Talk:Unrepresented Nations and Peoples Organization

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

Early comments[edit]

The intro says 53. The list contains 56. I count 54 on the UNPO website. Anyone know what's right? --195.11.216.59 14:32, 24 Aug 2004 (UTC)

There are 55 on the website, and the list in the article seems to be the same list with the incorrect addition of the Sakha Republic. I will fix it. Livajo 14:43, 24 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Should the list be in a table or in a list, either way its pretty huge, lots of scrolling, i've done the table, but if anyone wants to revert or edit, please go ahead FrancisTyers 23:07, 29 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I have another problem with a list. Can't find anything on the list that is more-or-less connected with Poland - even this map http://www.unpo.org/map.html shows nothing. Who is this member from Poland? Can anybody help with this issue? Kanarkusmaximus 22:43, 8 Jan 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps this article could use some NPOV-ing, currently it sounds a bit like a paean to the Org. --Dante Alighieri | Talk 20:41, Apr 11, 2005 (UTC)

It would be nice to have some information on the organization's significance and accomplishments. michael 22:04, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Can someone add details on how a group or organization qualifies to become a member of the UNPO and what processes are involved?


Director-generals[edit]

How come they chose director-generals (Erzherzog Karl von Habsburg and now Marino Busdachin) who are from none of the participating ethnies? De mortuis... 02:45, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

And why not? In fact that's their current policy. The UNPO General Secretary (oddly they do not say "Secretary-General") is supposed to be neutral. Besides, the GS is only the leading manager of the organization, a bureaucrat. The political leader of the UNPO is supposed to be the President of the General Assembly, currently Ledum Mitee from the Ogoni. The article should mention this difference. If you are still wondering who is Marino Busdachin and why he is the current manager of UNPO, google the Transnational Radical Party. Tnapoleao 12:47, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It's 'Directors-General', btw. DSuser 16:18, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

UNPO is not a democratic organization that it lays claim. Ledum Mitee hijacked Ken Saro-Wiwa's organization MOSOP the founder he betrayed to death. Facts are now in High Court in Bori, Ogoni about Mitee's fourteen years in office of MOSOP and he has been banned from visiting Saro-Wiwa because of involving in kidnapping, defrauding MOSOP and establishing three cult groups that were directly involved in kidnapping. Recently he was involved in the murder of Ndikeh Ndeemor, a MOSOP coordinator in Tai Kingdom of Ogoni. UNPO retained him as president inspite of several protests. UNPO may be joined in a lawsuit demanding accountability because it is suspected that Mitee used resources meant for Ogoni development to support UNPO. Facts are already confirmed by an independent fact-finding from Geneva in 2003 and 2009 Council of Ogoni Traditional Rulers Association and Nigeria's Federal Government Corruption nzar known as Economic Financial Crimes Commission, EFCC that arrested MITEE on Nov 12, 2009 and March 2, 2010. Mitee has been granted bail and may face long term jail when convicted. A resolution has been adopted to alert the world that UNPO has no business with the Ogoni people. Visit Youtube Ogoni tv Nov. 10, 2009 to see the real MOSOP that has nothing to do with Mitee. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.212.193.30 (talk) 08:39, 1 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Removed link (forum)[edit]

Hello, I removed the link for forum as there isn't currently an article for that usage of forum (and, imo, it would only be a dictionary definition if such a page were created). Politepunk 16:20, 24 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Legitimacy of representation[edit]

