixed including the claimed territories enclosed in red boxes, and overlapped claims properly color-coded, to avoid the mentioned misunderstanding and leave no room for any further doubt. Concerning the comments about the Antarctic continent, as a matter of fact, the Argentine actions in Antarctica are regular and date back to early XX century, with José María Sobral being among the first settlers of this continent around 1901, having in current times six permanent bases: Marambio, Esperanza, Jubany, San Martín, Belgrano II, and Orcadas. Chile has also significant presence in the continent (see Chilean Antarctic Territory). All these territories are being claimed on historical and geographical foundations, and they are displayed as such in both Argentina and Chile Wikipages. To conclude, it is not only partial, but inaccurate and inconsistent not to mention these claims in the UNASUR maps as well, an organization that has both countries as founding members. SDonatti

The edit summary of the revert was:

Disputed and claimed territories should be displayed as such, and not like non-participating in order to be accurate otherwise will be a biased misinformation on the subject. This version is also more accurate with UNASUR members' official statements.

In the maps, disputed and claimed territories are not displayed as such.

In the text, it is inaccurate to claim or suggest that the Falkland Islands and SGSSI participate or might participate in UNASUR. They do not. The fact that Argentina claims them does not change that fact. If there is "biased misinformation" it is to claim that Argentina's control on the ground might extend further than it does. The fact of the dispute is already mentioned in the text and does not need to be mentioned again.

I note also that "This version is also more accurate with UNASUR members' official statements" seems to be an argument that we should adopt UNASUR's POV over NPOV. Wrong. Wikipedia always adopts a neutral point of view. Kahastok talk 07:48, 26 October 2013 (UTC)

Fully agree, that edit was misleading the readers and appropriately removed. Apcbg (talk) 13:54, 26 October 2013 (UTC)
Note that the same user is edit warring on the image pages over on commons, so the issue should be resolved by restoring the stable version of the map there. I don't see any need for the images should be removed all together. We do need a map of the UNASUR, and this one is a good one. TDL (talk) 19:49, 26 October 2013 (UTC).
Regarding your comments about the modification caption, in previous versions the Falkland islands are marked as non-participant territories both in the text and the maps (see text history). It is of pure common sense to recognize that when more than one country claims sovereignty over a territory, it should be marked as disputed, specially when the adopted view-point is neutral. Bare in mind that this claim is worldwide recognized (see Falkland Islands sovereignty dispute) and addressed regularly by the Special Committee on Decolonization of the United Nations. Furthermore, the Wikipage under debate is UNASUR, I do not see how the official statements of the very same organization could be neglected at all. I recommend the citation: [1] to be taken into consideration, and not be constantly deleted, based on the principle that is a unanimously agreed proclamation coming from the 12 countries that form UNASUR. SDonatti
You seem to be under the impression that this article should be reflecting UNASUR's point of view. It shouldn't. It should reflect a neutral point of view. That does not mean that we in any way favour the point of view of the subject.
It is fact, not opinion, that the Falkland Islands, South Georgia and South Sandwich Islands, and Antarctica, do not participate in any way in UNASUR. Regardless of your opinion on the legitimacy of British control of the Falklands, South Georgia and South Sandwich Islands, the basic fact that there is British control is undisputed and undeniable. Similarly, the fact is that Argentina and Chile do not control Antarctica, whether editors here might like them to or not.
An invisible red line is not even close to adequate to mitigate the claim that you wish the maps to make that Argentina and Chile are actually in control of the Falklands and nearby parts of Antarctica. There is not even an attempt to point out not just that the British claim the Falklands, but that the British control the Falklands. There is not even an attempt to point out that the British have a claim to the same parts of Antarctica as Argentina and Chile.
It would be fundamentally non-neutral and inaccurate for us to pretend that Argentina and Chile's claims are anything other than that - a claim without control (except in very limited areas of Antarctica) or even influence. And that is precisely what you propose. Kahastok talk 22:23, 29 October 2013 (UTC)
This page is about UNASUR and it should include its point of view and claimed territories. Moreover, both the maps and the text are consistent with the information displayed in the Wikipages of their founding members, and more in particular the one from Argentina and Chile. In order to keep a neutral view-point these territories are denoted as claimed and in the particular case of the Falkland Islands as disputed. In every category is included a description that contemplates all view-points supported with proper cites for each case. I believe the current version of the maps and the text holds a neutral point of view because it makes such distinctions, marking them as non-participant would only favor the view-point of United Kingdom on the matter. SDonatti
You argue for UNASUR's point of view to have priority. We should adopt a neutral point of view.
If the text on Argentina or Chile suggests or implies that either country has any significant control over the Falklands, South Georgia, the South Sandwich Islands or Antarctica - which is what you propose - then that text needs changing. But this is about this article. The fact that Argentina and Chile are founder members of UNASUR does not mean that we are required to follow their POV. Putting an invisible red line on the map is no better than not putting it on the map.
The wording is quite clearly about participation. Even according to the Argentine and Chilean POVs, there is no sense in which any of these territories participate in UNASUR. Both countries would acknowledge the Antarctic Treaty, and Argentina acknowledges that it has no control over any of those claimed territories. Without control by any UNASUR member, no territory can in any sense participate in UNASUR. Kahastok talk 22:17, 30 October 2013 (UTC)
It seems you are fixated in the control De facto that Argentina, Chile, or United Kingdom have on the territories aforementioned in this discussion, and neglect to acknowledge the implications from the sovereignty claims over them. These facts are directly and importantly related to UNASUR's territorial description, as well as to the one from their founding members Argentina and Chile, and as such they should also be taken into consideration for the Wikipage section under debate; specially if the description of UNASUR is intended to be kept under a neutral point of view. Personally, like I mentioned before, and in contradiction to what you understood, I consider all view-points should be addressed and their statements properly cited and marked in the maps under debate, including the official one from UNASUR. In order to avoid further misunderstandings, I repeat that I do not propose to imply that Argentina or Chile have full control De facto over these territories, but I remark that it is necessary to distinguish they claim them as part of their sovereign territory based on historical and geographical reasons, which are very well documented in literature and in their respective Wikipages. To conclude, despite the fact that UNASUR supports and legitimates those claims[1], in order to keep a neutral point of view, these territories should not be classified as members or non-members of UNASUR, instead they should be highlighted as claimed or disputed by UNASUR, and founding members Argentina and Chile, and further note in the case of Falkland Islands that is controlled De facto by the United Kingdom as part of the British Overseas Territories and De jure is pending resolution of mandates from the Special Committee on Decolonization of the United Nations. SDonatti
Sovereignty claims have little to no impact on participation in UNASUR (or any other international body), except in that they often correlates with control. A territory can't participate in something if whatever its controlling force is disagrees. The focus on the UK is also indicative of a POV, there's other territorial disputes in the area that aren't due to the UK that you haven't bothered to note in the maps. Half of Guyana for instance. CMD (talk) 21:45, 4 November 2013 (UTC)
I was about to make the same point. Kahastok talk 22:04, 4 November 2013 (UTC)
On the contrary, sovereignty claims are consider seriously by international organizations, like the United Nations, and they do have an impact on the delimitation of international territorial borders. In this particular case, the ones under debate are relevant to the territorial extension of UNASUR. This is a no-brainer. On the one hand Argentina, Chile, and UNASUR consider these lands part of their sovereign territory and under these premises they do participate in this organization. On the other hand, the United Kingdom, which has nothing to do with UNASUR, controls De facto the Falkland Islands as part of the British Overseas Territories and claims part of Antarctic as British Antarctic Territory, and hence considers parts of both non-participant territories. It can not be more clear that in sake of having a neutral point of view these disputes should be included and properly cited (i.e. as DISPUTED). The changes I made are based and supported by this argument. Regarding your last note, the focus of my changes are in the territorial disputes concerning UNASUR and extra-UNASUR members; there may be other territorial disagreements intra-UNASUR that are not denoted in the maps. I remind you that this debate is centered a section from UNASUR Wikipage. SDonatti
And I remind you that UNASUR's POV does not determine content on this page.
There is no sense in which the Falklands, South Georgia and the South Sandwich Islands, or nearby parts of Antarctica participate in UNASUR. They are not controlled by UNASUR members. They have no representation - direct or indirect - at UNASUR institutions. They do not apply UNASUR agreements. They do not have anything at all to do with UNASUR. They do not participate in UNASUR. That's not a matter of opinion, it's a matter of fact. Whether you like it or not.
And it is difficult to see how it can possibly be considered neutral to have maps that only separate these territories from Argentina and Chile with invisible lines, and that strongly imply that Argentina and Chile have active control when they do not. Your excuse for not marking the dispute between Venezuela and Guyana is unconvincing. Kahastok talk 19:48, 6 November 2013 (UTC)
In order to understand why these territorial claims should be marked as disputed/claimed and not in terms of membership, I refer to my previous two comments. Regarding how these claims are depicted in the maps, I consider their current version is impartial, clear, and leaves no room for any doubt; but if you disagree, feel free to improve them by adding further distinctions you may see fit. Either way, I consider that their complete deletion is clearly no solution at all. SDonatti


