Talk:United Nations/Archive 7

Criticism
All three categories under Criticism and Controversies (Accusations of excessive attention given to the Arab-Israeli conflict, Accusations of antisemitism, Accusations of support for terrorism under the guise of "national liberation" ) deal with the same issue. They should be merged into one.VR talk 17:20, 16 September 2009 (UTC)
 * I kind of like them divided. It makes it easier to navigate and breaks up the article a little so its more easy on the eyes.  --GHcool (talk) 18:16, 16 September 2009 (UTC)
 * A section title like Accusations of support for terrorism under the guise of "national liberation" is inappropriate per undue weight and synth policies (I mean, this phrase appears nowhere on the internet other than in this article). Agree with Vice we need to merge and compact the three Criticism and Controversies categories, can you please do this GHCool? RomaC (talk) 02:12, 17 September 2009 (UTC)
 * I changed the name to "Accusations of support for terrorism under the pretense of 'national liberation.'" I hope this is acceptable. --GHcool (talk) 02:53, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

Dershowitz - "The Case for Peace"
This can't be used as a reliable source for Israel-related matters, without the caveat "Dershowitz claims that...". To quote the cover blurb - "Dershowitz deconstructs the smear tactics used by Israel-haters and shows how this kind of anti-Israel McCarthyism is aimed at scuttling any real chance of peace." It's not an NPOV source ... as for the sentence I just removed, if the claim is correct, there must be a better more neutral source to back up the statement. Black Kite 19:15, 16 September 2009 (UTC)
 * I restored and added a verification tag. --GHcool (talk) 21:34, 16 September 2009 (UTC)
 * GHcool, please do not unilaterally remove a tag, and also mind the three-revert WP:3R rule. Would much prefer to work with you and not against you, respectfully. RomaC (talk) 02:34, 17 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Whoops. I appologize.  I didn't realize that I had removed the tag.  It was an accident.  --GHcool (talk) 02:53, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

United Nations vs Criticism of the United Nations : a clear example of content forking
The page Criticism of the United Nations was created three weeks ago by ADM. The only discussion on this subject in this talk page is two months old and the opinions were negative. Why then was the page split? Why was there no discussion before? This split is a clear example of content forking and, therefore, a violation of the sacrosanct NPOV policy at Wikipedia. Please discuss this split here. Emmanuelm (talk) 12:12, 11 October 2009 (UTC)
 * This article should be deleted, we don't need yet another "criticism of" article on Wikipedia. It's only going to attract all the POV pushers around here. Also whoever created the article reinserted the controversial "comparison of major conflicts" table, which was deleted from here for being original research. Laurent (talk) 12:30, 11 October 2009 (UTC)


 * I oppose any merge or deletion, because although the United Nations is an important global institution, it does not satisfy the criteria of a State, but does get criticized by most countries as if it were a real state. See for example criticism of the Roman Catholic Church : the Catholic Church is a quasi-State institution that gets criticized in the same way that the United Nations is criticized. ADM (talk) 12:52, 11 October 2009 (UTC)


 * ADM, WP:NPOV and content forking apply to the whole of Wikipedia. NPOV is one of the five pillars of Wikipedia, and the interdiction of content forking is part of the NPOV policy. From WP:FORK:"The creator of the new article may be sincerely convinced that there is so much information about a certain aspect of a subject that it justifies a separate article. Any daughter article that deals with opinions about the subject of parent article must include suitably-weighted positive and negative opinions, and/or rebuttals, if available, and the original article should contain a neutral summary of the split article. There is currently no consensus whether a 'Criticism of...' article is always a POV fork, but it is a common fault of many articles. If possible, refrain from using 'criticism' and instead use neutral terms such as 'perception' or 'reception'; if the word 'criticism' must be used, make sure that such criticism considers both the merits and faults, and is not entirely negative (consider what would happen if a 'Praise of...' article was created instead)."
 * I think there is no need to split this 77Kb UN article. Your Criticism article is, in my opinion, a content fork and must be deleted, with its content reinserted in this UN article. I am not discussing the actual content of your article but the fact that, as it stands right now, the UN article conveys the impression that the critics are minor and marginal, which is totally false. Emmanuelm (talk) 21:15, 11 October 2009 (UTC)


 * That's your POV, that the criticisms are not marginal. But like you said, we need to keep a NPOV policy. If the criticisms are not marginal, then they are probably notable in an encyclopedic sense, and should consequently be attributed their own entry, such as criticisms of Communist party rule for example. As I understand it, any time criticism becomes a major aspect rather than a minor aspect of an article, there is a legitimate possibility of cutting the article's content in order to include it in the category:criticisms. ADM (talk) 21:30, 11 October 2009 (UTC)


 * ADM, you are not arguing with me, you are arguing with WP policy. Any article starting with "Criticism of..." or "Praise of..." will always be perceived as POV. See the essay Criticism. The fact that several such articles exist does not invalidate the policy. Furthermore, the degree of controversy is no obstacle to the NPOV style. A good example of how it's done is George W. Bush, the prototype of a controversial figure. Note, in particular, how the subsections are divided in sub-articles with neutral titles, e.g. "Foreign Policy", with praises & criticisms side-by-side in each. The link Criticism of George W. Bush is re-directed to Public image of George W. Bush. Get it?
 * I also want to remind you that this UN article already has several sub-articles with neutral names, e.g. United Nations Security Council and United Nations Human Rights Council. Your "Criticism" article belongs nowhere here. Please delete it. Emmanuelm (talk) 13:00, 12 October 2009 (UTC)


