File talk:United Nations Members.svg

Dependencies

I noticed most dependencies are grey, but a few (Greenland is the most obvious) are coloured as the colour of their UN-member "parent state", ie UN blue. Why are most dependencies not coloured, and a few are? What's the criterion? --Canuckguy (talk) 14:40, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

Taiwan

Why is Taiwan in blue? Should they be in grey?--BubbleDude22 (talk) 03:42, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

mainland china should be in grey --Andersmusician NO 00:22, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

It is properly shown in blue as part of the PRC, as this happens to be the UN's official position, per United Nations General Assembly Resolution 2758. --dab (𒁳) 10:35, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

I see the pro-China camp is currently winning this little internet stoush. Not surprising though with the thousands of Chinese government staff trolling the internet to coerce world opinion in their favour. Threatening a country with war for daring to proclaim independence hardly makes Taiwan a voluntary part of China.--Simonmetcalf (talk) 11:09, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

Shouldn't we be using an NPOV position that than adopting without questinothe POV of the UN. It is one thing to accept a UN source for the list of UN members - it is quite another to accept as NPOV the UN's position on the territories of those members. Readin (talk) 02:04, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

UNGA Res 2758 makes no reference at all to Taiwan and thus can not be legally used to attribute sovereign right to China. In fact, China signed a treaty surrendering rights to Taiwan in Treaty of Shimonoseki and no subsequent treaty restored those rights to China. Taiwan should definitively be in gray. Or -- perhaps there should be another color for territories that are CLAIMED by UN members, but are outside their effective control ... i.e. Somaliland, Kosovo, Turkish Republic of Northern Cyprus... ludahai 魯大海 (talk) 09:47, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

I disagree. Nothing in Resolution 2758 mentions Taiwan or governance of that island. It merely references control of China's seat in the UN. The ROC is not currently claiming governance of China rather just the island of Taiwan over which the PRC has never had defacto nor dejure control over. Gateman1997 (talk) 18:24, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

Despite the relationship China and Taiwan have, Taiwan is in fact not a member of the United Nations while it is being politically pressured by China to refrain from any acts of independence. Only 25 nations recognize Taiwan as an independant country according to some sources. Due to pressure and rejection from China, Taiwan is not part of the United Nations and is not allowed to join any other international organizations. Also, calling other users "pro-China camp"-ers is irrelivant to this debate and such immature talk should be taken elsewhere. China was the one who in 1971 demanded that Taiwan be removed as a member from the United Nations. Taiwan is officially a member of the Republic of China. It is not a member of the United Nations. Erohis (talk) 18:33, 16 November 2012 (UTC)

Those calling POV are the biased ones. It is a fact that the UN decides on the international law as a result of WWII. The Treaty of Shimonoseki is void, as Japan had to give back all territory won by colonial aggression. The Resolution might not specifically mention "Taiwan" because Taiwan island was given back to China (legally represented by the ROC) in 1945. Again, this was the whole purpose of the resolution of WWII, to determine what belongs to whom. There has always been one China. The Civil War resumed after WWII. Whatever division happened after, is simply not covered by the UN because both Chinas still claim to be China, so it's an internal affair of China. The ROC (there's no country on earth called "Taiwan") does still claims the whole territory of the Qing dynasty constitutionally, which includes mainland China, the Mongol State and maintains all territorial disputes the PRC has solved. Taiwan island and Fujian territories can declare independence if they really want. However, they simply haven't because this is a conflict between the US and China. Any rogue move goes against the established order after WWII and must face consequences. Calling any stance that doesn't go against China Chinese trolling is immature and doesn't respect facts.--2001:16B8:319C:5300:C5DB:4D45:D375:F470 (talk) 17:24, 1 February 2022 (UTC)

Western Sahara

the territory of Western Sahara should not be excluded from the map, but included as part of Morocco, since it is universally recognized as such (even though it is de facto not under Moroccan governance, but this is obviously not a map showing the de facto status, or we'd need to update Afghanistan, Pakistan and Iraq every other week). On the same grounds, Kosovo is shown in blue as part of Serbia, not because Serbia has still any control over Kosovo, but because the position of the UN remains that Kosovo is a Serbian province. In fact, the UN position is that Kosovo is a Serbian province under ad interim UN administration, so the map should perhaps show territories under direct UN administration in a separate colour.

The only territories which should in fact be shown in grey here are Antarctica, Vatican City and the Palestinian territories. Except for Antarctica, these are too small to be visible in a thumbnail, making the value of this map somewhat questionable. --dab (𒁳) 10:31, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

Um, in fact, the opposite is true. Western Sahara (most of it) is de facto under Morocco goverance, but the UN and many other countries do not recognize it as part of Morocco, and treat it as a disputed territory with status to be resolved. Chanheigeorge (talk) 02:28, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

Correct. The UN considers Western Sahara to be a Non-Self-Governing Teritory (a colony of Morocco). --Joowwww (talk) 15:18, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

What an utterly worthless map. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.234.78.193 (talk) 23:36, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

Seconded...this has become a battleground for the status of minor and unrecognised States. --Simonmetcalf (talk) 11:00, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

New Caledonia

The French territory of New Caledonia is coloured blue. It should, however, be coloured grey as the United Nations Special Committee on Decolonisation reinstated New Caledonia on the list of non-self-governing territories in 1986. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tokyo tintin (talk • contribs) 00:49, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

"Non-self-governing" territories are territories of the country regardless of that status. Phil Ian Manning (talk) 15:34, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

South Sudan

It should be added to this map now that it was accepted by the General Assembly as the newest member. --Ecad93 (talk) 16:20, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

Color

Abkhazia, Azawad, the Gaza Strip, Kosovo, Nagorno-Karabakh, Northern Cyprus, Somaliland, South Ossetia, Taiwan, Transnistria, and the West Bank should be coloured grey because they aren't United Nations members. Are Hong Kong and Macau repesented in the UN separately from the rest of the People's Republic of China? If not, the blue dots representing them on the map should be removed. Also, if a sovereign state is represented in the UN, does that automatically mean that all dependencies and other external territories of that nation are also part of the UN? (For example, is Greenland in the UN just because Denmark is, or is French Guiana in the UN just because France proper is?) If not, these external territories shouldn't automatically be coloured blue.

Djodjo666 (talk) 2:56, August 23, 2012 (UTC)

The states mentioned above are more or less all recognised as part of a UN member state. All dependencies of sovereign states fall under the jurisdiction of those states within the UN. CMD (talk) 15:59, 23 August 2012 (UTC)

New Color

Maybe we could introduce a new color (i.e. green or red) to represent areas that are de jure part of a UN member's claimed territory but de facto is independent. These areas include the Republic of China / Taiwan, Kosovo, etc. 74.101.188.105 (talk) 03:08, 29 January 2013 (UTC) Not registered

Taiwan is not part of China. No basis for the claim. ludahai 魯大海 (talk) 01:00, 18 December 2013 (UTC)

That sounds like quite a good idea. Perhaps blue stripes instead of another colour? CMD (talk) 16:29, 20 December 2013 (UTC)