Removing the maps[edit]

As I said above, there doesn't seem to be any rational presented for removing the maps. The dispute is over how to depict the disputed territories. That should be resolved by restoring the consensus version of the map on commons, not by removing the map all together from the article. We obviously need a map of the UNASUR, and this seems to be a good one. Why remove it, if it's fixable? TDL (talk) 18:51, 8 November 2013 (UTC)

I could not agree more with your comment. Nevertheless, the resulting map should cover all view-points on the conflict/disagreement.
To be more specific, the conflict/disagreement in the territorial definition of UNASUR resides in the Falklands, South Georgia and the South Sandwich Islands, and claimed parts of Antarctica. There are two clear view-points: On the one hand Argentina, Chile, and UNASUR consider these lands part of their sovereign territory and under these premises they do participate in this organization. On the other hand, the United Kingdom, which has nothing to do with UNASUR, controls De facto the Falkland Islands as part of the British Overseas Territories and claims part of Antarctic as British Antarctic Territory, and hence considers parts of both non-participant territories.
The compromise that ensures a neutral point of view is to include these territories both in the text and the maps as CLAIMED/DISPUTED and not in terms of membership. Statements related to these territories should be properly linked and cited in the text.
Unfortunately, this version covers only one view-point, either directly by defining Falkland Islands as non-participant territory, or by omission not including Antarctic claims. I believe the proposed version fulfills the requirements to achieve a compromise, where claimed territories are included and distinguished as CLAIMED/DISPUTED within a red square in the maps and IMHO leave no room for misinterpretations. If the red squares are not good enough, color coding could be improved to further distinguish the nature of the territories without loosing information by assigning a lighter blue color to Argentina claimed territories and a lighter gray-blue color to Chile claimed territories. SDonatti
You've said all this before and nobody agrees with you that UNASUR POV is the same as NPOV. The maps you demand are not a compromise, they are the Argentine POV.
As to TDL's point, I think that if Commons are unable to maintain a stable map, but if instead it keeps on being switched to these non-neutral maps, then it is better for us not to use them. If they were stably neutral I would not have a problem with them. Kahastok talk 10:03, 9 November 2013 (UTC)
Of course the proposed version does not follow the Argentine perspective, which considers these lands part of their sovereign territory. The maps and the text distinguish these territories as CLAIMED/DISPUTED; the map also follows the color code of the country that is doing the claim, Argentina in the case of Falkland Islands, and both Argentina and Chile in the case of Antarctic. There is a huge difference between these two concepts (i.e., sovereign and claimed territory) and is clearly marked to ensure a neutral point of view. A neutral map is certainly possible, but only if all parts agree to include all view-points under debate. I refer to my initial comment for possible alternatives. SDonatti
@Kahastok: Well by your logic, if Wikipedia is unable to maintain a stable article for the UNASUR, then perhaps we should just delete the whole article? Obviously the appropriate solution isn't to throw out the baby with the bath water. If you're going to keep mashing the revert button, then do it at Commons rather than here. The maps have been in the article for years. If you'd like to have them removed, it's your responsibility to establish a WP:CONSENSUS to do so rather than edit warring without consensus. TDL (talk) 13:58, 9 November 2013 (UTC)
There is not and has never been consensus on Wikipedia for these maps. There may be consensus for maps, but not for the maps being pushed here. If I changed the maps on Commons so that they instead showed pictures of kittens, that would not mean that there was consensus for pictures of kittens on this article.
We are absolutely relying on the Commons to ensure that its images are stable and neutral. Commons is failing to do this. If we cannot have neutral maps, no maps is better than biased maps. I do not accept your analogy: if this article is unstable then we are in a position to resolve that. We on this article are not in a position to tell the Commons how to deal with edit warring in its files, but we can - and per WP:NPOV must - refuse to use files that are not neutral. Kahastok talk 15:31, 9 November 2013 (UTC)
And of course there is no and has never been any consensus to removing the maps. If I were to change File:Flag of United States.svg to a picture of kittens, would you remove every instance of this image on en-wiki? Obviously that's a silly overreaction. The treatment for a headache isn't decapitation. Depriving editors of an informative image simply because you two can't agree on what colour a tiny island that 90% of readers will never even notice is going way over board.
Yes you are in a position to deal with changes to an image you dispute on Commons, the same way you are here (edit warring). Or you could request the image be protected, request a block of the user on commons, all the same approaches that are available on en-wiki. If you don't like the way that Commons is dealing with the situation, then upload a local copy. Or replace it with another available image. Or create a new image. The options are endless. TDL (talk) 20:51, 10 November 2013 (UTC)
Problem solved. See how easy that was? TDL (talk) 01:20, 11 November 2013 (UTC)
There is a disagreement regarding the participating nation states section from UNASUR. The discussion stated here as well as the one from this very section comprehend two clear emerging view-points and a potential compromise that includes them both. Unfortunately, TDL, the problem is not solved as we have found no consensus to close the current debate. The files you, Chipmunkdavis, Kahastok, and Apcbg propose as definitive (i.e., UNASUR, MERCOSUR, CAN, and Others) are politically biased and only cover the view-point of the United Kingdom over the disputed/claimed territories aforementioned, either directly by defining Falkland Islands as non-participant territory, or by omission not including Antarctic claims, particularly when related to Argentine Antarctica. Besides that, the maps are not standardized at all in the way they display the information, namely some include claimed territories (i.e., CAN and Others), some do not (i.e, UNASUR and MERCOSUR), some even include duplicated territorial claims (i.e., Others); and the color coding to separate the countries is redundant and confusing marking distinct countries with the same color. In the end and to conclude, we need improved versions of these maps that do contemplate all view-points, that do have a neutral point of view, and with which we could reach a compromise.
