# Talk:United Nations Regional Groups

WikiProject International relations / United Nations (Rated Start-class, High-importance)

Referring to regional membership numbers tHe article states:

"Three states - the United States of America, Israel and Kiribati - are not included in the above numbers."

Why? The US and Israel are both part of WEOG. I'd need to check on the status of Kiribati.

Ok the article covers this further down. I stand corrected. Robert Brockway 16:04, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

## Cyprus

Which group is Cyprus part of? /Lokal_Profil 16:37, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

Cyprus is part of the asian group. This means, the EU is now represented in three "local" groups. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.117.212.11 (talk) 15:08, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

## Sources

I was wondering whether anyone could provide me with any "official" source about the Regional Groups, especially about the issue of the special status of the US, Israel and Kiribati. Also, the page of the IAEA (link on the UN Regional Groups page) says that the IAEA groups "are even less official" than the UN groups. Does anyone now whether this is put down anywhere? Thank you! Iribarna (talk) 12:19, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

## Eastern European Group

I started to write this article on the Eastern European Group, see User:Mátyás/Eastern_European_Group. Just thought you might want to know - feel free to contribute to the article or disencourage its creation.--Mátyás (talk) 11:37, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

## Still want to merge?

I've done a bit of work on the article, and wrote Eastern European Group earlier. Anybody still want to merge this with WEOG? I'll remove the sign on Sunday, if nobody minds.--Mátyás (talk) 22:20, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

## Palestine and the Asian Group of UN

In response to this comment I received from a Eliko (talk · contribs) following a recent edit conflict:

The first document given is a list of (quoting) "Members of the General Assembly", arranged in current regional groups. Palestine is not, and has never been, a member of the General Assembly; it is only an observer entity. Therefore, it won't appear on this list. The user also claimed that this source was the "UN website", which is incorrect. The website (http://www.un.int/) is the portal for member states; the UN website (http://www.un.org/) is linked to in the top left-hand corner.

This quote given: "By General Assembly Resolution 52/250 (1998), the General Assembly conferred upon Palestine, in its capacity as observer, additional rights and privileges of participation. These included the right to participation in the general debate of the General Assembly, but did not include the rights to vote or put forward candidates", is not related to membership in regional groupings. It instead refers to the "additional rights and privileges" that were conferred upon Palestine in the General Assembly Resolution 52/250 (1998), the very wording of which includes: "Recalling further that Palestine enjoys full membership in the Group of Asian States and the Economic and Social Commission for Western Asia..."

The third document, is (again) a compilation of "All members of the United Nations General Assembly arranged in Regional Groups" (quoting from the very footnote (#2) cited and even quoted, but apparently overlooked, by the user), which would not and does not include observers.

The final document cited by the user is a draft of a report by the World Health Organisation, which states: "Recalling further that Palestine enjoys full membership in the Group of Asian States and the Economic and Social Commission for Western Asia". The user claims: "The word "recalling" does not mean that Palestine is a member, but rather means that WHO recommended (in May 2000) that Palestine should be a member. Whoever claims that WHO claims that Palestine is a member, makes an original research." It should be obvious from reading aforementioned quotes that this is not, in fact, anything authored by the WHO. It is rather a pasted excerpt from the "Resolution adopted by the General Assembly (52/250: Participation of Palestine in the work of the United Nations)", which is headlined at the top of the section in the document.

Per Wikipedia's editing policy, edits that are challenged or disputed should be relegated to the talk page, in order to seek consensus before repeating them. This policy is in place, not only to facilitate better cooperation between editors, but also to avoid these very mistakes. Eliko, you are engaging in an edit war. Please desist, and present your arguments here on the talk page. Further attempts at disruptive editing will be noted at the WP:ANI. Nightw 23:37, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

