Talk:Shanghai Cooperation Organisation

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Image:Fairytale_browser.png

This article is within the scope of the Organizations WikiProject, a collaborative effort to improve Wikipedia's coverage of organizations. We are developing a framework that will sort every category by location, field, ideology, and type. We need a few more people to help coordinate this ambitious project. If you have any technical experience with templates, or just have an interest in the topic, add your name, and check out the talk page to get involved.


This article is part of WikiProject China, a project to improve all China-related articles. If you would like to help improve this and other China-related articles, please join the project. All interested editors are welcome.
??? This article has not yet received a rating on the quality scale.

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Shanghai Cooperation Organisation article.
This is not a forum for general discussion about the article's subject.

Article policies
Please help improve this article or section by expanding it.
Further information might be found on the talk page or at requests for expansion.
This article has been tagged since January 2007.

The last paragraph seems to need some editing, it doesn't seem to represent a NPOV.

Contents

[edit] Name

The article should be moved to Shanghai Cooperation Organisation, since this is the official translation. See www.sectsco.org.

[edit] History section

This sentence is unclear. (it's from the history section):

In July 2005, after the war in Afghanistan and Iraq saw a semi-permanent troop presence of U.S. forces in Uzbekistan, Tajikistan and Kyrgyzstan, the SCO meeting at its summit in Astana, Kazakhstan, urged them to set a timetable for withdrawing their troops from member states.

I am guessing that it is supposed to mean:

In July 2005, after the war in Afghanistan and Iraq, Uzbekistan, Tajikistan and Kyrgyzstan saw a semi-permanent troop presence of U.S. forces in in their countries. At the SCO summit metting in Astana, Kazakhstan, urged the U.S. to set a timetable for withdrawing their troops from member states.

It's not much better but it makes the unamed "them" clear. CambridgeBayWeather 07:45, 7 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Role and Organization section

I would like to see more information about this sentence: "...this aim is frustrated by the artificial nationalism of the five main ex-soviet Central Asian states." Sounds hostile and/or biased and needs clarification.

[edit] Taiwan?

The highlighted map of member countries includes Taiwan but I doubt the signatory states have any meaningful relations with Taiwan's government or military let alone cooperation as defined in the treaty. This should probably be changed. Smoove K 06:53, 25 October 2005 (UTC)

Hmmmm. Probably, this has to do with the fact that Taiwan is considered part of China, as far as China is concerned at least. The map is probably intended to list "all of china". But you're right, this should be amended. Should we shade Taiwan, or just remove it? The Minister of War 09:27, 25 October 2005 (UTC)
I'm not sure without actually knowing the depth of the organization. If the member states agree in assisting China in defending Taiwan should it be attacked for some reason, or if there is some other similar understanding or connection (even without Taiwan's approval), I could see the island becoming shaded. Otherwise, if there is no de facto relationship, it should probably not be indicated at all. Smoove K 04:23, 26 October 2005 (UTC)
China defending Taiwan? That'd be the day!
I've checked it out a bit, and it seems the SCO supports China's claim for Taiwan; the SCO logo also incorporates Taiwan. As such, a version of the map with or without Taiwan could be considered POV on that topic. I'd say we have to shade it, though i dont really know how. The Minister of War 11:20, 26 October 2005 (UTC)
I'd say that actually colouring Taiwan would be POV. Wikipedia is supposed to represent the facts, and the fact here is that Taiwan has no bilateral relations with the SCO. Wikipedia should not represent the viewpoint of China in this manner, that would definitely make it POV. Joffeloff 00:43, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
I agree with Joffeloff that Wiki presents facts. But i think the fact here is that though Taiwan has no relations with SCO, it is not recognised by any of its members. Taiwan is considered by them to be a part of PRC. For example, South Ossetia formaly is within Georgia, but 95% of its population are Russian citizens, and they obey Russia's laws, not Georgia's. But on the map of GUAM (where Georgia is a member) South Osseita is included in that block.
Well, the logo of the SCO shows Taiwan, and so their official view of this is quite well documented. I added a random sentence under 'relations with the west', I just couldn't figure a better place to put it. Joffeloff 11:36, 15 June 2006 (UTC)
I think Taiwan/ROC should be removed from the map, but not the logo. the SCO can draw their logo however they like, but Wikipedia is here to present the facts, and Taiwan is a de facto independent nation and not part of the SCO. In the event that the PRC-ROC unification become a reality, we'd still have to look at the unification arrangement to determine if Taiwan can be added. For example, if Taiwan becomes a PRC province under direct control by the PRC government, then yes, add Taiwan to the map. But if the "One China" turns into something like a loose Commonwealth of equal states/partners, with PRC as a SCO member but not ROC, then Taiwan should still be excluded from the SCO map. -- Adeptitus 21:32, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

I'd say it shouldn't be shaded in the map at all. —Nightstallion (?) 03:25, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] New Members

I just read that the SCO just decided to admit Mongolia, India, Pakistan, and Iran, so this should be updated pronto!Getagrip123 12:54, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

Added a line of text, updated the pic, and removed the 'possible future members' section. ArmanJan

I've read that too. http://www.atimes.com/atimes/China/HD18Ad02.html (source - 18 April 2006) and Belarus is gaining observer status http://www.atimes.com/atimes/Central_Asia/HD27Ag01.html (source - 27 April 2006)


I don't think they are members YET. But there is an inconsistency. It first says "All four nations have applied for full membership to the organization." then "So far India has not made an official membership application, but has unofficially made its interest in joining known." Which is it?

[edit] I am sorry, but the SCO is not a military organization

The SCO is not a military organization and they have gone out of their way to stress this. This said it is a security organization, which is not exactly military, but linked to military applications. The SCO however has a clause where military cooperation is promoted in fighting, seperatists, extremistis, and terrorists. 69.196.164.190

Some pictures of the SCO 2006 Summit will help build this article up. I would like to help with this article. 69.196.164.190

[edit] SCO terror list

Does anyone know where I can find the list of organizations banned by the SCO as terrorist organizations? I have looked and looked and I cannot find the list. KazakhPol 00:54, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Turkmenistan

Does anyone know if there have been suggestions that Turkmenistan should/will join? --Dpr 19:51, 3 April 2007 (UTC)