I proposed to use UNASUR, MERCOSUR, CAN, and Others, which do follow a standard and IMHO do include all view-points under debate; I even suggested potential improvements that could be done on them in order to distinguish the disputed/claimed territories even further and avoid misunderstandings, which are intentionally exaggerated by users like Kahastok, with the clear intention to discredit these versions.
The view-points under debate are clear and have been addressed to the exhaustion in this talk page in almost every section of it. The question is are you willing to compromise to finally reach a version that can be accepted by consensus and that truly meet the standard of having a neutral point of view, or will you just continue to cyberbully to impose a partial version of these territories driven by the interest of the United Kingdom's view-point?
I think we can work on UNASUR, MERCOSUR, CAN, and Others and modify them if necessary to reach consensus and finally settle this issue that has been recurring since 2010, and will continue to do so otherwise. SDonatti
I agree that the maps need improvements. I'm not opposed to indicating the territorial claims of the member states. However, your revision of the maps did not adequately address these issues in my (and others) opinion. The thin red box is barely even visible, so you simply replaced one POV for another POV. Ultimately, the edit warring was disrupting the project, so I got it stopped. Attempting to bully others into accepting your changes isn't the appropriate way to deal with a content dispute.
I encourage you to upload your maps on Commons under a different file name. That way we can discuss them, improve them, and once everyone is happy with them we can use them in this article, without all the disruption in the meantime. If there is still a dispute, an WP:RFC could be held. But edit warring is never the solution. TDL (talk) 21:02, 11 November 2013 (UTC)
It is simply inappropriate for us to pretend that territories are involved in UNASUR when they are not. Invisible red lines are inappropriate. Refusing to say that territories that do not participate in UNASUR do not participate in UNASUR is not appropriate. We do a disservice to our reader if we claim false equivalence in the British position on the Falklands/SGSSI and the Argentine position on the Falklands/SGSSI. Kahastok talk 21:11, 11 November 2013 (UTC)
There is no inappropriate pretension here and honestly the issue under debate is well documented in literature (e.g., see Territorial claims in Antarctica, Sovereignty of the Falkland Islands and Sovereignty of South Georgia and the South Sandwich Islands). On the one hand Argentina, Chile, and UNASUR consider these lands part of their sovereign territory and under these premises they do participate in this organization (i.e., point-of-view number one/POV1 these territories ARE PART of UNASUR). On the other hand, the United Kingdom controls De facto the Falkland Islands as part of the British Overseas Territories and claims part of Antarctic as British Antarctic Territory, and hence considers parts of both non-participant territories (i.e., point-of-view number two/POV2 these territories ARE NOT PART of UNASUR). It can not be more clear that in sake of having a neutral point of view these territories should be described as disputed and these view-points should be properly cited (i.e., the compromise point-of-view/POV3 these territories ARE DISPUTED). SDonatti
The maps I proposed to use UNASUR, MERCOSUR, CAN, and Others, do not attempt to switch from POV1 to POV2, but rather fulfill the requirements for us to reach POV3 (see comment above for a description of these acronyms). Considering that you and other editors find insufficient to mark the disputed/claimed territories with a red box both in the captions and the figures, I have implemented modifications on the color code of these territories in the maps to further distinguish them, which is the only improvement suggestion on the table at the moment. I will upload the files in a separate section here in the talk for us to debate them further if necessary. In the meantime, I will also remove references to the current maps, which we have agreed to be politically biased and do represent only POV1, and modify the territorial description accordingly to ensure we reach POV3 initially in the text at the very least. I ask all of you to take part in these modifications with a constructive approach and to cease trying to impose POV1 by force or we will never reach a compromise. I believe the page UNASUR should have a neutral point of view once we reach POV3 with consensus. SDonatti
This article should be neutral, but we do not get to neutrality by overemphasising Argentine/Chilean control over these territories, suggesting that a greater degree of control exists than does in practice, as you propose.
It is true that two of the current maps are politically biased - in favour of Argentina and Chile. This map and this map both show nearby parts of Antarctica as Chilean/Argentine when there is no Chilean/Argentine control and the claim from a third country (the UK) is dismissed. In terms of the Falklands, SGSSI, and excluding Antarctica on the other two maps, they accurately reflect the membership of these organisations as they exist in the real world. Trying to claim that Argentina and Chile might control these territories - when we know very clearly that they do not - misleads the reader and biases the article.
I'm not saying we can't mention the dispute. We already do. But the fact is that none of these territories have any involvement in UNASUR, such as one would expect from a member or a part of a member of UNASUR. That's not an opinion or POV. It's a fact. They do not take part in UNASUR decision making. They are not represented at UNASUR councils. UNASUR decisions are not implemented. There is no sense in which they participate, are involved in, or otherwise deal with, UNASUR. And any suggestion to the contrary would be grossly POV. Kahastok talk 23:23, 12 November 2013 (UTC)
I do not address the control De facto over the Falkland Islands, South Georgia and the South Sandwich Islands, or Antarctica, but their sovereignty. To be clear about it, in case you misunderstood all my previous comments, my proposal is not to refer to these territories in terms of membership, but as claimed/disputed (i.e, POV3) based on the fact that their sovereignty is claimed/disputed, a debate well documented in literature (e.g., see Territorial claims in Antarctica, Sovereignty of the Falkland Islands and Sovereignty of South Georgia and the South Sandwich Islands).
We all agree that UNASUR, MERCOSUR, CAN, and Others are politically biased, albeit due to different reasons. IMHO these maps do not hold a neutral point of view under any perspective, their information is non-standardized and confusing, and they should be removed from the commons altogether.
Based on our discussion, and as I previously announced, I removed the references to these maps and introduced modifications in the territorial description of UNASUR to address disputed/claimed lands holding a neutral point of view and based in facts from national, regional, and international perspectives. I invite all editors to further improve my changes without compromising the neutral point of view. SDonatti