• The first document given is a list of (quoting) "Members of the General Assembly", arranged in current regional groups”.
Correct, because every country, which is a member of any UN Regional Group, is a UN member (which must have the full right to put forward candidates for electoral purposes in the General Assembly). See below.
Incorrect. The name of this website is “deleGATE”, whereas the home page contains one section only which explains what this website is for, and this section is located at the bottom of the page, in small letters, and it goes as follows:
”This site is maintained specifically to meet the information needs of delegations working at UN Headquarters in New York. The site includes links to essential information resources and delegate-specific tools and content from iSeek, the UN secretariat's award-winning intranet”.
Note that Palestine has a delegation at UN Headquarters in New York.
What is linked to, is the website (http://www.un.org), but it's not the only UN website. The website (http://www.un.int), is a UN website as well. Hadn't it been a UN website, it wouldn't have used the word “UN” (dot) – in its URL address.
Additionally, note that the full lists of Regional Groups exists also at the un.org website.
• This quote...is not related to membership in regional groupings. It instead refers to the additional rights and privileges that were conferred upon Palestine”.
User:Night w mixes two different quotations, and ignores the other quotation I referred to: User:Night w is referring to the quotation taken from the General Assembly resolution; However, I referred to quotations taken from two websites which classify the countries according to their Regional Group. Let me quote again, now bolding the relevant words. So, as I indicated in my previous post, UN-HABITAT (in UN-HABITAT's Global Report on Human Settlements, 2007), pp. 329-330, classifies all countries according to their "United Nations Regional Groups". the very title "United Nations Regional Groups" (on p. 329), sends the reader to footnote no. 2, so this footnote refers to the Regional Groups! It goes (on p. 335) as follows:
”All members of the United Nations General Assembly [are] arranged in Regional Groups...The US is not a member of any Regional Group...but attends meetings of the...WEOG as an observer, and is considered to be a member of that group for electoral purposes...In additions to the member states, there is also a non-member state, the Holy See, which has observer status in the United Nations. By General Assembly Resolution 52/250 (1998), the General Assembly conferred upon Palestine, in its capacity as observer, additional rights and privileges of participation. These included, interalia, the right to participation in the general debate of the General Assembly, but did not include the right to vote or to put forward candidates”.
The context of the comment about Palestine - is the “Regional Groups”, while Palestine's not being a member of any Regional Group - explains why Palestine does not have the “right to put forward candidates” for electoral purposes in the General Assembly: Palestine doesn't have this right, because a country which is not a member of any Regional Group, does not have the right to put forward candidates for electoral purposes in the the General Assembly! Kiribati, being a UN member, well exemplifies this principle: Kiribati does not belong to any Regional Group, and that's why it can't put forward candidates for electoral purposes in the the General Assembly. US, too, exemplifies this principle: hadn't US been “considered to be a member” - it couldn't have put forward candidates “for electoral purposes”! That's why the quoted footnote emphasizes: “US...is considered to be a member of that group for electoral purposes”. Holy See and Palestine exemplify the counter principle: any country which does not have the right to put forward candidates for electoral purposes in the General Assembly, can't be a member of any Regional Group. According to these two principles, the context of the comment about US, Holy See and Palestine, is clear, because these two principles explain why the title “United Nations Regional Groups” (on p. 329) sends the reader to footnote no. 2.
However: had his document assumed that Holy See or Palestine had been members in any Regional Group, the 2nd footnote related to the title “United Nations Regional Groups” should have gone this way: “All members of the United Nations General Assembly [are] arranged in Regional Groups...The US is not a member of any Regional Group...but attends meetings...as an observer...In additions to the member states, there is also a non-member state, the Holy See, which - despite its having an observer status in the United Nations - has a member status in the Regional Group [of so and so]. Palestine, which has an observer status in the United Nations, has a member status in the Asian Group, although it does not have the right to vote or to put forward candidates”.
• The third document, is (again) a compilation of All members of the United Nations General Assembly arranged in Regional Groups (quoting from the very footnote (#2) cited and even quoted ...) which would not and does not include observers”.
User:Night w mixes two different quotations: The wording “members of the United Nations General Assembly” is taken from an introduction of a comment about three UN members (US, Israel and Turkey). However, the footnote continues: “In addition to [General Assembly] member states, there is also a non member state, Holy See...Palestine...”. This proves that the whole context of the footnote is also about [General Assembly] observers. Anyway, don't mix this quotation with the other quotation I'd referred to: It quotes the title located just above the lists of Regional Group members: This title is not: “members of the United Nations General Assembly”, but rather is: “United Nations Regional Group” (See p. 329). Furthermore, the very title "United Nations Regional Groups" (on p. 329), sends the reader to footnote #2, which goes (on p. 335) as follows: “members of the United Nations General Assembly...In addition to [General Assembly] member states, there is also a non member state, Holy See...”; So the whole context is also about General Assembly observers.
