Talk:List of countries where United Nations peacekeepers are currently deployed

Absent flags

Why no flags for Kosovo (Flag of Kosovo - hmm, a redlink - and Flag of Serbia?) , Golan Heights (Flag of Israel and Flag of Syria?) or Middle East (where are the peacekeepers anyway?) ? -- ALoan (Talk) 11:23, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)

The Middle East one appears to be mostly administrative, lending support to others in the area, so I don't think it really is centered in any conflict. Considering that no one really knows which of three countries Golan Heights is part of, I am not sure how a flag would work. I searched for a flag of Kosovo, but couldn't find one (though I can't believe there isn't one). Again, considering the conflict, I thought a Serbia flag for Kosovo would be inappropriate. Blanks seemed to be the best option, and understandable, since these are the three non-countries. --Dmcdevit 20:49, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)

OK - Middle East seems general; Kosovo doesn't seem to have a flag (I guess it is not the first thing on the list...); but surely Golan Heights can have the three nations that claim the heights? -- ALoan (Talk) 22:15, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Have done so, how's it look? --Dmcdevit 22:34, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Great - looks fine to me. I wonder what others think. It would still be nice to find something appropriate to add for the other two (particularly Kosovo). -- ALoan (Talk) 02:35, 26 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I think I actually solved the Kosovo flag. Albania's flag is used for the Albanian majority, Serbia's for the Serb minority. For the Middle East, all I could think of to put was a map. Like it? --Dmcdevit 03:04, 26 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Excellent - good idea. Perfect :) -- ALoan (Talk) 00:06, 27 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Someone seems to have made the necessary changes anyway, but for the record, of course, the 'country where peacekeepers are deployed' in the case of Kosovo is Serbia, so that would be the correct flag. (See Constitutional status of Kosovo). DSuser 17:03, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

Cyprus

Given the nature of the dispute which has led to peacekeepers being there, would it also be appropriate to show the flag of the Turkish Republic of Northern Cyprus along with Cyprus? --OpenToppedBus - My Talk June 28, 2005 14:58 (UTC)

Hmm - not showing the flag is probably POV for Turkish Cypriots; showing the flag is probably POV for Greek Cypriots. Is there a middle ground? Don't show either flag? Add a footnote or two?-- ALoan (Talk) 28 June 2005 18:34 (UTC)

From Cyprus: "Almost all foreign governments and the United Nations recognise the sovereignty of the Republic of Cyprus [Greek] over the whole island of Cyprus." In the context of this article (UN deployment), I don't think it's POV to keep it how it is. Also, I would point out that the flags are merely illustrative and don't actually play a large part, content-wise, in the article. If it were about the flags, then I would be more worried. Sound reasonable? --Dmcdevit 28 June 2005 20:54 (UTC)

Fair enough. OpenToppedBus - My Talk June 29, 2005 09:37 (UTC)

List of countries where UN peacekeepers were deployed

It would be useful to have an additional section (or a link to a sister article) where once the peacekeepers are withdrawn they are listed. There have not been so many UN missions that this list would be difficult to maintain. Philip Baird Shearer 1 July 2005 09:33 (UTC)

How many UN peacekeeping missions have ended already? I have added a redlinked List of countries where UN peacekeepers were deployed so please feel free to write the article! -- ALoan (Talk) 1 July 2005 11:02 (UTC)

Just guessing, but there might be upwards of 50. Anywy, great idea, and I'll get on it. But, I like the title of just list of UN peacekeeping missions better (it would have all of them). --Dmcdevit 1 July 2005 20:15 (UTC)

And apparently we each just created our own without knowing it! I've done substantial work on list of UN peacekeeping missions, but is a big project. Might want to take a look. --Dmcdevit 3 July 2005 08:32 (UTC)

(Thanks for the message on my talk page too.) Sorry - having created the redlink, I thought I ought to put something in it, so just copied over the structure from this article. You have done a good job on filling out your new article with some content - but now I wonder whether we actually need this list, given the amount of duplication between your new list and this one... -- ALoan (Talk) 4 July 2005 16:30 (UTC)

Some Irish when asked directions if it is difficult to explain will say "if you want to go there I would not start from here".

1. If loosing the history of this article acceptable, then move this talk page to the new article "List UN peacekeeping missions" and make this article a redirect.
2. copy the contents of "Completed missions" from "List of UN peacekeeping missions" to "List of countries where UN peacekeepers were deployed" and delete (VfD) "List of UN peacekeeping missions" and keep two articles.
3. copy contents of "Completed missions" from "List of UN peacekeeping missions" to "List of countries where UN peacekeepers were deployed", move "List of countries where UN peacekeepers are currently deployed" to "List of UN peacekeeping missions", merge in contents of "List of countries where UN peacekeepers were deployed".