Improving the maps[edit]

The UNASUR, MERCOSUR, CAN, and Others have been recognized as politically biased during our previous debates. Besides being in an evident violation of the neutral point of view agreement of Wikipedia, they also are not standardized at all in the way they display the information, namely some include claimed territories (i.e., CAN and Others), some do not (i.e, UNASUR and MERCOSUR), some even include duplicated territorial claims (i.e., Others); and the color coding to separate the countries is redundant and confusing marking distinct countries with the same color as well as marking the same countries with different colors. I propose these files to be deleted from removed from the Wikipedia commons.

Considering that you and other editors find insufficient to mark the disputed/claimed territories with a red box both in the captions and the figures as I suggested in: UNASUR, MERCOSUR, CAN, and Others, and based in the aforementioned POV3 (see previous section for a definition of the acronym), I have implemented modifications on the color code of these territories in the maps to further distinguish them, which is the only improvement suggestion on the table at the moment. Please, find the resulting files in this section for us to debate them further if necessary. In these maps, the claimed/disputed territories are colored within the color palette from the UNASUR member that claim/dispute them, but have a distinct color and are enclosed in red boxes to distinguish them from the non claimed/disputed lands. Overlapping claims/disputes from UNASUR members are taken into consideration with a grid 3x3 pattern. Comments and improvement suggestions are very welcomed, please ensure they follow a neutral point of view. SDonatti

Your text is now significantly more biased toward Argentina and Chile than it was before. You go on about how you're discussing sovereignty - but fail to spot that the section you're insisting on edit warring isn't discussing sovereignty. It's discussing participation. And there is no participation from these territories in UNASUR.
Your maps have not improved - they are still seriously biased, treating that part of Antarctica as disputed between Argentina and Chile only (dismissing the UK claim entirely) and maintaining no visible distinction between the Falklands and Argentina. Invisible lines don't cut it. Indistinguishable colour changes don't cut it - particularly when they aren't even uniformly applied. You claim I said that the maps were all biased. I did not. I said that two of them were biased because they treat Antarctica as though it were a simple dispute between Argentina and Chile - which it isn't. this map and this map are neutral.
The best way of dealing with this in general is to not include Antarctica inset boxes in maps at all and to put a legend or locater map covering the Falklands and SGSSI. Then there can be no complaint that these territories are in either colour.
You seem not to understand that you don't just get to click your fingers and say that a change will go in when you don't have consensus for it. Per WP:CONSENSUS, you need consensus for this change. You don't have it. You're not close to it. Please do not repeatedly edit this article to introduce non-consensus changes. Discuss the changes you want on talk, bearing in mind that if no consensus is forthcoming, the article does not change. Kahastok talk 18:41, 13 November 2013 (UTC)
Honestly, I do not see any bias in the text I wrote. It just covers all point of views and facts, from the national (i.e., Argentina, Chile, and United Kingdom), regional (i.e., European Union and UNASUR) and international (i.e., United Nations) related to these claimed/disputed territories. As a matter of fact, I see a significant improvement of towards a neutral point of view compared to the previous version, even addressing all claimed territories and not just parts of them, and addressing them correctly as claimed/disputed territories. The territorial sovereignty, either claimed/disputed as well as internationally recognized, of a nation has a direct impact on its political delimitation, and hence, if that nation is a member of UNASUR it is also relevant to the participant territories of that organization. I invite you to read once more the text with an open mind here.
The maps from this section intend to display UNASUR members including their territorial claims, they are the maps for the UNASUR page, and not United Kingdom, the British Overseas Territory, or the Special member state territories and the European Union pages, where the claims you mention should be placed. Moreover, they display those claimed/disputed territories with a distinct color-code and enclosed in a red box, I find both of these quite visible and easy to distinguish from either Argentina or Chile (e.g., you can even see the boxes in these tiny snapshots at the beginning of this section). We could add a note to include extra-UNASUR members' claims, namely United Kingdom, similarly as Argentina is mentioned in this Figure; what do you think about introducing such change?
Regarding your suggestion, I think removing claimed/disputed territories or marking them as non-participant, like the figures UNASUR or MERCOSUR do, deviates from having a neutral point of view because it introduces a political bias either directly or by omission. I expect that is clear at this point of the debate and considering all the previous comments on the subject (see POV1, POV2, and POV3).
I sincerely hope that you are able to acknowledge that there are more point of views than the one from the United Kingdom concerning these claimed/disputed territories and that all of them are equally valid to be addressed, specially when these concern the political delimitation of UNASUR. SDonatti
It is not a matter of opinion that no UNASUR member has any control over the Falklands, SGSSI or any significant part of Antarctica. Any map that suggests anything else - even if there are small distinctions made by means of invisible lines or indistinguishable colour differences - is biased. Whether you like it or not. Kahastok talk 12:42, 16 November 2013 (UTC)
None of the proposed maps suggests that UNASUR or any of its members controls Falkland Islands, South Georgia and the South Sandwich Islands, the entire Argentine Antarctica, or the entire Chilean antarctic territory. The maps only classify these territories as DISPUTED, with a completely different color code and enclosed in a visible red box. If you consider Sovereignty of the Falkland Islands, Sovereignty of South Georgia and the South Sandwich Islands, and Territorial claims in Antarctica, you will realize that the maps are inline with a neutral point of view.
As mentioned in previous posts, further claims or notes could be added to these maps in similarity to how some of these territories are displayed in this Figure. This has been proposed earlier to address Kahastok worries about not including United Kingdom territorial claims.
Another possibility is to remove all these territories from the maps and note in their respective captions: ..."claimed/disputed territories[2] are not included."...
What do you think about any of these two modifications/improvements? SDonatti