• apparently overlooked, by the user”.
On the contrary: I quoted it, so I couldn't have overlooked it (see above). On the other hand, User:Night w overlooked and ignored the 2nd document, i.e that of UN-AIDS (in The Governance Handbook, January 2010), pp. 28-29, which classifies all countries according to the “Regional Groups that are used by the UN General Assembly”. Note that this document doesn't place Palestine (nor PLO) in the “Asian states”, nor in any other Regional Group.
• the General Assembly Resolution 52/250 (1998), the very wording of which includes: Recalling further that Palestine enjoys full membership in the Group of Asian States and the Economic and Social Commission for Western Asia...The final document cited by the user is a draft of a report by the World Health Organisation, which states: Recalling further that Palestine enjoys full membership in the Group of Asian States and the Economic and Social Commission for Western Asia... It is rather a pasted excerpt from the Resolution adopted by the General Assembly (52/250: Participation of Palestine in the work of the United Nations), which is headlined at the top of the section in the document”.
Correct, and our colleague Alinor has already added this quotation to the article (on behalf of WHO, although he should have quoted it on behalf of the General Assembly resolution), and I've never deleted Alinor's quotation. However, I'd added other quotations to the article – and those quotations are not less legitimate than Alinor's quotation. Quotations can't be in controversy, and if they are, then also Alinor's quotation (adopted by User:Night w) is in controversy as well: note that Alinor's quotation is taken from old documents of 1998 (and of 2000 in WHO's document), whereas I quoted more recent quotations, which are more updated than Alinor's quotation. Note also that another Resolution of General Assembly (p. 7, sec. 25), of December 2009, determines that Palestine's status (in round-table sessions) is identical to that of a member state which is not a member of any Regional Group. And again, I've never deleted Alinor's quotation.
Correct, but note that my edit involves direct sources as well as quotations, so my edit can't be challenged nor disputed. Would anybody dispute quotations? If User:Night w disputes anything, then they should try to cite a specific sentence (or a phrase) from the article, and should try to explain why they dispute it or why it's in controversy. Anyways, if User:Night w thinks that any quotations (or any wordings) I presented in the article are in controversy and should be deleted, then the whole section about Palestine's “membership” (added by Alinor) should be deleted as well, because it's in controversy, and I've already explained above why it's disputed. For more details, see the previous paragraph.
• seek consensus before repeating them”.
Repeating them? Review my recent edit (of 30 December), and realize that it hadn't repeated any previous version. On the contrary, the recent edit I'd made (on 30 December) - had improved all previous versions - according to User:Night w's constructive comments.
• Eliko, you are engaging in an edit war. Please desist, and present your arguments here on the talk page. Further attempts at disruptive editing will be noted at the WP:ANI”.
My response to personal comments shall never be presented on talk pages of articles, but rather on the personal talk page belonging to the editor who has made those personal comments. For more details, see User:Night w's talk page.
Eliko (talk) 21:52, 1 December 2010 (UTC)
It is not only your quotations that have been disputed. It is your use of those quotations, which, as I've said repeatedly, applies synthesis to get to a conclusion. Your continued use of unrelated documents has been challenged; so you need to discuss your claims here on the talk page before persisting with readding them. Persisting to make disruptive edits (i.e., "continue editing an article ... in pursuit of a certain point for an extended time despite opposition from other editors.") is not conductive to achieving consensus.
The documents you have provided explicitly relate to "Members of the General Assembly", which Palestine is not. They do not "classify all countries according to their United Nations Regional Groups", they classify all "Members of the General Assembly" according to their United Nations Regional Groups. Any conclusion you may make from a state's "right to put forward candidates", etcetera, does not relate to membership in a regional group.
The following statement: "The context of the comment about Palestine - is the "Regional Groups", while Palestine's not being a member of any Regional Group - explains why Palestine does not have the "right to put forward candidates" for electoral purposes in the General Assembly: Palestine doesn't have this right, because a country which is not a member of any Regional Group, does not have the right to put forward candidates for electoral purposes in the the General Assembly", is original research, because it's your interpretation. My interpretation of the relevance of the footnote comment is that Palestine, while being a member of a Regional Group, is not listed because it does not have all the rights of a member state. Unfortunately, that's my interpretation, and until I have something solid, or explicit, I can't use it to make a conclusion. And the same rule applies to you:

