File talk:ParisAgreement.svg

Today (September 20th), Chile signed the agreement (source). Please add it on the map. Best, --Warko (talk) 23:46, 20 September 2016 (UTC)

Syria signs the Agreement --Shibo77 22:04, 7 November 2017 (UTC)

Per this, it announced that it would join "as soon as possible". We should wait until they have actually joined before changing the map. TDL (talk) 04:18, 8 November 2017 (UTC)

Crimea

The latest version (9th of August 2018) shows Crimea as being part of Russia, unlike the previous versions which showed it as part of Ukraine as it should be. Please fix this. Dumiac (talk) 13:08, 20 August 2018 (UTC)

Now it's no longer shown as part of Russia. Χ (talk) 12:14, 21 August 2018 (UTC)

I reverted to the version that was in use before, as all the dependent territories were out etc; but I kept the recent changes and adapted the colour scheme. X has indicated it is inconsistent with the paris agreement parties. Please let me know which, and I'll adapt. That's easier than arranging all the dependent territories again... L.tak (talk) 18:46, 23 August 2018 (UTC)

There are two main inconsistencies, one of which you've partially corrected. 1) There are some mistakes with the coloring of countries. For example, Equatorial Guinea should be a signatory only. 2) The map you've uploaded highlights unrecognized governments that are not parties to this agreement, like Northern Cyprus, Transnistria and the likes. Lastly, and this is not as important but I still would like to mention it, I don't think dependent territories like Martinique, Guadeloupe and others should be highlighted with circles. χ (talk) 11:53, 24 August 2018 (UTC)

I assume the problem with my upload were about Western Sahara, Crimea and others? If that's the case, I think I've uploaded a map that adresses both our concerns. χ (talk) 17:16, 24 August 2018 (UTC)

the problem was mainly aruba, caribbean nehterlands etc. If that's correct (they are jurisdictions with separate treaty validity) and highlighted, then it is ok. I also assume the file is changed in such a way that it is still sag-editable? I am less sensitive to un-recognized governments. As long as they don't get circles (which would give them more weight than they deserve).... L.tak (talk) 18:27, 24 August 2018 (UTC)

I uploaded another version. This time I made sure the Dutch Caribbean islands remain grey. χ (talk) 23:42, 24 August 2018 (UTC)

Updating map to indicate US withdrawal.

The US has withdrawn from the Paris Agreement. Can someone update the map to indicate that? Source: BBC I don't know how to do it myself. Thanks, Interstellarity (talk) 17:25, 5 November 2020 (UTC)

 Done by BMacZero. I removed the help me template since there is no need to keep it up. Interstellarity (talk) 20:13, 5 November 2020 (UTC)

Taiwan is the wrong color

The country of Taiwan (officially the Republic of China) has not signed or ratified the Paris Agreement either. As Taiwan is shut out from UNFCCC, they have been unable to participate in any of the respective activities, mechanisms and/or meetings related to the Paris Agreement. Taiwan is also wrongfully colored blue on the included map... shouldn't it be grey like Greenland? Eclipsed830 (talk) 12:31, 8 November 2020 (UTC)

I updated the map to include Taiwan as grey. Taiwan is not a member of the United Nations and should not be highlighted. Why revert it without any sort of discussion? Factually speaking, Taiwan is not a party or signatory to the Paris Agreement, as only UNFCCC member states are entitled to become parties to the Paris Agreement. Eclipsed830 (talk) 15:23, 24 November 2020 (UTC)

This is a UN treaty and the UN recognizes Taiwan as part of China. Greenland is given explicit exception in Denmark's ratification so very different case. --Ratherous (talk) 22:35, 24 November 2020 (UTC)

Ratherous Is this a map showing the UN status of nations? Or a map showing countries that signed and ratified the Paris Agreement? If this is a map showing countries that signed and ratified the Paris Agreement, Taiwan should not be colored as it is not a UN Member. This is a fact. China (PRC) has zero control, authority or jurisdiction over Taiwan, it's people or it's government and cannot sign treaties on behalf of Taiwan. There are multiple articles from reputable sources proving that Taiwan was not invited and has been sidelined: https://thediplomat.com/2019/12/taiwan-pushed-to-the-sidelines-as-cop25-climate-summit-concludes/ https://www.forbes.com/sites/ralphjennings/2017/11/21/how-taiwan-is-edging-into-the-u-n-climate-talks-despite-china/?sh=4fc2a4982d36 https://www.taipeitimes.com/News/editorials/archives/2016/02/01/2003638536 etc etc... if I am a student looking at this map, and I see Taiwan highlighted as signed/ratified, I assume Taiwan is part of the Paris Agreement, which they are not. If you are going to include them in a map, there needs to be a note that makes these facts clear. Eclipsed830 (talk) 03:34, 25 November 2020 (UTC)