Improving the text of the participation list[edit]

The current description related to the Falkland Islands, South Georgia, and South Sandwich Islands is incomplete and politically biased. The text:

..."The Falkland Islands and South Georgia and the South Sandwich Islands, which are overseas territories of the United Kingdom[3] and overseas countries and territories of EU,[4] though claimed by Argentina.[5]"...,

includes the complete perspective of the United Kingdom and European Union over these territories, mentions vaguely and incompletely the one of Argentina, and omits entirely the one of UNASUR and United Nations. It also classifies them as Non-participating South American states and territories, when they should be classified as Disputed South American territories to ensure a neutral point of view.

I propose to replace the aforementioned text with the following one:

..."The Falkland islands and South Georgia and the South Sandwich islands are under the administration of the United Kingdom as British overseas territories[3] and overseas countries and territories[4] of EU. Argentina claims sovereignty[5] over these territories and considers them a department of Tierra del Fuego province. The Council of Heads of State and of Government of Unasur officially supports and considers Argentina's claims legitimate[1]. The United Nations includes them as non-self-governing territories and its special committee on decolonization addresses their sovereignty dispute yearly without reaching a solution until today."...,

and to place it under a new category Disputed South American territories that ensures a neutral point of view.

Similarly, territories in Antarctica are incompletely listed:

..."Argentine and Chilean Antarctic bases."...,

missing the overlapping claims of the United Kingdom, and are also incorrectly classified as Participating non-South American territories, when they should be classified as Disputed non-South American territories to ensure a neutral point of view.

I propose to replace these references to the following ones:

..."The claimed territories comprehended by Argentine Antarctica, a department of the province of Tierra del Fuego, Antarctica, and South Atlantic Islands of Argentina, and the Chilean antarctic territory, one of the provinces of Chile, overlap with the ones of British antarctic territory, one of the British overseas territories from the United Kingdom.[6]"...,

and to place them under a Disputed non-South American territories category.

Besides these changes in the text, it should be empathized that the current maps UNASUR, MERCOSUR, CAN, and Others are in a clear violation of the neutral point of view (refer to the discussions from this whole section about them as proof), and as such they should be removed until we reach consensus over better versions of them, or we produce new versions of them that truly comply with a neutral point of view. I have created a section for that sole purpose here, and I am looking forward to hear your suggestions in order to reach a final version for these in the near future.

All these proposed changes can be easily seen implemented in an alternative version of the text here. Please, feel free to contribute with improvement suggestions, but make sure they truly comply with a neutral point of view before you post them. SDonatti

