Talk:Unrepresented Nations and Peoples Organization

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Organizations WikiProject This article is within the scope of the WikiProject Organizations. If you would like to participate please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks.
48px} This article is part of WikiProject Human rights, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to Human rights on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the Project page, where you can join the Project and contribute to the discussion.
B This article has been rated as B-Class on the assessment scale.
Low This article has been rated as low-importance on the assessment scale.


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?


Contents

[edit] Director-generals

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)

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)

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

[edit] Removed link (forum)

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)

[edit] Legitimacy of representation

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)

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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)).
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)

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)

[edit] NPOV concerns

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)

[edit] Copyvio

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)

[edit] Scania

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)

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

Image talk:Worldmap UNPO.png


[edit] [edit] Lithuania

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)

[edit] You're missing two members

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)

[edit] Membership

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)

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)