Wikipedia articles themselves make it very clear that Taiwan as the Republic of China did not sign the treaty themselves, but the map being a representation of UN membership shows the state as part of China per UN recognition similar to Kosovo being shown as a part of Serbia. This can be seen in other UN membership maps such as File:United Nations Members.svg, File:World Health Organisation regional offices.svg and many many more. Other treaties do sometimes make special clauses for Taiwan and its status and that is sometimes reflected on maps, but this treaty does not do so. --Ratherous (talk) 03:45, 25 November 2020 (UTC)

Ratherous And if you read the talk pages to those maps (such as the United Nations Members), pretty much everyone is in agreement that Taiwan should not be colored in those maps, yet one user continues to push the PRC perspective on the map and reverts it. It needs to be noted that the United Nations never took a specific position with respect to Taiwan, UN simply includes Taiwan as part of China because China as a member state "provides" data for Taiwan. UN Resolution 2758 removed Chiang Kai Shek as the "representative to China", but it did not make a determination on the overall outcome or status of Taiwan. I am of the opinion that this map should be based on the factual representation of countries and the Paris Agreement and believe the map I created should be reverted back. What is the best way to determine the consensus on this issue? Eclipsed830 (talk) 03:58, 25 November 2020 (UTC)

No clearly everyone is not in agreement on that as you said as the final agreement was to follow the UN position. In essence that is the most neutral and unbiased position UN maps can take - simply follow the UN recognition. It is not in any way pushing the PRC perspective, but rather simply following the stance of the UN, which is very appropriate for UN maps. --Ratherous (talk) 05:54, 25 November 2020 (UTC)

Ratherous Are we reading the same Discussion page? The issue was brought up on the UN map 4 different occasions, each with more people supporting a change in color than opposing. And to be clear, this is Wikipedia, not the United Nations website. Should this map be based on the United Nations map, or the factual situation with respect to countries/states and the Paris Agreement? Again, this is a Wikipedia map that should be based on the facts. At a minimum, states in a position like Taiwan should at least be striped with a note added to indicate that there is some inconsistency. Furthermore, the description of this map does not indicate it is a "UN map", it simply says "Signatories and parties to the Paris Agreement". Citing the UN, which is a political organization, introduces a bias in the source, as the UN isn't reporting the factual situation on the ground, but the political outcome within its organization. Factually, Taiwan or whatever you want to call that island on this map, is not signatory or party to the Paris Agreement, as this map indicates it is. The map, per the description, is factually wrong. Eclipsed830 (talk) 06:06, 25 November 2020 (UTC)

We absolutely are. The final consensus was indeed in favour of keeping Taiwan blue. The Paris Agreement is a treaty within the framework of the UN so it is very much a UN treaty map. POV pushing over the political status of Taiwan rather than following the UN recognition policy is not a solution. --Ratherous (talk) 09:42, 25 November 2020 (UTC)

Umm... again, the map isn't titled as a UN specific map... it's simply titled as "Signatories and parties to the Paris Agreement". Whatever you want to call Taiwan, the government that has full control over that area of land did not sign or ratify the Paris Agreement and should not be shaded any color. As long as that area of land is shaded another color, the map is false. Either the map needs to be updated with a clear title, or the image should be reverted back to the one showing the factual situation as it is today. As I said, another solution would be striped to indicate inconsistency in the data. Maps should be marked in a way that is factual and a representation of the de-facto or reality of the situation. A quick glance of the map should indicate that the United States, Greenland, Taiwan, etc aren't parties to the Paris Agreement, but by making it a "UN map", users must now takes a further step and look for clarification. The point of the map isn't to show the UN positions on the matter, but if a country/state is a "signatory or party to the Paris Agreement" Eclipsed830 (talk) 13:13, 25 November 2020 (UTC)