Suggesting that territories that - undisputedly - do not participate in UNASUR might in fact participate in UNASUR is still strongly POV. The point being made is not about sovereignty it is about participation, i.e. the position on the ground. The Falklands, SGSSI and Antarctica - outside the Argentine and Chilean bases on Antarctica - are not under Argentine and Chilean control. That is not an opinion, it is a fact.
Trying to suggest some kind of equivalence in position for the UK and Argentina with respect to the Falklands and SGSSI - when the territories are under British control - is grossly POV. We already mention the disputes. That is enough. Kahastok talk 12:38, 16 November 2013 (UTC)
If you refer to Falkland Islands, South Georgia, and South Sandwich Islands as:
..."territories that - undisputedly - do not participate in UNASUR"...,
let me remind you that this is just a point of view, the one from the United Kingdom, and not an undisputed fact, since according to another equally valid point of view these territories are a department of the province of Tierra del Fuego, Antarctica, and South Atlantic Islands from Argentina, a statement that is further highlighted in the present version of the Argentine Constitution, and as such do participate in UNASUR. It is correct that these territories are currently under the administration of the United Kingdom, as it is included in the proposed changes, but this fact refers to control de facto and not de jure, hence it is not sufficient to determine territorial participation/not participation, another fact that is internationally supported and addressed regularly by the special committee on decolonization of the United Nations. To conclude, if you truly have a will to acknowledge and pursue a neutral point of view, then you have to accept that the only undisputed fact, is that these territories can not be categorized as anything but disputed, and in order to have a clear overview, all these view-points have to be included and properly cited. A similar logic can be applied to the aforementioned Antarctic territories. I believe the changes I propose mach these requirements, but the text you keep insisting under the premise that it is enough clearly does not. SDonatti
"let me remind you that this is just a point of view, the one from the United Kingdom, and not an undisputed fact".
Wrong.
You are confusing - despite my repeated attempts to point this out - sovereignty and participation.
It is undisputed fact, regardless of the views on sovereignty, that Argentina does not control the Falklands.
It is undisputed fact, regardless of the views on sovereignty, that Argentina does not control South Georgia and the South Sandwich Islands.
It is undisputed fact, regardless of the views on sovereignty, that neither Argentina nor Chile controls any part of Antarctica outside the boundaries of their bases.
Let us look at the definition of the work "participate".
To join in, to take part, to involve oneself
None of these territories implements UNASUR decisions.
None of these territories takes part in UNASUR decision making.
None of these territories involves themselves in UNASUR.
There is no sense in which any of these territories participates in UNASUR. That is a fact, not an opinion. Whether you like it or not. Kahastok talk 16:25, 16 November 2013 (UTC)
The changes I propose have nothing to do with my personal/subjective preference, they are based on facts supported with references to literature and aim to ensure a neutral point of view. In difference to the current version, the proposed text includes all the facts this one mentions, and appends additional ones that are intentionally neglected at the moment, which is the very reason why the current version is partial and politically biased. Therefore, the proposed version provides a more general and inclusive overview of a delicate and controversial topic such as territorial participation in UNASUR, and under this premise is more in favor of a neutral point of view than the current one.
Regarding the categorization of Falkland Islands, South Georgia, South Sandwich Islands, and Antarctic territories in terms of UNASUR membership (i.e., non-participant or participant), it is logically FALSE when all the presented facts are taken into consideration, and all of them should be included if we truly want to have a neutral point of view. This can be easily proven as follows:
  • Falkland Islands, South Georgia, South Sandwich Islands, or Antarctic territories do not take part in UNASUR If and only if it do not take part in any country of UNASUR If and only if FALSE[7].
  • A less direct, but similar reasoning could be developed to proof the equivalence of assuming that one of these territories does take part in UNASUR and a FALSE logical statement. However, It is not necessary to include it, since we all agree that none of these aforementioned territories can be correctly categorized as participating in UNASUR.
Based on those statements, the aforementioned territories cannot be categorized under a UNASUR membership (i.e., non-participant or participant) criteria, but as disputed.
Regarding Kahastok's comments about misunderstandings, it is clear that the confusion is not between participation and sovereignty of a territory, but lies within the implications of control de facto over this territory. In brief, control de facto does not grant/recognize authority over a territory; as Kahastok clearly stated in the case of the Antarctic territories, but refuses to acknowledge this fact in the case of the Falkland Islands, and South Georgia and the South Sandwich islands. Otherwise, these aforementioned territories would not be disputed as they currently are[2], or in the particular case of the Falkland Islands they would not be included in the United Nations list of Non-Self-Governing Territories. Until authority over these aforementioned territories (i.e., sovereignty) is recognized internationally to belong to a country either already existing or newly established, in compliance with the charter of United Nations, it is a clear violation of a neutral point of view to exclude facts, or partialize a description about them. SDonatti
And we go around again.
Your claim that the Falklands, SGSSI, and Antarctica outside the bases "take part" in Argentina and Chile is patently false because Argentina and Chile have no control. May I assume that English is not your first language? If it were it would be far easier.
The word "participating" was likely chosen precisely to avoid this debate. Because the definition of the word does not allow the interpretation that you put on it. It makes it clear that we are not talking about the de jure - only about the situation on the ground, the de facto. This is your confusion.
And I believe this is an appropriate time to mention that you are still not proposing to give parallel treatment to any other territory claimed by a UNASUR member state. Kahastok talk 18:37, 18 November 2013 (UTC)
Kahastok, your offensive comments and sarcasm are just another facet of the weakness of your arguments. Let me assure you that there are no language or conceptual misunderstandings/confusions in the previously posted comments.
The already given proof, which demonstrates why the Falkland Islands, South Georgia and the South Sandwich islands, and Antarctic territories cannot be categorized under a UNASUR membership (i.e., non-participant or participant) criteria, but as disputed, is sound and comes from facts widely spread in literature (see its references for more details).
By all means, I do not oppose to include any other existing intra/extra-UNASUR territorial dispute, or any other fact related to the territorial definition of UNASUR, as long as it is objectively presented and has proper citations to preserve a neutral point of view. Perhaps, it is a good time to acknowledge the proposed changes, which do not exclude any of the facts present in the current version, append additional ones that are intentionally neglected at the moment, and do meet these requirements, so we can use the resulting version of the text as a more inclusive baseline for further improvements in the future.