"Any interpretation of primary source material requires a reliable secondary source for that interpretation." — WP:OR.

This is important, because, as we've already seen, you're interpretations can be faulty: "The word 'recalling' does not mean that Palestine is a member, but rather means that WHO recommended (in May 2000) that Palestine should be a member."
The same applies to your reading of another, new document, which states: "A Member State that is not a member of any of the regional groups may participate in a round-table session to be determined in consultation with the President of the General Assembly. The Holy See, in its capacity as observer State, and Palestine, in its capacity as observer, as well as organizations with observer status in the General Assembly, may also participate in different round-table sessions to be determined also in consultation with the President of the Assembly." The first sentence relates to Member States, and the second relates to observers.
If you wish to persist with this, you'll need a reliable, relevant source that explicitly disagrees with the statement in the UN Resolution 52/250. For an example of an "explicit" statement, see that same UN resolution. Nightw 03:15, 3 December 2010 (UTC)
• It is not only your quotations that have been disputed”.
What do you mean by “not only”? Could you dispute the very quotations?
• It is your use of those quotations, which, as I've said repeatedly, applies synthesis to get to a conclusion”.
For claiming that, you must cite specific sentences - from the article - which use such a synthesis. You have cited sentences from the talk page, rather than from the article. Which sentences in the article are disputed?
• Your continued use of unrelated documents has been challenged”;
If you think that the documents I use are unrelated, then also UNCTAD document and WHO document - quoted by Alinor – are unrelated, and have been challenged by me (see my previous response and see below), so when you decide to delete my additions that were challenged by you, don't forget to delete also Alinor's additions that were challenged by me, i.e. don't forget to delete the whole paragraph (about Palestine).
• so you need to discuss your claims here on the talk page before persisting with readding them”.
So you, too, need to discuss your claims (in favor of Palestine's “membership” in the Asian Group) here on the talk page, before deciding to have an asymmetric paragraph, which quotes UN documents that apparently prove Palestine's “membership” without quoting UN documents that apparently prove Palestine's “non-membership”. In other words, when you decide to delete my additions that were challenged by you, don't forget to delete also Alinor's additions that were challenged by me, i.e. don't forget to delete the whole paragraph (about Palestine).
• Persisting to make disruptive edits (i.e., continue editing an article ... in pursuit of a certain point for an extended time despite opposition from other editors) is not conductive to achieving consensus”.
It seems like you don't read what you delete: I added some points (rather than “a certain point”) to the article, by adding various documents: not only in favor of Palestine's non-membership, but also in favor of Palestine's membership, However you deleted whatever I'd added, without paying to attention to what you were deleting. Note that blindly reverts are prohibited in Wikipedia.
• The documents you have provided explicitly relate to "Members of the General Assembly", which Palestine is not”.
This proves again that you don't read what you delete: I'd provided four documents (in favor of Palestine's “non-membership”): only one of them (i.e. the “official list” at www.un.int website) relates to "Members of the General Assembly", and that's clearly pointed out in the article!
• They do not classify all countries according to their United Nations Regional Groups”.
Again this proves that you revert what you don't read, because the version you try to quote - hadn't stated: “classify all countries according to their United Nations Regional Groups”.
• they classify all Members of the General Assembly according to their United Nations Regional Groups”.
First, you've ignored UNAIDS document (pp. 28-29), that indicates nothing about “Members of the General Assembly”, so why did you delete the quotations taken from UNAIDS document? Note that blindly reverts are prohibited in Wikipedia.
Additionally, please don't mix two different quotations. The title in UN-HABITAT document - is “United Nations Regional Groups “ (See p. 329). That's all. Now, this title sends the reader to (#2) footnote, which claims some stuffs both about member states and about non-member states. You're trying to quote from (#2) Footnote what it doesn't claim. In its introduction, it just claims that “All members of the United Nations General Assembly [are] arranged in Regional Groups”. However, it claims nowhere that the lists under the title “United Nations Regional Groups” - classify “all Members of the General Assembly according to their United Nations Regional Groups”, as you're trying to claim! Additionally, if your claim had been correct, (#2) footnote wouldn't have mentioned Holy See, nor Palestine; or would have stated something like: “All members of the United Nations General Assembly [are] arranged in Regional Groups...The US is not a member of any Regional Group...but attends meetings...as an observer...In additions to the member states, there is also a non-member state, the Holy See, which - despite its having an observer status in the United Nations - has a member status in the Regional Group [of so and so]. Palestine, which has an observer status in the United Nations, has a member status in the Asian Group, although it does not have the right to vote or to put forward candidates”.