Hi, the UNPO claims to represent 150 mio people, however, I find this claim questionable. E.g. they name "the" aborigines of Australia as "member". This is highly ridiculous. I'm certain that 98% of Australia's indigenous inhabitants have never heard of this group, let alone having signed a membership contract. The analogy goes for most other members. Furthermore, until shown evidence, I highly doubt that autonomous republics of Russia such as Buryatia, Komi republic or Tuva have officially joined the organisation. UNPO's own brochures remain somewhat vague on the question of representation an legitimacy, and I guess they are deliberately so. I guess that UNPO's formal members are simply individuals or groups from those regions, typically without a special mandate to represent an entire nation...--Johannes Rohr 13:45, 29 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, after checking www.unpo.org, I can report that most claims of "membership" made by the UNPO are bogus. Neither Tatarstan, nor Mari El, nor Komi Republic, nor Tuva are "members". In fact, there are local NGOs in these places that are active within UNPO. That's it. Only in the case of Bashkortostan and Gagausia, there is some evidence, that UNPO membership may have official character, even though the UNPO does not provide details one would expect in such cases (e.g. date of ratification by the individual parliaments of these autonomous republics. Furthermore, stating that "the aborigines of Australia" are "a member of UNPO" is complete nonsense anyways. How can many diverse ethnic groups, being organised in a wide range of organisations be "a" member of something. In fact, the real member is a certain organisation for the defense of black rights (or so), in case of the Iraqi Turkmens it is even worse: The whole "membership" of this group is simply a private initiative of a local politician, without official backing through any organisation. So I guess this whole article needs some serious rework. We are currently doing the same in de:UNPO, btw--Johannes Rohr 10:19, 4 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
On the UNPO website you can find exact information on which organization exactly is the member. As for Australian Aboriginals, it says, "The Australian Aboriginals are a founding member of UNPO. They are represented by the National Committee to Defend Black Rights (NCDBR), which represents a coalition of national and key regional Aboriginal Organizations." That's it. You're talking nonsense yourself - being too lazy to check it out. Lebatsnok (talk) 18:57, 25 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Well, it is an inherent problem of unrepresented nations and peoples that they cannot be easily officially organized. This is often even suppressed by the governments who do not recognize them. Of course in many cases there are just groups without any official status who try to represent their ethnicity at UNPO. The point is that UNPO acknowledges that there is a problem of lacking representation for that ethnicity and tries to point it out to others. I think this can be made clear to the reader without letting it appear like "this is a bogus organization because it is a bunch of NGOs without official status". De mortuis... 12:02, 9 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not suggesting to declare UNPO a "bogus organisation". All I suggest is to get the facts straight concerning their members. It is bogus to say that West Papua was a member of UNPO, but it is correct to list the Organisasi Papua Merdeka as a member. It is obvious nonsense to say the "the aborigines of Australia" were "a" member of whatever, while it is - probably - correct that the Australian National Committee to Defend Black Rights is. Same for the Cordilleras in the Northern Philippines from where the Cordillera Peoples' Alliance is a member of UNPO. And so on.
I've started to figure that out at de:Diskussion:Organisation der nicht-repräsentierten Nationen und Völker/Mitgliederliste
This is not to diminish the legitimacy of UNPO as such, but rather to have a clear distinction between facts and fiction. E.g. through the debate that went on within de: it became clear to me that some participants believed that UNPO membership was something comparable to UN membership, i.e. a meaningful status in terms of International law, which it of course isn't.
UNPO is an NGO, UNPO's members are individual organisations or commited individuals from various places around the world, for the sake of NPOV, the article should make this clear. --Johannes Rohr 11:13, 13 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The organisation is called the Unrepresented Nations and Peoples Organization. Estonia and Latvia once established the organisation just for the people's sake -- authorities of the country are not necessary involved. That's why one may reach the conclusion that Neither Tatarstan, nor Mari El, nor Komi Republic, nor Tuva are "members". If these countries were free and independent, then their authorities would apply for UN membership. So far, some groups (probably nationalist or pro-sovereignity) particiapte the UNPO.--Constanz - Talk 10:27, 16 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Well, there are cases, where, following UNPO's explanations, the government or president of an autonomous republic appears to have officially joined UNPO: Bashkortostan and the autonomous republic of Gagausia in Moldova. Therefore I'd say that the issue of membership must be verified on an individual basis instead of rejecting or accepting it globally. Else you get into the realm of fiction, one way or the other. --Johannes Rohr 18:25, 16 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
This is a very, very complicated political issue that could be hardly be properly addressed by a wikipedia article. We could spend weeks discussing whether the nation of Chechnya (for instance) is legitimately represented by the Kadyrov government, which is loyal to Russia, or by the Ichkeria government, which is a member of the UNPO. The same goes for Tibet, South Moluccas and many other regions.
Always keep in mind that UNPO does not fully accept the current "statocentric" order. It is thus a non status quo organization. Some governments (ie Russia, Vietnam, Iran and PR China) consider UNPO the equivalent of a criminal gang, while others (Netherlands, Estonia) support it wholeheartedly for its efforts in the protection of human rights. This is an encyclopedia - not the place to judge who is right and who is wrong.
The core issue at stake is the antagonism between two principles of international law, state sovereignty (embodied by the UN and its charter) and self-determination (embodied by the UNPO and other similar organizations).
I know this organization very well and I'll try to make an improvement drive in this article soon, including more NPOV info on UNPO's history, structure, etc. (Tnapoleao 12:38, 22 November 2006 (UTC)).[reply]
Not all is that "very, very complicated". When one private individual, not authorized by anyone, is member of UNPO, is it bogus or not to say that "the" Turkmens of Iraq are "a member" of UNPO? While you are free to reject the sovereignity of states, the problem of who has a mandate, who is authorised and who is speaking for whom does not simply go away. While Wikipedia should not politicise over which organisation is a legitimate representation of their respective ethnic group, it should stick with the facts, that is - name the real members of UNPO and not the fictional ones. --Johannes Rohr 10:53, 21 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I've added the real members. --Obiara (talk) 21:36, 18 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
That's a legitimate point, but one that applies just as strongly to governments that belong to the United Nations. How many of the millions of people they claim to represent have really consented to be "members" of the UN, or indeed to be represented by the governments that claim jurisdiction over them? Starchild (talk) 01:06, 20 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I added the note that Scania/Skåneland is represented (if that's the word) by Stiftelsen Skånsk Framtid. It's a private foundation whose webpage may be seen here: http://www.scania.org/ It would be well if such notes (with links if possible) were added to all members, allowing the interested reader to judge for him/herself what standing they have to represent the titular nations/peoples. Orcoteuthis (talk) 19:04, 19 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