The fact that it's called "Signatories and parties to the Paris Agreement" already indicates that it is a UN map as it is a UN treaty, so UN recognition is very relevant. --Ratherous (talk) 06:05, 26 November 2020 (UTC)

Ratherous Yes, it's called "Signatories and parties to the Paris Agreement" and not ""Signatories and parties to the Paris Agreement based on the UN political perspective". The purpose of this map is not to debate the political positions of UN members or other territorial disputes, but to showcase the reality on which countries/states/territories (areas on a map), independent of internal UN positions, are "signatories and parties to the Paris Agreement". This map, as you want it, is wrong and inconsistent. For example, why is Western Sahara grey when they are not a UN member, and Morocco's (a UN member) "official position" is that "all of Western Sahara is an integral part of the kingdom. The Moroccan government refers to Western Sahara only as "Moroccan Sahara", the "Saharan provinces", or the "Southern Provinces"."? I will also notify the administrators of this discussion when I have time which will hopefully allow other people to join in the discussion to build a consensus. Eclipsed830 (talk) 09:20, 26 November 2020 (UTC)

I think you're really missing the concept that this treaty is framed within the United Nations and is signed by members of the United Nations as members of the United Nations. The United Nations does not recognize Western Sahara as a part of Morocco unlike its recognition of Taiwan as part of China. We're not talking about the position of individual states but rather the organization which governs this treaty. This treaty does not exist outside of the UN which is why maps made regarding its ratification display its member states as they are recognized in the organization. --Ratherous (talk) 09:29, 26 November 2020 (UTC)

Ratherous Because that is taking a non-neutral point of view. People who are going to look at this map want to know which countries/states are "signatories and parties to the Paris Agreement", independent of their UN status. A map titled "Signatories and parties to the Paris Agreement" should show the reality of which states and countries are "signatories and parties to the Paris Agreement", not which political borders exist. Do you not understand that showing states such as Taiwan as a signatory or party to the Paris Agreement is factually wrong? From a neutral and factual point of view, the government with full de-facto control over the area we informally call Taiwan is not a signatory or party to the Paris Agreement. As I've stated, a potential compromise could be adding stripes and a note to indicate disputes, but you did not provide your opinion on such compromise. Eclipsed830 (talk) 09:45, 26 November 2020 (UTC)

Ratherous Also, just a slight correction, but the UN does not officially recognize Taiwan as part of the PRC either, it's member state (the PRC) does. Resolution 2758 which switched the UN Representative from the ROC to the PRC did not state a stance or position on Taiwan's status within the UN, but simply expelled the representatives of Chiang Kai-shek... but this would is getting off-topic and a discussion for another page. Eclipsed830 (talk) 09:52, 26 November 2020 (UTC)

Actually taking the position of the UN in general has been a common source of neutrality on both Wikipedia and Commons, unless showing the de facto situation is simply more relevant, however that is almost never the case when it comes to maps of UN member treaties as they are directly connected to the members' status in the organization. Adding dashes for disputed regions is relevant in many situations however when a map is explicitly displaying a UN treaty of UN members it's quite inappropriate. That is why as you can see above, Crimea was displayed as a part of Ukraine (back when the colours of Ukraine and Russia differed) despite the fact that Ukraine's ratification of the treaty has absolutely no effect on Crimea as it is under the direct administration of Russia. That is also why Kosovo is displayed as a part of Serbia despite that not being the case. There are numerous other examples such as Abkhazia, Somaliland, Ossetia and many more. Showing every map depicting UN treaties with all unrecognized and partially recognized governments erases the point of the map as it then becomes a depiction of the geopolitical situation of the world which is quite irrelevant to UN membership. Following policies of the depicted organizations is precisely why maps of the EU and NATO feature Kosovo but not other states such as Abkhazia in Georgia. That is because the organizations themselves have levels of recognition for the state making it relevant for the maps. To respond to your last comment, the United Nations very explicitly recognize a single China. That is the position of the entire organization and not just the PRC, so yes in fact Taiwan is recognized as part of the rest of China under the United Nations. --Ratherous (talk) 10:04, 26 November 2020 (UTC)