• Any conclusion you may make from a state's right to put forward candidates, etcetera, does not relate to membership in a regional group”.
I proved that this conclusion does relate to membership in a regional group, and I proved that by refuting the opposite alternative! See the previous paragraph, and see below.
• The following statement...is original research, because it's your interpretation”.
First, it's not “my interpretation”, but rather is a conclusion I proved by refuting the other alternative! See above, and see below (next section).
Second, the statement you quoted is taken from the talk page, rather than from the article, while the limitation against 'original research' refers to claims appearing in articles, rather than in talk pages. Next time, if you want to dispute anything because of problems of original research (or because of any other reasoning), try to cite from the article what you dispute.
• My interpretation of the relevance of the footnote comment is that Palestine, while being a member of a Regional Group, is not listed because it does not have all the rights of a member state”.
This interpretation is simply impossible: according to it, how does this fact (of not having the rights of a member state) have anything to do with the question whether to list Palestine in the Asian Group? My alternative (which is the only possible one as I'm proving right now), succeeds to answer the question of relevance - as follows: Palestine doesn't have the right to put forward candidates for electoral purposes in the General Assembly, and that's why Palestine can't be a member in any Regional Group, and that's why Palestine is not listed in any Regional Group. However, how does your (impossible) interpretation answer the question of relevance?
Additionally, if your interpretation had been possible, then what would the following comment (in #2 footnote) have meant? “US...is not a member of any regional group, but attends meetings of...WEOG as an observer, and is considered to be a member of that group for electoral purposes”! What's the relevance - of being “considered a member” - to “electoral purposes”? Note that, according to my alternative (which is the only possible one as I've just proved), the answer is simple: (#2) footnote exemplifies a very simple principle, which connects - between membership in any Regional Group - and the right to put forward candidates for electoral purposes in General Assembly: Both US, Holy See and Palestine, exemplify this principle. However, your interpretation can't explain the comment mentioned above about US.
• Unfortunately, that's my interpretation, and until I have something solid, or explicit, I can't use it to make a conclusion. And the same rule applies to you”.
There exists an asymmetry between your explanation and my explanation. Your explanation is impossible, because it can't answer simple questions (see above), while my explanation has been proved, by having refuted the opposite alternative, thus leaving my alternative as the only possible one, and I'm talking now from a logical point of view, rather than from any interpretative point of view.
• Any interpretation of primary source material requires a reliable secondary source for that interpretation." — WP:OR”.
The limitation against 'original research' refers to claims appearing in articles, rather than in talk pages. Next time, if you want to dispute anything because of problems of original research (or because of any other reasoning), try to cite from the article what you dispute.
• you're interpretations can be faulty”.
Don't mix - an interpretation of mine (which can really be faulty) - with my logical proofs, and don't mix - sentences edited by me on this talk page - with sentences edited by me in the article. Once you proved that my interpretation about WHO document was faulty, I found your comment constructive, and I fixed the article according to your constructive comment. Unfortunately, you didn't behave the same way: instead, you blindly reverted versions edited by me (including sources in favor of Palestine's “membership”), without even trying to improve the article according to my constructive comments!
• The first sentence relates to Member States, and the second relates to observers”.
Correct: but this does not contradict what's indicated in the article, which goes as follows: “Palestine's status (in round-table sessions) is identical to that of a member state which is not a member of any Regional Group”. i.e., Palestine's status [indicated in the second sentence] in round-table sessions, is identical to the status [indicated in the first sentence] of a member state which is not a member of any Regional Group.