NPOV concerns[edit]

Parts of the article reads like an ad not an encyclopedia article. I've edited the opening but I think further edits are required. --Sumple (Talk) 02:29, 28 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Copyvio[edit]

Other users have commented that the article sounds excessively positive about UNPO. As it turns out, at least part of it sounds this way because the text is lifted directly from their site. The text was added by User:Joosthendriks at 23:14, 19 April 2006. --Mr. Billion 19:36, 2 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Scania[edit]

To compere Scania (a part of Sweden) with for a example Tibet is riduculous since we have a lot of movement in our country...

Apparently, you are not from Scania. It's the Scanians who should be asked, not the Swedes. We don't even get to learn our own language in school, instead it's derogatively refered to as a "dialect".217.31.178.94 (talk) 18:54, 13 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
As of December 2011 "Stiftelsen Skånsk Framtid" which was representing Skåneland is not on the list of members http://www.unpo.org/members.php. I will update the table. I have tried to found out the date of suspension, but I have not found it. If someone knows please put them under "Former members" or "Suspended members". --Vedum (talk) 18:23, 9 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, I remoeved "Failed verification date=May 2018" ~ [not in citation given]. According to the link - http://www.worldstatesmen.org/International_Organizations2.html#UNPO - Date of Admission: 19 Jan 1993 Karenni State (Myanmar)17, Mapuche (Argentina, Chile)23, Nagalim (India, Myanmar), Ogoni (Nigeria), Scania (Sweden)16 - Note 16 - 16membership suspended 18 Sep 2011 213.65.156.52 (talk) 19:47, 1 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thought i'd move this here so somebody would listen[edit]

Image talk:Worldmap UNPO.png


[edit] Lithuania[edit]

It is not dark green.

