Talk:2011 United Nations Security Council election

Date announcement

Here's the official source, but the content rotates so it won't work as a reference. http://www.un.org/News/ossg/hilites.htm Jpatokal (talk) 23:33, 14 October 2011 (UTC)

Japan?

There was a source saying Japan would run now, too, but the url died. Did they back out or what? --... there's more than what can be linked. 12:21, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

Apparently. Jpatokal (talk) 05:57, 22 October 2011 (UTC)

Well, if it is so, then a source would be nice, so we can add it to the article... --... there's more than what can be linked. 10:19, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

Unsuccessful candidates

The words "unsuccessful candidates" mean members that a) were official candidates, and b) did not succeed in the elections. Fiji withdrew before the election, and Estonia never even announced its candidature, so it doesn't make sense to clutter up the box with either. Jpatokal (talk) 04:58, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

Precisely.--... there's more than what can be linked. 07:18, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

Firstly, consensus doesnt mean vote counting, so ot sure what the above says.

Secondly, UNSUCCESSFUL does not mean what you suggested "official candidates", thats OR/Synthesis. uNSUCCESSFUL MEANS something that is not successful ad didnt result in the possible outcome. We cant take a pov decision of what to include or notLihaas (talk) 00:15, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

I respectfully disagree - one who is not a candidate does not become one simply by receiving a vote. --... there's more than what can be linked. 09:54, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

Precisely. Neither Fiji nor Estonia were candidates at the time of the election. Jpatokal (talk) 10:05, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

Fair enough on Estonia, but Fiji were a candidate once upon a time and they got a vote theat may not have otherwise happened. In this case Slovenia lost be acause they too WITHDREW themselves.Lihaas (talk) 05:32, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

UN Document on Azerbaijan

Found it, will implement later (if you don't beat me to it): http://www.un.org/News/Press/docs/2011/ga11161.doc.htm --... there's more than what can be linked. 07:47, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

Done! --... there's more than what can be linked. 11:05, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

Panarmenian 2008 article

cite web author=Ter-Sahakyan, Karine url=http://www.panarmenian.net/details/eng/?nid=939 title=Turkey may in fact become a regional power through the UNSC publisher=PanARMENIAN.Net date=14 October 2008 accessdate=21 August 2010

This article is being repeatedly added as a source, but it relates in no way to the subject - it is about Turkey running for a UNSC seat back in 2008. It does mention Azerbaijan and Armenia, but not in relation to these 2011 elections. So please, do not add it again, I will just remove it, unless I am given a good reason not to. --... there's more than what can be linked. 10:11, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

Read WHAT IS BEING CITED, not the article. its not a see also for irrelevance, what is being cited is clearly listed on the page. nbothing of the eletion is being cited so its irrelevance is moot.Lihaas (talk) 05:33, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

So what exactly are you citing then, just the fact that Security Council terms are two years long?! That's already covered by virtually all the other cites, including the official UN results pages, and does not need an additional reference. Jpatokal (talk) 09:24, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

I have read the article, and so I know that it is about Turkey and the 2008 elections. As you failed to give me a good reason to keep this link as a source, I have again removed it. Please, be reasonable, and do tell what the link is a source for, if anything. --... there's more than what can be linked. 16:17, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

Firstly you dont remove it on youre whim and you CLEARLY havent read it otherwise you wouldve seen what JPatokal. Your pusihing a pov to keep an article out that you dont like. if the source cited what its refd for then it is not ITTRRELEVANT!. the answer was posted here more than SIX hours before you replied.

multiple sources exist across WPLihaas (talk) 07:10, 28 October 2011 (UTC)

What is your problem? Just tell me why you are re-adding this link that has nothing to do with this election, and I'll leave it in. --... there's more than what can be linked. 18:13, 28 October 2011 (UTC)

I have read the article, which seems to be about the possible implications of Turkey's 2008 election to the UNSC on Armenian-Azeri relations. I genuinely don't understand what this has to do with the sentence "The General Assembly elected Azerbaijan, Guatemala, Morocco, Pakistan, and Togo, as the five new non-permanent members of the UN Security Council for two-year mandates commencing on 1 January 2012.", since a) this sentence seems to be a fairly non-controversial statement of fact, and b) as far as I can see the article doesn't even consider the possibility of Azerbaijan joining the UNSC. What am I missing? Jpatokal (talk) 11:08, 30 October 2011 (UTC)

If we consider the article as a WHOLE then that is for EL, were considering and sourcing parts of it as RS for citing certain aspects which are cited. Citations are not for "uncontroversial" statments they are for statements in general.

(im responding to you and not to matyas' diktats to have it his way and reexplain when TWICE he refuses to see what being said)Lihaas (talk) 12:35, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

Please assume good faith. Neither I, Matyas nor now RJFF understand the relevance of your reference to the article, so all we're asking you to do is explain it. Could you please do so? Jpatokal (talk) 04:12, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

RJFF hasnt commented here in discussion. But since you asked and civil=ly...

The ARTICLE is not being cited as a whole, if the relevance was the article it would be in EL. its the specific bit from the article that is referenced here (ie- the terms). There is precedence aplenty on WP to cite more than one source (diversity of sources) for cetain bits, controversial or not. the term "irrelevance is needless, because there IS relevance its not a fork on to somethign else.Lihaas (talk) 05:33, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

The sentence says "The General Assembly elected Azerbaijan, Guatemala, Morocco, Pakistan, and Togo, as the five new non-permanent members of the UN Security Council for two-year mandates..." The article only verifies that generally non-permanent members are elected for two-year terms. It is inaccurate to use a source explaining the general rule for verifying an individual case. The article is therefore inappropriate to verify this specific election of Azerbaijan, Guatemala, Morocco, Pakistan and Togo for two years from 2011 through 2013. Nevertheless, I have inserted two sources verifying that the non-permanent members are generally elected for two years in the "Rules" section. For a very often published fact like the duration of Security Council terms, I would strongly prefer academic sources over a random news article. I hope that no one will object to this approach. Kind regards --RJFF (talk) 20:04, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

Explanation of comments by Slovenian foreign minister about conduct of campaign

On withdrawing Slovenia's candidacy, foreign minister Samuel Zbogar said in the General Assembly, "We don't approve (of) the way this campaign was held and we don't approve (of) the way these elections were held." [1] [2] The question is, what specifically did Slovenia disapprove of? It's pretty important to the article. I found one web page that makes all kinds of allegations about how Azerbaijan campaigned, but not sure whether it's a reliable source: [3] Mathew5000 (talk) 06:40, 12 November 2011 (UTC)

So yes, the Azeris flung around money like crazy, but no, you can't prove it and the Armenian source you cite clearly has an axe to grind. For example, 7 poor UN members in arrears and unable to vote [4] mysteriously all had their memberships paid up [5] in the run-up to the SC election... but was it the Azeris, or was it the Tooth Fairy? Who can tell? Jpatokal (talk) 11:05, 12 November 2011 (UTC)