Next time, if you want to dispute anything because of interpretation of mine considered by you to be faulty (or because of any other reasoning), try to cite from the article what you dispute.
• If you wish to persist with this, you'll need a reliable, relevant source that explicitly disagrees with the statement in the UN Resolution 52/250”.
You could have been correct, had I added (to the article) any claim which explicitly disagrees with the source you're talking about. In other words: if I'd added to the article any claim that explicitly disagrees with the source you're talking about, then I'd have had to back such a claim by a reliable relevant source that explicitly disagrees with the source you're talking about. However: which statement, I added to the article, explicitly disagrees with the source you're talking about? Next time, if you want to dispute anything because of absence of reliable relevant sources (or because of any other reasoning), try to cite from the article what you dispute.
Second, your current response ignores the source of UNAIDS document.
Third, if you wish to persist with what your version claims (i.e. that Palestine, in 2010, is considered by the General Assembly to be an Asian Group member), then you need a reliable relevant updated source, e.g. an explicit list of Regional Group members, which is as recent as the documents I provided, e.g. as the UNAIDS document of 2010, which you have ignored along your current response.
• For an example of an "explicit" statement, see that same UN resolution”.
For example of an explicit list of Regional Group members, which is as recent as the documents I provided, see the UNAIDS document of 2010, which you have ignored along your current response.
Eliko (talk) 00:26, 5 December 2010 (UTC)
Your use of unrelated sources has been repeatedly disputed. Please desist, and stop pretending that you're not being deliberately disruptive. You need to get consensus for the edits you're making. When an edit conflict occurs, proper procedure is to revert to the last stable version, which I've done. If you wish to discuss further improvements, I'm happy to oblige. However, the conclusions you've made from vaguely—if not entirely— unrelated sources aren't appropriately backed up by secondary sources and are in direct disagreement with explicit statements from the UN. I suggest you post a request for other opinions on WP:RS/N, to see whether your sources are relevant in this context. Nightw 11:50, 5 December 2010 (UTC)
The date of admission was 2 April 1986, according to the the PLO representative (source). An article published by Jurist in 2009 further verifies that membership hasn't been withdrawn (source). Nightw 13:39, 5 December 2010 (UTC)
• Your use of unrelated sources has been repeatedly disputed”.
If my sources are unrelated, then also the opposite sources are unrelated (because either they are old and not updated, as I've explained in my previous responses, or they are not formal sources of UN bodies – see below). so next time, when you delete my “unrelated sources”, don't forget to delete the opposite “unrelated sources”.
Notice that I dispute the whole section about Palestine's “membership”, but I didn't delete the whole section, but rather tried to improve it by adding other sources. I also explained why my sources are relevant, as you can realize by deeply reading my last response (00:26, December 5), but unfortunately you ignored all of the arguments I presented in my last response (00:26, December 5), and you didn't even try to refer to them, nor did you try to improve the article according to my constructive comments, but rather you reverted to a version which was not stable at all, and was changed ten hours after it was presented. In such a case, where you just claim that you “repeatedly dispute” my sources, but without your trying to refer to the arguments I presented in my last response (00:26 December 5), you shouldn't revert anything, unless you have already referred to the arguments I presented in my last response (00:26, December 5). Furthermore, even if you agree to refer to those arguments I presented in my last response, but you still dispute them, then you still won't be allowed to delete just the sources you dispute – without deleting the whole section, because I dispute it wholly; You'll only be allowed to revert to the most accepted version, i.e. to the most stable version, i.e. the version of November 19 - presented four days before Alinor added the section about Palestine.
• Please desist and stop pretending that you're not being deliberately disruptive”.
My response to personal comments shall never be presented on talk pages of articles, but rather on the personal talk page belonging to the editor who has made those personal comments. For more details, see User:Night w's talk page.
• You need to get consensus for the edits you're making”.
First, I'm trying to get consensus, by explaining my attitude on the talk page, but you've ignored the arguments I presented in my last response (00:26, December 5), so you can no longer ask to get consensus.