And it should not be, because it never was a member of the UNPO. Check http://www.unpo.org/downloads/UNPOBrochure.pdf . —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.74.79.214 (talk) 06:53, 29 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You're missing two members[edit]

There are two members missing in your list, both from Asia: Balochistan (in Pakistan), a member since January or February this year - don't confuse them with West Balochistan (in Iran), which is also a member (just like Iraqi Kurdistan and Iranian Kurdistan); and Burma, which was admitted as a member last week, together with the Afrikaners of South Africa. The admission of Burma (represented by the National Council for the Union of Burma, and the Sasana Moli International Burmese Monks Association) to the UNPO is somewhat strange, since Burma (well, Myanmar) is also a member of the U.N. I guess they figured the military junta didn't adequately represent the interests of the Burmese people, and after seeing what happened when Burma was struck by a hurricane, I think no one can say they do. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.61.230.65 (talk) 20:35, 29 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Membership[edit]

On the UNPO website there are are only 58 members, but on this article there are 69 members listed. Is there a reason for this because if not than the membership list needs to be redone. Zombie Hunter Smurf (talk) 22:41, 31 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

OK, so I also noticed the list of members on the UNPO does not correspond exactly with the map on that website so that could be a reason for the discrepancy. Zombie Hunter Smurf (talk) 21:03, 2 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Updating UNPO Informations[edit]

This new version is to updated the informations relatives to UNPO. A lot of changes relatives to the members happend last months and also about funding. Furthermore, the function of the leader is General Secretary.

Furthermore the criticism paragraph has been taken from an article written by Valery Tishov, who - conveniently - is the Director of the Institute of Ethnology and Anthropology at the Russian Academy of Sciences, and former Russian Minister for nationalities. Thus, this vision has a lack of objectivity. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jurubeba eng (talk • contribs) 15:41, 25 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Good point on the members and funding, however, the politics of the critic shouldn't reflect whether or not the criticism should be added to the article. I reworded it though so people know who is the one making the criticism. It would be good to find a rebuttal to his statement though. Zombie Hunter Smurf (talk) 15:52, 25 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
People keep putting in and taking out from the Secession article one WP:RS sentence about UNPO, claiming lack of notability and WP:undue, which seems to show some prejudice against the organization. Couple things need to be done and I'll trying to do soon unless someone beats me to it:
  • Either find sources for dates of General Secretaries or take out unref'd ones per WP:BLP
  • Put names and info about General secretaries with ref'd info (and especially wiki articles) higher up; death of John Nimrod just got some media, including Chicago Tribune.
  • Ref all unref'd paragraphs
  • More news refs through searching BOTH UNPO and Unrepresented Nations and Peoples Organization in current and archives of news.google. CarolMooreDC (talk) 14:33, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Gilgit Baltistan[edit]

When did they become a member? I can't find any information on the web site about them? Zombie Hunter Smurf (talk) 13:36, 29 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed States[edit]

does the UN have any illustration of the land these people are hoping to call their own? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.235.132.219 (talk) 01:41, 24 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Considering that the UN does not run this organization I highly doubt it. However there may be something on the UNPO website or on website of the major organizations representing the member people of the UNPO. Zombie Hunter Smurf (talk) 01:56, 24 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

"Other former members of the UNPO. It is unclear why they are not members anymore. "[edit]

This line in the article seems a bit odd given the list of former members provided: 

   * Republic of Lakotah
   * West Papua (founding member)
   * Nahua Del Alto Balsas
   * Bougainville
   * Gagauzia
   * Ingushetia
   * Komyk
   * Maohi People
   * Rusyn People
   * Nuxalk Nation
   * Sakha Republic

Bougainville & West Papau are no longer members, quite simply because Indonesia and Australia have been too successful at suppressing them. There are plenty of sources which will state this. Will just take someone looking for long enough. I don't know the history of the others that well though.--Senor Freebie (talk) 04:19, 10 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

As far as I recall, Gagauzia accepted an autonomy deal and reintegrated back into Moldova. Russia probably crushed any separatists in Ingushetia. Not sure about the others. Rebecca (talk) 05:28, 10 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

flag of taiwan[edit]

the flag of Taiwan in the article uses the proposed flag by some Taiwan independence people, instead of using the official flag, which is this one http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Flag_of_the_Republic_of_China.svg —Preceding unsigned comment added by 118.93.245.176 (talk) 09:16, 19 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

"Active Independence Movements"[edit]