To recapitulate and conclude, exclusively based on well-known facts from literature, several reasons have been given of why the proposed changes favor a neutral point of view in comparison to the current version of the text and maps. Further sound logical proof has been provided for these changes as well. If after carefully analyzing these reasons, Kahastok or other users continue insisting on maintaining an incomplete and politically biased version of the text and maps (i.e., the current versions), without providing sound/conclusive proof for it, then I am afraid there is nothing I can do to help them. In such case, further steps need to be taken to ensure a neutral point of view is initially restored and preserved later on in UNASUR Wikipage. SDonatti
Your proof makes the same mistake which Kahastok explained, which is that you've used conflated state membership and participation as completely equivalent, but this is wrong. Under no point of view do the areas under discussion participate in UNASUR. It's hard to dispute participation, either groups do participate (perhaps to different levels) or they don't. Participation is an active action, and the areas under dispute simply don't. You can argue whether they should or shouldn't be participating, based of various sovereignty claims and political positions, but whether they actually do or don't is a simple matter, not defined by political polemic but by actual facts. The sound and conclusive proof can be found by understanding the definition of the word participate. CMD (talk) 15:59, 20 November 2013 (UTC)
CMD, the proof above is solely based in to take part, which is the definition of the word participate, so no mistake is made there. Any mention of the word membership in the previous comments is usually followed by ..."(i.e., non-participant or participant)"..., which by definition translates to ..."this is to say, non-participant or participant"..., in case the word membership is confusing in any of the previous comments, simple replace it with \{non-participant, participant\}. I hope this clarifies any possible misinterpretations.
In seek of even more clarity, to avoid future misunderstandings, and to finally conclude this debate, lets formalize some concepts that are mentioned in previous comments using predicate logic basics. Lets say,
The statements that have been either proven or agreed by consensus up to now are straightforward:
This is an irrefutable reason why \{non-participant, participant\} cannot be used to categorize t,\,\forall\,t\,\in\,T. The proposed replacement is (t is disputed),\,\forall\,t\,\in\,T. If the given proof (refer to previous comments), which is exclusively based on well-known facts from literature, for the latter statement is not enough for you and Kahastok, and without any sound/conclusive argument you insist in the validity of the statement: (t\,\negparticipate in UNASUR),\,\forall\,t\,\in\,T_{s}; let me give you an alternative proof to clear any doubt of the equivalence of this statement and FALSE, \forall\,t\,\in\,T_{s}:
This demonstration becomes trivial, when combining the definition of participate, the fact that control de facto does not imply internationally recognized/undisputed authority, the definition of sovereignty, and the following demonstration:
  • \forall\,t\,\in\,T_{s},\,(\forall\,c\in\,C,\,\neg(c has internationally recognized/undisputed authority over t))\equiv\, TRUE[8].
In essence, it is certainly TRUE to say (in the text or maps) that administration bodies and representatives, other inhabitants, materialistic assets (i.e, buildings and infrastructure, vehicles, and the like) participate in UNASUR or \negparticipate in UNASUR (e.g., Argentine and Chilean Antarctic bases participate in UNASUR); but it is clearly FALSE to make statements in those terms (in the text or maps) about parts or the complete land/territory t (e.g., the Falkland Islands do not participate in UNASUR), for as long as there is no c\,\in\,C with internationally recognized/undisputed authority over t,\,\forall\,t\,\in\,T. SDonatti
Or, we could use a simpler logic. You said it's about "to take part". Do the Falklands and SSGI take part? No. CMD (talk) 11:50, 22 November 2013 (UTC)
CMD, the demonstrations given in previous comments are solid and straightforward. They can be summarized with the following statements:
Based on these statements, EITHER of those terms (i.e., non-participant/do not take part, or participant/do take part) CAN NOT BE USED to categorize any t,\,\forall\,t\,\in\,T, with a neutral point of view. This is no personal caprice, is formally demonstrated.
These conclusive results do not only acknowledge the soundness of the proposed changes in the text and maps, which do not exclude any of the facts present in the current version, correct existing misleading/politically-biased information, and append additional facts that are intentionally neglected at the moment; but also prove the reasons why the current version of the text and maps is not correct and does not hold a neutral point of view.
Consequently, I believe it is a good time to acknowledge the proposed changes because the resulting version of the text and maps represents, without a doubt, a more inclusive baseline for further improvements in the future, as well as it ensures that a neutral point of view is restored in the UNASUR Wikipage. SDonatti
The assertion that whenever a given country is a member of some international organization then necessarily any territory under the sovereignty of that country participates too, is a false assertion. There are numerous counterexamples that refute that assertion, e.g. territories under the sovereignty of the EU member states France, Denmark, the Netherlands and Britain that are exempted from EU membership. In the Falklands case — from an Argentine viewpoint — the islands are an Argentine territory that is exempted from UNASUR membership due to its actual effective possession by Britain. In view of the points made by several editors here, I really believe that this subject is effectively closed and further discussion would be a waste of time. Apcbg (talk) 15:14, 22 November 2013 (UTC)
Apcbg, the assertion that you mention is correct. Nevertheless, in the particular case of Falkland Islands and South Georgia and the South Sandwich islands, UNASUR has officially adopted Argentina's view-point[1]; a fact directly related to UNASUR that is is intentionally omitted, among other ones, in the current version of the text and maps.
The argument you, CMD, and Kahastok use to indicate that these territories do not participate in UNASUR is not valid, as it is formally demonstrated (refer to previous comments) its equivalence to a FALSE statement. Bare in mind that the effective possession/administration/control de facto of a country over a territory (i.e., any piece of land) does not imply that this country has internationally recognized authority to determine whether the territory participates or not in any organization. A similar argument can be used to disqualify a statement that argues that these territories do participate in UNASUR.
Both the intentional omission of facts relevant to the territorial delimitation of UNASUR and the politically-biased/incorrect categorization of these territories in the current version of the text and the maps are in a clear violation of a neutral point of view.
The proposed changes in the text and maps refer to these territories as DISPUTED, and include missing facts, such as the view-point of UNASUR and United Nations over these DISPUTED territories, without removing any of the currently present facts, precisely to amend this clear violation of a neutral point of view. Can you, CMD, and Kahastok, negate the validity of any of the proposed changes? So far there has been given several formal demonstrations to support these changes, as well as their foundation, but no sound (i.e., that can hold a simple predicate logic evaluation) argument to disprove any of them. Based on this debate, how could still deny the need to implement these changes to ensure a neutral point of view is restored in the UNASUR Wikipage? SDonatti

