Talk:Union of South American Nations/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Modeled On European Union?

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?

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)

Top Level Domain?

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)

POV maps & participation list

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: 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, 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

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

• 
• 
• 
• 

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 are not included."...

What do you think about any of these two modifications/improvements? SDonatti

Improving the text of the participation list

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 and overseas countries and territories of EU, though claimed by Argentina."...,

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 and overseas countries and territories of EU. Argentina claims sovereignty 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. 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."...,

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.
• 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, 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,

• $\mathbb {T} =\mathbb {T} _{s}\,\cup \,\mathbb {T} _{a}$, where
• $\mathbb {T} _{s}=\{$Falkland Islands, South Georgia and the South Sandwich islands$\}$,
• $\mathbb {T} _{a}=\{$Argentine Antarctica, British antarctic territory, Chilean antarctic territory$\}$, and
• $\mathbb {C} =\{c\,|\,c$ is a country in planet earth$\}$.

The statements that have been either proven or agreed by consensus up to now are straightforward:

• $\forall \,t\,\in \,T,\,(t$ participate in UNASUR$)\equiv$ FALSE, and
• $\forall \,t\,\in \,T,\,(t\,\neg$participate in UNASUR$)\equiv$ FALSE.

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: $(t\,\neg$participate 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, $\forall \,t\,\in \,T_{s}$:

• $\forall \,t\,\in \,T_{s},\,(t\,\neg$participate in UNASUR$)\iff (\exists \,c\in \,C,\,(c$ has internationally recognized/undisputed authority over $t)\land (c\,\neg$participate in UNASUR$))\equiv \,$ FALSE.

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.

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 $\neg$participate 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:

• $\forall \,t\,\in \,T,\,(t$ participate in UNASUR$)\equiv$ FALSE, and
• $\forall \,t\,\in \,T,\,(t\,\neg$participate in UNASUR$)\equiv$ FALSE.

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; 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 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:

• Which country in planet earth has internationally recognized authority to determine whether the Falkland Islands participates or not in UNASUR?
• Does the United Kingdom's control de facto over the Falkland Islands imply it has internationally recognized authority over them?
• Is the internationally recognized authority over the Falkland Islands disputed until today?

You could formulate these questions for any other of the disputed territories 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). 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; 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. 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

Parts of the Netherlands

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)

Participating and Non-Participating South American and Non-South American States and Territories

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)

As much as the Falklands may be under British authority, they are most certainly South American! However, I'm not sure about the South Georgian and South Sandwich islands, I think those are Antarctican. -- sion8 ^{talk page} 03:43, 16 September 2015 (UTC)

"comprising 12 South American countries."

Would it be correct to say "comprising all twelve sovereign nations on the South American continent" (or whatever wording to exclude the caribbean islands)? It would be a stronger statement for the lede, I think a nice concept easy to understand for a casual reader. --BjKa (talk) 10:31, 1 February 2016 (UTC)

If you put it with a clarifying footnote I see no problem. The idea is good, articles are to be reader-friendly. Dentren | ^Talk 11:18, 1 February 2016 (UTC)

Why not just "comprising all twelve sovereign nations of South America"? I don't think anybody thinks the Caribbean is part of South America. Rob984 (talk) 15:17, 1 February 2016 (UTC)

Actually I guess Trinidad and Tobago is ambiguous. You're probably right. Rob984 (talk) 15:21, 1 February 2016 (UTC)

The section for "Secretary General" is not in English

This section is currently in Portuguese, even though this is the English version of Wikipedia and the rest of the article is in English. Also, for the chart detailing the previous Secretary Generals below the text, the names of the countries are in English, yet the corresponding dates are in Portuguese. 69.120.165.6 (talk) 06:20, 2 May 2017 (UTC)

"Suspended" and "former" members are not the same thing

This article (and the Member states of the Union of South American Nations article) need some improvements regarding the status of member states. Suspending participation in the organization versus departing from the organization are not technically the same thing, and I think the article, map, etc. should reflect this distinction. There also seems to be some confusion about when certain members left or are leaving, as there's apparently a mandatory 6-month waiting period after beginning the process. I probably don't have time to make these fixes myself at the moment, but maybe I will later. In the meantime, if someone else wants to step up, that would be great. GeoEvan (talk) 23:12, 15 November 2019 (UTC)

Bolivia quits

On Nov 15, 2019, Bolivia's new president, Jeanine Áñez, announced the country was leaving UNASUR.--Zarateman (talk) 11:20, 16 November 2019 (UTC)

• It is true Interim Bolivian president announced Bolivia was leaving out of UNASUR as well as ALBA organizations, because those two are plagued by operatives from Cuba and Venezuela.

Link: "https://latinoamericapiensa.com/la-politica-internacional-de-anez-anuncio-la-salida-de-bolivia-del-alba-de-la-unasur-y-rompio-relaciones-con-venezuela/21065/"

Status of Bolivia and Peru

Bolivia and Peru are certainly not part of UNASUR at this moment. Why not change the members section and participation map`s colors of those two countries?! 84.39.213.25 (talk) 20:15, 17 May 2020 (UTC)