By what criteria are only some of the current members flagged as "active independence movements"? Is this a source for this classification or should it be removed? Obiara (talk) 16:21, 23 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I removed these since it does not give any real insight for the goals of each member CK6569 (talk) 20:54, 12 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Suspension[edit]

The article does not seem to give any reasons as to why a group might be suspended from the UNPO. This really irks me, in fact- I really want to know, for instance, what the Lakota people did to get suspended!Masternachos (talk) 06:38, 9 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The Lakota people did not get suspended, they discontinued their membership. A couple years ago, finaical reason caused major changes to the memberships. I don't know if that was the reason Lakota left but they were not suspended. CK6569 (talk) 21:16, 9 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Alright, that was just an example, one that turned out to be wrong. The Buffalo Dene are suspended, though; there is a list of suspended groups. But I wonder if they, too, are suspended due to lack of funds? Or because of 'behavior?' Anyway, my point remains: Make it clear WHY suspensions happen.Masternachos (talk) 01:56, 12 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That was my first thought too on reading this article. What are the causes and the mechanism by which groups can be suspended? Are they suspended involuntarily (i.e. kicked out)? Or have they disassociated of their own choice? Perhaps it is just that 'suspended' is the wrong word to use? 86.152.22.227 (talk) 17:37, 25 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I definitely want an explanation- or at least a citation!- to show that they were suspended and did not leave...--Yalens (talk) 22:25, 23 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It appears that suspensions happen when the representative organisation no longer follows the covenant of UNPO or if the organisation disappears. This covenant has a section for terms of suspension. --BurritoBazooka (talk) 19:19, 4 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

We need to be able to evidence this and the date. Secretlondon (talk) 18:43, 15 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Date of founding[edit]

I can not find anything to support the claim made in the intro that the UNPO was founded on the 11 of February, 1991. The website, as far as I can tell, only says 1991, no specific date. Since it's unsourced in the article, I'm going to change it to just '1991'. If anyone finds a source to support the 11 February date, please change it back. Liam987(talk)contributions 08:52, 7 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Just found a reference to back the 11 of February date up, so changing it back to that. here is the source: [1]. I'm still not sure how reliable this source is, though. Liam987(talk)contributions 09:14, 7 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Newer members[edit]

Currently, this page lists 42 members. The official page lists 50. Is there a reason some were left out? --Mnidjm (talk) 23:02, 24 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

How become member?[edit]

How become member?--Kaiyr (talk) 12:28, 25 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

2008-2010[edit]

Why did many members from Russia Suspended participate in UNPO?--Kaiyr (talk) 18:21, 27 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

'Music without Frontiers' CD / World Music Network[edit]

The World Music Network is currently producing a CD of music from various member groups of the UNPO.

See:

As this was produced in collaboration with the UNPO perhaps it could be added to the article?

From the link: "Unrepresented and stateless peoples produce some of the world’s greatest music – music without frontiers. Produced in association with the Unrepresented Nations and Peoples Organization (UNPO), this Rough Guide celebrates the remarkable and diverse music of the indigenous peoples and minorities living in unrecognised or occupied territories around the world."

Membership information is not fully sourced[edit]

There is a lot of information which does not match with its sources, specifically in the list of (current and historical) members. Many times, their join dates are not mentioned in the source, and the fact that they were members in the past is not mentioned at all (they do not appear in the list of members). If we cannot find a source for the fact that they were members, and their withdrawal dates, this information should not appear in the article at all. Does anyone have a reliable source for the membership history? --BurritoBazooka (talk) 22:37, 3 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

A Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion[edit]

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion:

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 01:45, 26 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

'Its members consist of indigenous peoples, minorities, and unrecognised or occupied territories.' - POV issues[edit]

The above phrase is not neutral POV as it assumes that the peoples, minorities, etc. are perfectly represented by the organizations who are members of the UNPO. Some of these organizations are partisan political parties who do not have exclusive or even majority claim to the people whom they claim to represent. This is supposed to be an encyclopaedia not a political party's election manifesto.