Second, the whole section about Palestine is not consensual either, so next time, when you revert to a previous version, don't forget to revert to the last accepted version, i.e. the version presented before Alinor added the section about Palestine.
• When an edit conflict occurs, proper procedure is to revert to the last stable version, which I've done”.
No, you haven't done that, because the version to which you reverted was not stable at all: it was changed ten hours after it was presented. Note that the last accepted version was presented before Alinor added the section about Palestine.
• If you wish to discuss further improvements, I'm happy to oblige”.
I've already discussed - my last improvements - in my last response (00:26, December 5), but you ignored the arguments I presented - in my last response (00:26, December 5) – in favor of these improvements. This proves that you're not “happy to oblige”, as oppose to what you're claiming.
• the conclusions you've made from vaguely—if not entirely— unrelated sources”.
If my sources are unrelated, then also opposite sources are unrelated (because either they are old and not updated - as I've explained in my previous responses, or they are not formal sources of UN bodies – see below). so next time, when you delete my “unrelated sources”, don't forget to delete the opposite “unrelated sources”.
• the conclusions you've made from...sources aren't appropriately backed up by secondary sources”.
Don't mix - sentences edited by me on this talk page - with sentences edited by me in the article. Secondary sources are needed for sentences appearing in the article, rather than on talk pages. Next time, if you want to dispute anything because of absence of secondary sources (or because of any other reasoning), try to cite from the article what you dispute.
• the conclusions you've made from...sources...are in direct disagreement with explicit statements from the UN”.
You could have been correct, had I added (to the article) any claim which are in direct disagreement with “the explicit statements from the UN” you're talking about. However: which statement, I added to the article, are in direct disagreement with “the explicit statements from the UN” you're talking about? Next time, if you want to dispute anything because of direct disagreement with “explicit statements from the UN” (or because of any other reasoning), try to cite from the article what you dispute.
Second, the version you support, which states that “Palestine... is...a member”, is in direct disagreement with the most updated formal sources of UN bodies, including the explicit list of “Regional Groups that are used by the UN General Assembly” (as of 2010), a list you have ignored along your current response and your last response.
• I suggest you post a request for other opinions on WP:RS/N”.
I suggest you post a request for other opinions on WP:RS/N, to see whether the sources (of 1998, 2000, 2002) about Palestine's “membership”, are still updated, as long as other, more updated formal sources of UN bodies (from 2007 and 2009 and 2010), go the other way around, as explained by the arguments I presented in my last response (00:26, December 5, whereas you ignored them).
If we won't be able to resolve our issue this way, we can still try other options, i.e. by referring to the Mediation Cabal, or to the Arbitration Committee.
• The date of admission was 2 April 1986, according to the the PLO representative (source). An article published by Jurist in 2009 further verifies that membership hasn't been withdrawn (source)”.
The PLO source, along with Jurist source (of 2009), are disputed, because they are in direct disagreement with the most updated formal sources of UN bodies, including the explicit list of “Regional Groups that are used by the UN General Assembly” (as of 2010), a list you have ignored along your current response and your last response.
Eliko (talk) 15:52, 5 December 2010 (UTC)
I'm afraid my time on the Internet is limited. I don't have the time to read through you pick apart my statements sentence by sentence. I've only been able to glance through. The last revision accepted by you was this one, which I've reverted to. If you're unwilling to make a request on the RS noticeboard, I will make one on your behalf. Nightw 09:34, 6 December 2010 (UTC)
In my last responses you have only "glanced through", I have already explained thoroughly and deeply why I had never accepted this version, and if you don't have enough time to read my explanation, it's not my problem. Anyways, even if I had accepted that vesion (although I hadn't as I explained in my previous responses), it was rejected ten hours after it was presented, so it was never a "stable accpeted" version. The last stable accepted version was presented just before the section about Palestine was added to the article.
You're not allowed to do anything on behalf of me.
Eliko (talk) 10:35, 6 December 2010 (UTC)
I've posted one anyway. Nightw 10:44, 6 December 2010 (UTC)
Typical. Nothing ever happens to the page, but then somebody remembers that Palestine might be a member of a UNRG, and all hell breaks loose... Sad thing how conflicts tend to expand.--Mátyás (talk) 13:35, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