For a simple life I would go with 1. (voting on WP:RM and WP:VFD can cause complications) but I have not contributed to this page and those who have may wish to have their contributions recorded in the history of the page. Philip Baird Shearer 5 July 2005 09:19 (UTC)

Actually, though you may all think I'm biased for having been a major contributor to both, I see the value in separate articles. This list is by country, meaning it's alphabetical and for readers looking for an overview of all the missions currently. The other one, being just a list of missions, is intended (though I have yet to do it, since I was saving ugly formatting for last) to be sorted by date. So it will be easier to get an idea of trends, whereas this one is more to get an idea of geography. And since this one is essentially a list of countries by mission, whereas the other one is simply a list of missions, that one will have the mission name on the left, where this one has country name (and it will eventually have end dates too, not just beginnings). So, in the end, because of formatting, there will be considerably less duplication. And I don't really think that a little duplication of content for a different format for navigation is a big deal. It is kind of common too (like the too list of popes FLs, with different presentations). I think this makes sense, right? --Dmcdevit July 5, 2005 09:37 (UTC)

Oh good - as I said above, I thought there was substantial overlap. However, if the proposal is to have two (current missions and old missions) sorted by country and another (all missions) sorted by date, then excellent. You are doing a great job, so I'll leave you to it. -- ALoan (Talk) 5 July 2005 11:54 (UTC)

East Timor

Should UNMISET be listed on this page or is it not suitable? Philip Baird Shearer 2 July 2005 20:30 (UTC)

From the UN website: "UNMISET successfully completed its mandate on 20 May 2005." So that's why, it's not current. --Dmcdevit 2 July 2005 20:37 (UTC)

There is a new mission: Integrated Mission in Timor-Leste (UNMIT). – Zntrip 21:04, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

I'm not sure whether it's a peacekeeping mission or rather only a *police* mission... —Nightstallion (?) 13:18, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

Look here [1], it seems to be a new mission, but no troops have been sent yet. – Zntrip 03:44, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for bringing this to my attention (twice, actually, thanks!), I've amended the respective articles. :) —Nightstallion (?) 17:33, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

ISAF in Afghanistan

Why that isn't classified as a peace-keeping operation? --Pudeo (Talk) 13:08, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

Redundant

O, Dmcdevit Mighty, who goes against the vote at Wikipedia:Featured list removal candidates/List of countries where United Nations peacekeepers are currently deployed, have you even checked where the redirect goes? The other article is 100% the same. Wikipedia does not make new articles by copypasting a part of another article without any changes. I can't understand why anyone would like to keep this article. Every byte is same as in the other one, this has no use. It's easier to edit one article anyway. --Pudeo⺮ 12:42, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

You can see the reason this article was created earlier in this talk page. You don't seem to have bothered, or bothered to actually check it they are "copypasted," as that is false. You haven't offered anything except a handful of people that wanted to delist it from FLC as a reason for removing the article entirely. Incivility isn't helping, nor is calling the article spam. Dmcdevit·t 21:26, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

In fact the two articles were indentical (the main text was exactly the same, except saying "where peace keepers are currently deployed"). Even the images were in exact same positions. True, the templates weren't exactly the same because List of United Nations peacekeeping missions had been updated to include the website, which is better of course. Would you like to create List of countries where United Nations peacekeepers were deployed? I wouldn't. That information can be found in the main article, there's no point creating new lists for subsections like that (unless it grows really big). --Pudeo⺮ 09:39, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

You mean List of countries where UN peacekeepers were deployed? That was the original article, but I suppose you didn't bother to actually read the short discussion above like I pointed out. Again, please actually look at things before you make these claims that are patently false, and demonstrably so. One is a list of missions by date, and another is a list of countries alphabetically. I find it ironic that I made both these lists, (this one first, mind you) by recommendation after it went to FLC, and now I am being accused of "creating new lists for subsections." I'm sure there is something useful you could be writing about (most of those missions are stubs!) to help the project, rather than needlessly debating this. Dmcdevit·t 22:34, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

Maybe maybe, but what's exactly the problem with the redirect as it redirects to the right subsection? It has the same template, same information. I just don't get the splitting of this. --Pudeo⺮ 20:10, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

That's hardly an argument for removing it. It has struck myself and others as valuable to have a list of countries where there are peacekeepers operating currently, as well as the general list with all historical missions. I'm not sure how else to put it. Dmcdevit·t 02:40, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

Well yay then, +1 article count for Wikipedia. You win, practicality loses. --Pudeo⺮ 22:07, 13 April 2008 (UTC)