For the record, I have no issue with this article or those parties being members. But the phrase, as is, is not good neutral POV either. I made the very minor and reasonable addition of adding the qualifier 'institutions and organizations' only to have it undone (along with some minor comma fixes) without explanation. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Francoisdjvr (talk • contribs) 08:15, 25 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Locations[edit]

In the table of UNPOs, it would be a good idea to have a column giving approximate location (e.g. West Africa) or nation within which UNPO is located.

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion[edit]

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 04:54, 2 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion[edit]

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 23:37, 26 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion[edit]

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 01:55, 3 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Micronations?[edit]

I fail to understand why "Micronations" is in the See Also section.

The Unrepresented Nations and Peoples Organization is about helping legitimate nations and peoples attain recognition and representation among the worlds nations.

A micronation is an attempt by either an individual or small group of people to create a new nation with no legitimate claim to already being a nation or people.

Therefore, Micronations are irrelevant to this article.

Thibeinn (talk) 19:06, 29 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]


@Thibeinn: See also can be tangentially related. They don't have to be about the same topic. Micronations are a set of unrecognized states or equivalent entities just like UNPO members. – Finnusertop (talk ⋅ contribs) 16:57, 3 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]


@Finnusertop:

The UNPO only helps those with legitimate claims to sovereignty, not those who make up the pretense of sovereignty (which is what all micronations do).

Thibeinn (talk) 17:26, 3 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Thibeinn: yes, I know, and no contrary claim is made here. The only connection implied here is that both UNPO and micronations are tangentially related by being part of the larger phenomenon of unrecogntion. – Finnusertop (talk ⋅ contribs) 19:15, 3 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]


@Finnusertop:

Bugs Bunny is also not recognized. So, we should also add him as tangentially related.

Thibeinn (talk) 01:22, 6 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Thibeinn: Bugs Bunny does not aspire international recognition as a state or equivalent polity. Anyway, if it is only you opposing this long-standing link, the consensus version will stay. – Finnusertop (talk ⋅ contribs) 20:56, 6 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]


@Finnusertop:

I said micronations are irrelevant to this article, not that I opposed anything.

Thibeinn (talk) 06:05, 7 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thibeinn. Just to support Finnusertop. They are correct in their assessment that the Micronation listing in the 'See also' section should remain. And if you are not opposing anything why bring this issue up on the talk page. Talk pages aren't a forum to discuss why you think something is irrelevant but to improve an article as per WP:NOTAFORUM Robynthehode (talk) 07:09, 7 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]


@Robynthehode:

I'm not using this talk page as a discussion forum. Micronations are irrelevant to an article on the UNPO. Others can disagree, but do not wrongly accuse me of using a talk page for a discussion forum.

I point out things which seem to not be right or which seem irrelevant, so those who improve and correct articles can consider those things and make a decision as to whether or not to make improvements or corrections. In that, I am not in violation of any Wikipedia rules.

I will make no further replies to those who post nonsense replies to me.

Thibeinn (talk) 18:03, 7 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thibeinn Thanks for your reply. Your logic is impeccable - impeccablely wrong. If you are justifying your contribution because you want to point out an issue and help others improve articles, other editors (myself in this case) can point out issues with your contribution and suggest why your edit is contrary to Wikipedia policy. One or both of us can be wrong of course but that's not the point. I did not call your contribution 'nonsense' but in good faith gave my opinion. Maybe you should read WP:GOODFAITH. If anyone has added nonsense to this discussion it is you with your 'Bugs Bunny' comment. Robynthehode (talk) 23:51, 7 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Reopening the discussion to add that adding "Micronations" in the "Sea also" is still not consensus, and should have been discussed in a more formal manner before shutting down any attempt at conversation. Chaotic Enby (talk) 00:43, 14 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion[edit]

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 06:56, 7 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Madesh no longer member[edit]

Heres proof from the actual UNPO website. https://unpo.org/members/20426 TheT.N.T.BOOM! (talk) 13:16, 26 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Missing dates[edit]

There dates for the leaving of Trieste and South Arabia BigWeirdWalrus (talk) 21:49, 21 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Unrepresented_Nations_and_Peoples_Organization&oldid=1210975105"