## Maps need to be updated

With the addition of South Sudan to the UN and Afircan Group, the various maps need to be updated. Davshul (talk) 08:10, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

## Overview Table

Hope you like my table; I have no good ideas on how to point out that the None group means Kiribati and the US, and not any real group. If someone would fix that detail, it would be great. If you agree on having the table as it is, that is. Mátyás (talk) 13:53, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

It looks fine and I don't think there'll be any confusion about the None group since it's mentioned in the body. I'm not sure what the last column means though... ? Nightw 10:54, 16 July 2011 (UTC)
The last column gives you in which years is the President of the United Nations General Assembly elected from which group. Say, WEOG gets the President in years ending in 0 and 5; they had the 2010 President, Joseph Deiss. Any idea on how to fix that column so it would make sense?--Mátyás (talk) 17:19, 16 July 2011 (UTC)
Oh, I see now. Um ... no! Is that the way the system was worded? As in, does the charter state that WEOG group will get the president in years ending in 0 and 5, or was it just that the position shifts every year and this group comes after that one...? I think it's a perfect way of presenting it for the educated reader, but for readers with no prior knowledge on the system like me, I think they'd draw a blank (or at least I hope!). Maybe adding <small>(years ending in)</small> in parentheses and a footnote to elaborate? I'm not really sure... Nightw 20:39, 16 July 2011 (UTC)
The source (http://www.un.org/ga/55/bgrdga.htm) states that the position rotates amongst the groups, what practically means what I had put in the table. I didn't think to deliberate on it here, because it's discussed with the groups, below. The table is only for overview, in the end.--... there's more than what can be linked. 21:42, 17 July 2011 (UTC)

## A very small Fiscal Heaven's status

What is the status of Vatican aka Holy See? Thanks.--82.59.5.72 (talk) 22:32, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

They are not a member, plain and simple. Read all about it at Activities of the Holy See within the United Nations system. --${\displaystyle \color {Blue}{\mathcal {M}}}$${\displaystyle \color {Blue}{\vec {(e\ ,}}}$${\displaystyle \color {Blue}t)}$ = ? 09:48, 5 September 2012 (UTC)

## Latin American and Caribbean Group -> GRULAC

I can't figure out how the acronym for the group is derived. Is it in Spanish? 199.20.68.40 (talk) 18:59, 18 October 2012 (UTC)

It is 'Group of Latin America and Caribbean Countries' Maybe Gulac sounded too much like gulag. Bevo74 (talk) 19:09, 18 October 2012 (UTC)

I've made the "sorta" seating allocation, but there are two issues: this article and the map are not synched. In the article, the U.S. is included with the "None" group (along with Kiribati), but on the map, and on the United Nations Security Council article, they treat the U.S. as a WEOG member. I don't care either way, but one has to give. If it counts, I followed the map. –HTD 11:58, 7 April 2013 (UTC)

You are right to include the US in WEOG - the regional groups exist for electional purposes, and the US participates in elections at the UN as a member of the WEOG. If it looks like a duck... --${\displaystyle \color {Blue}{\mathcal {M}}}$${\displaystyle \color {Blue}{\vec {(e\ ,}}}$${\displaystyle \color {Blue}t)}$ = ? 14:00, 7 April 2013 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on United Nations Regional Groups. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

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

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot 00:31, 21 July 2016 (UTC)

## Western Europe and Others Group (WEOG)

The map includes United States in WEOG group, but the United States belongs to no voting group... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.129.53.170 (talk) 00:43, 3 May 2018 (UTC)

Small issue: this part says this region covers all regions. This is clearly untrue, as it does not cover Africa, South America, Central America and Antartica (ok, the last one is a bit stupid, but still)

also: The current non-permanent members need some updating, I already corrected Africa and Asia-pacific. You can find the current members here: http://www.un.org/en/sc/members/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by 145.53.91.233 (talk) 13:51, 28 January 2017 (UTC)

## Group of Asia and the Pacific Small Island Developing States

In 2011 the Asia Group has been renamed to Group of Asia and the Pacific Small Island Developing States. On this Wikipedia page it's currently shortened to Asia-Pacific. I think it would be better to render it as Asia and the Pacific, for several reasons.

• It can be easily confused with Asia-Pacific, which is ill-defined, but typically excludes Western Asia, which is part of the UN group
• It better reflects the official full name of the UN group
• It seems to be more common in UN documents:
• 535,518 results for "Asia and the Pacific" [1]
• 13,892 results for "Asia and Pacific" [2]
• 93,476 results for "Asia Pacific" [3]

Michael! (talk) 09:15, 24 May 2019 (UTC)