Ratherous Again, showing the de-facto situation is exactly what people looking at a map of "signatories and parties to the Paris Agreement" are going to want to see. This map is not titled as a UN specific map, but instead simply "signatories and parties to the Paris Agreement". As I stated, from a neutral and factual point of view, the government with full de-facto control over the area we informally call Taiwan is not a signatory or party to the Paris Agreement. People look at maps because they want to quickly assess the on the ground factual reality of the situation. Those viewing this map should not have to determine if each state is listed because of specific internal UN positions, but instead should see the actual reality of the government with de-facto control over that specific area and it's position specifically with respect to if they are a signatory or party to the Paris Agreement. A map such as this one is to differentiate if specific jurisdictions/areas are bound by the Paris Agreement, for which the area of Taiwan is not. Other states such as Abkhazia, Somaliland, Ossetia, or Kosovo whose governments are not bound to the Paris Agreement, should absolutely be highlighted or striped. As for the last comment, again off-topic, but the United Nations recognized the PRC as China, but Resolution 2758 never specified that Taiwan was part of "China" and left the issue of Taiwan's representation unresolved. Eclipsed830 (talk) 10:28, 26 November 2020 (UTC)

Your desire to only want to see maps in a de facto state should definitely not start here as that is not the general practice of Wikipedia or Commons unless geopolitics are relevant, seeing as that is the most effective way of avoiding POV pushing. Before changing maps of UN treaties you should definitely focus on discussing the changes on primary maps such File:United Nations Members.svg which currently follow the general practice of similar maps to include UN recognized boundaries. Until maps like that all start showing the de facto situation, other less major maps such as this one are unlikely to do the same. To again respond to your latter comments, the UN recognition of 'China' includes the territory of the island of Taiwan, it is simply that the government they recognize is that of the PRC but the fact that Taiwan and mainland China are recognized as a single state under the UN is very much undisputed. --Ratherous (talk) 10:42, 26 November 2020 (UTC)

Ratherous How are the geopolitics irrelevant here when it's a map displaying if specific areas around the world are bound by a specific treaty? Also do you consider File:United Nations Members.svg to be a "primary map"? It isn't used on any relevant English Wikipedia articles. For the later comments again, Resolution 2758 left the issue of Taiwan's representation unresolved and it is absolutely disputable that Taiwan and China are recognized as a single state under the UN... as a matter of fact, in 2007 Secretary-General of the UN Ban Ki-moon cited Resolution 2758 as his reason for rejecting Taiwan's UN membership application saying that the UN viewed "Taiwan as part of China" and he received significant blowback from member states and after the US representative met with Ban, they sent a cable saying “Ban said he realized he had gone too far in his recent public statements, and confirmed that the UN would no longer use the phrase ‘Taiwan is a part of China,’”. Eclipsed830 (talk) 11:08, 26 November 2020 (UTC)

Geopolitics are irrelevant as it is a map of a UN treaty signed by UN member states. The file in question is used on the main United Nations article on the English Wikipedia and many other language Wikipedia sites, so I'm not sure what you're talking about. Also the blowback is completely expected and unrelated to the position of the United Nations itself, which continues to recognize both the island and the Mainland as parts of a single nation even if they choose to avoid conflict by avoiding controversial statements. --Ratherous (talk) 11:14, 26 November 2020 (UTC)

This topic is currently being discussed on the Village Pump and can be found here. Eclipsed830 (talk) 15:12, 28 November 2020 (UTC)

The status of Taiwan in international law is relevant and subject to dispute. It is hard to see what is the right position. However, when China ratifies, its ratification only applies with regards to Mainland China. If Hong Kong or Macao are included, it makes a specific statement to that effect. According to Bejing, the same would hold for Taiwan: if they wanted it to apply to Taiwan they would extend the application to it. So either Taiwan is not a party and should be grey, or China has not extended the convention to Taiwan, and then it too should be grey... L.tak (talk) 14:41, 24 January 2021 (UTC)

text file editing

I notice this file has been edited without taking use of the svg-coding that is dedicated for it. When updating, please
i) open it with textedit
ii) find the text starting at "!-- Signatories of the Paris Agreement, that did not ratify-->"
iii) use the country codes to indicate what should be coloured
This way it takes 1 minut to change a party. The file is quite flexible in dependent territories etc, so also that can be tweaked... L.tak (talk) 14:44, 24 January 2021 (UTC)