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── The fact that you've dressed a flawed argument up in formal logic does not remove its flaws. Ultimately, you're still assigning meanings to the word "participate" that the word does not allow in English. These territories do not take part in UNASUR in any way. They do not involve themselves in UNASUR in any way. They do not join in in UNASUR in any way.

None of these territories participates in UNASUR, according to any English meaning of the word "participate". That's not an opinion. It's a fact. And you've said nothing to suggest otherwise. I suggest we close this discussion now because I see no prospect of any consensus for anything other than the status quo. Kahastok talk 20:30, 26 November 2013 (UTC)

Kahastok, you have to specify/quote the statements from the proposed changes you are referring to and demonstrate/describe why you consider they have flaws or they do not use correctly the meaning of participate. Until you are able to do it, your arguments are no more than a bunch of empty words employed in a futile attempt to disqualify a well proven set of statements.
It is crystal clear that none of the proposed changes in the text states that the Falkland Islands, South Georgia and the South Sandwich Islands, the entire Argentine Antarctica, or the entire Chilean antarctic territory participates in UNASUR. These proposed changes only classify these territories as DISPUTED, do not exclude any of the facts present in the current version, correct existing misleading/politically-biased information, and append additional facts that are intentionally neglected at the moment. If you consider Sovereignty of the Falkland Islands, Sovereignty of South Georgia and the South Sandwich Islands, and Territorial claims in Antarctica, you will realize that they are inline with a neutral point of view.
Unfortunately, the status quo version violates a neutral point of view with the omission of facts (refer to the proposed changes for a detailed overview) relevant to the territorial delimitation of UNASUR and the politically-biased/incorrect categorization (demonstrated both formally and informally in previous comments) of these territories.
An alternative to the proposed changes in the text, which is also inline with a neutral point of view, would be to remove all these territories from the text and maps, noting in the figure captions ..."claimed/disputed territories[2] are not included."... What do you think about this alternative? SDonatti
You've had all of this answered repeatedly. That you choose not to listen to a point does not mean that it was not made. No, we cannot list South American territories that do not participate without listing the Falklands. If we do we falsely imply that they do participate.
How about this: you accept that your proposal has been considered by editors here and has failed to attain consensus, and drop the stick. And we all carry on as we were. Kahastok talk 23:07, 4 December 2013 (UTC)
On the contrary, I carefully read all the editor's opinions and provided material (i.e., formal proofs and references) to indicate where and why they are incorrect, as well as I provided a formalization of the whole debate related to the proposed changes in order to avoid any misunderstandings caused by colloquial language. These efforts are clearly visible in previous comments and not empty words. Furthermore, the formal proofs also demonstrate why the proposed changes are needed to reach a neutral point of view in UNASUR Wikipage. NONE of statements from the proposed changes or the ones that compose the formal proofs has been demonstrated incorrect. Ironically, you suggest that I am the one who does not listen!?
It is clear that either you do not want to reason at all and are only interested in maintaining an obviously politically biased version of UNASUR territorial description without any valid arguments; or you simply did not understand the formal proofs, in such case answering the following exemplary questions will make you see why the status quo version is politically biased:
You could formulate these questions for any other of the disputed territories[2] reaching to a similar conclusion. Based on this evident political bias there is no consensus (i.e., agreement) for the status quo version. I sincerely hope we are able to reach consensus on a version of the text and maps that truly holds a neutral point of view, I believe the proposed changes or the alternative proposed changes do meet this requirement and I provided a substantial amount of material to support their validity. SDonatti
For the last time, you still fail to understand that this is not about recognition of authority. Instead, it's about whether or not they actually participate. Your formal proofs are irrelevant if they are dealing with the former. CMD (talk) 12:22, 7 December 2013 (UTC)
CMD, I do not fail to understand your argument, I just consider it is incorrect and hides a political bias. The word territory is defined as an area of land under the jurisdiction of a ruler or state (refer to Google or The Free Dictionary). Therefore, you can not state whether or not a territory actually participates in any organization without dealing with the recognition of authority over this territory. This is precisely one of the main reasons why the current version of the text and maps is incorrect as well as politically biased. Can you answer which country in planet earth has internationally recognized authority to determine whether the Falkland Islands participates or not in UNASUR? SDonatti
That's irrelevant. The fact that the Falkland Islands is (are?) actually controlled by Great Britain means that the territory participates in USAN only if Great Britain does. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 08:10, 9 December 2013 (UTC)
Arthur Rubin, none of the mentioned statements/definitions/proofs is irrelevant, and if you think any of them is/are, please specify which one/s and demonstrate why it/they may be irrelevant. Your latest statement (i.e., ..."Falkland Islands are controlled by Great Britain means that the territory participates in USAN only if Great Britain does"...) is incorrect/invalid because Great Britain/United Kingdom has no internationally recognized authority over the Falkland Islands (i.e., sovereignty)[8]. In essence, United Kingdom's control de facto over the Falkland Islands does not imply it has internationally recognized authority over them. Therefore, it would be valid to state that administration bodies and representatives from the United Kingdom in the Falkland Islands, other inhabitants, materialistic assets (i.e, buildings and infrastructure, vehicles, and the like) participate in USAN/UNASUR only if United Kingdom does; but it is incorrect and politically biased to state the same for the Falkland Islands territory. The correct classification of the Falkland Islands and the other aforementioned territories is disputed (this classification is also in line with the international status quo, see list of territorial disputes).
There has been introduced an overwhelming amount of material (i.e., informal and formal proofs supported with references to literature) to demonstrate why the current version of the text/maps is incorrect and politically biased. This material also supports the validity of the proposed changes (both the initial and the alternative ones) and the need to implement them to ensure a neutral point of view is restored in the UNASUR Wikipage (refer to this and previous comments for more details). NONE of the statements from this material has been deemed incorrect/invalid. ALL the arguments against the proposed changes are either empty/unspecific or have been demonstrated incorrect/invalid, providing in each case a sound reason supported with references to literature. SDonatti
No, Arthur Rubin is completely correct (other than perhaps that Britain may allow the Falklands to participate without it), as every building, piece of infrastructure, vehicle, administrative body, etc., every piece of land, does not participate. Define the word territory however you wish, but the key word here, the one you continue to add political overtones to (although it has none), is "participates". Your reasoning is flawed in that you continue to think that sovereignty=participation, when they aren't equivalent. This isn't about who has the authority to determine whether they participate; it's whether they do or not. You're the only user here who thinks that the plain fact of participation needs to be muddled up with international politics.
To everyone else, I can't think of anything that hasn't been said here. If the stick is not dropped, we should stop throwing it back. CMD (talk) 14:08, 9 December 2013 (UTC)
CMD, the definitions introduced before (i.e., territory and participate) are the ones available in the English dictionary; they have nothing to do with wishes, opinions, political stand points, or anything else. Of course sovereignty and participation do not have an equivalent meaning. However, sovereignty is required to determine a territory's participation. In other words, land does not have a voice itself, it needs to be under the jurisdiction of a ruler/state with recognized authority over it. Until today, there is no country in planet earth that satisfies this requirement with the Falkland Islands and the other aforementioned territories.
The core of the discussion has nothing to do with trowing or dropping any sticks, it has to do whether the text/maps from UNASUR's territorial description have a neutral point of view or not.
On the one hand, stating that these territories participate in UNASUR as Argentina, Chile, and the rest of UNASUR members do[1]; or that these territories do not participate in UNASUR as United Kingdom does, which is precisely the content of the current version of the text/maps; is incorrect/logically false (refer to formal proofs from previous comments), and politically biased, regardless in how many editors may attempt to impose any of these statements without any valid/logically sound argument.
On the other hand, Falkland Islands and the other aforementioned territories are globally acknowledged as disputed[8]. This is not only in line with United Nations and international status quo (e.g., list of territorial disputes), but also is politically neutral.
Based on all the presented material (i.e., informal analysis and formal proofs supported with references to literature), it is really absurd not to acknowledge the proposed changes (either the initial or the alternative ones), which do not exclude any of the facts present in the current version, append additional ones that are intentionally neglected at the moment, and do meet the requirement of having a neutral point of view, so we can use the resulting version of the text/maps as a more inclusive baseline for further improvements in the future. SDonatti

References[edit]

Parts of the Netherlands[edit]

The article says:

The following parts of South America are territories of non-South American states and therefore do not participate
Aruba, Bonaire and Curaçao are parts of the Kingdom of the Netherlands near to the South American coastline (Venezuela)

Bonaire is part of the Nation "Netherlands" and I don't know if it could participate in UNASUR, but I'm quite sure that Aruba and Curacao as Constituent Countries in the Kingdom of the Netherlands very well could - if they and UNASUR would want them to. Perhaps someone could clarify on that? - Greets from german Wikipedia. --2001:4C80:40:4E6:21A:A0FF:FEEA:ECE4 (talk) 11:47, 2 April 2014 (UTC)