 * See criticism of Franklin D. Roosevelt, criticism of Pope John Paul II, Christopher Hitchens' critiques of specific individuals and criticism of Amnesty International, which tend to invalidate your arguments. ADM (talk) 18:29, 12 October 2009 (UTC)


 * ADM, for the second time, it is not my argument. Emmanuelm (talk) 02:25, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

It is a clear example of content forking with the purpose of creating a WP:COATRACK for both original research, and undue weight to minority opinions. Clear WP:POVFORK imo. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 20:20, 8 November 2009 (UTC)


 * I agree that it is almost impossible to have an article on criticism of the United Nations that complies with WP:NPOV. The title and scope of an article, sub-article, or section on this should allow and encourage information on positive, negative and neutral attitudes toward the United Nations (preferably backed up by opinion research, so that we know whether we are talking about the views of half a billion people or two activists). I can, however, see an argument for a separate article (perhaps entitled Attitudes toward the United Nations.This is because such a discussion is not about the United Nations but about people's attitudes. The UN has a history; it has a general assembly, it has policies; but it does not have other people's attitudes toward it. Stretching things a bit, it may be possible to regard attitudes toward the UN as belonging to the UN, but it would be equally possible to regard attitudes toward the UN as a subdivision of Attitudes to international and supranational organizations. Such an article could have sections and/or sub-articles on Attitudes toward the United Nations, Attitudes towards NATO, Attitudes towards the EU, etc. We might even find some research establishing some sort of correlation. --Boson (talk) 22:54, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

UN Budget
In a twenty minute search of the UN website and others, I am unable to find any sort of unified budget - snippets here, snippets there. Mostly complaints if insufficient funding. I am very interested to see how efficiently funds are being spent.

In light of all the withheld dues from major members, perhaps there is some complaint about how money is spent, among other things.

Perhaps someone will have better luck than I. --Tobyw (talk) 14:25, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

Editprotected
, The page on the united nations are missing some information. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kuobob (talk • contribs) 11:11, 13 December 2009


 * Please be more specific. What do you want to be changed in the article?  Ilyushka88  Talk to me 16:07, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

Permanent Representative of France
Who was the PR of France in ~1980? For that matter, who was the ambassador of France to the United States? Oc t ane  [ improve me ] 04:08, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

entry to the UN
a country becomes member of the United Nations after a vote in the SC or the GA? what are the majorities necessary?

— Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.74.255.190 (talk) 11:47, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

Atlantic Chart, Declaration by United Nations
in HISTORY, "26 governments signed NOT the Atlantic Charter" but Declaration by United Nations —Preceding unsigned comment added by Wilqsm (talk • contribs) 19:35, 27 January 2010


 * Red question icon with gradient background.svg Not done: please be more specific about what needs to be changed. I am unsure of what needs to be changed. -- The New  Mikemoral  ♪♫ 21:24, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

The sentence: "The term was first officially used on January 1, 1942 when 26 governments signed the Atlantic Charter, pledging to continue the war effort". Was August 14, 1941 not the first time? http://www.un-documents.net/dec-un.htm And shouldn't we name it Declaration by United Nations? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Wilqsm (talk • contribs) 22:01, 27 January 2010

UN 6th Committee
There is a need to fix the name, and seriously expand on this article. Is there an expert around? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Nations_Sixth_Committee_on_Aggression --Zakouma (talk) 08:40, 1 July 2009 (UTC)


 * I´m trying to fix it. To start with, I changed the tittle to the more accurate: United Nations General Assembly Sixth Committee (Legal) --Bonifacius 15:35, 2 February 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by BonifaciusVIII (talk • contribs)

charter for nature
where is the section for that!?!?!?!?!? where?!?!?!?!? (i suspect antisea shepherd involvement) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.115.204.217 (talk) 00:18, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

Criticism of the United Nations -- take two
Since our last discussion of the creation of the article Criticism of the United Nations, WP has hardened its position on such articles. From Wikipedia:Criticism, Don't make articles entirely devoted to criticism of a topic that has or should have its own Wikipedia article. I say this is clear and simple support for removing this content fork and inserting all its content back into United Nations. Emmanuelm (talk) 14:10, 12 April 2010 (UTC)


 * WP:Criticism is an essay, not a policy or guideline. Criticism only articles are useful as quick references when someone wants to delve into a topic's controversies.  I don't feel strongly about the UN, but it's nice to know why some people hate it.  I oppose deletion and merging of this article.  Azure Fury   (talk | contribs) 17:28, 12 April 2010 (UTC)


 * It's an essay, but it's a long-standing one and it's consistent with WP:NPOV, WP:NOT and other important policies and guidelines (in particular WP:CFORK) even if it's not a policy in and of itself. I have some fairly strong opinions on this type of article, though, so take my opinion with a grain of salt.  SDY (talk) 06:36, 13 April 2010 (UTC)


 * If it was "consistent with WP:NPOV, and WP:NOT" it would be a policy/guideline :p. Essays stay essays because they don't have the consensus of the community.  Azure Fury   (talk | contribs) 07:41, 13 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Could you please identify where it is inconsistent? WP:CREEP, another essay you'll probably dismiss, notes that more and more rules are bad for the project.  Since the criticism essay doesn't introduce any new rules, it doesn't have to be a rule in and of itself.  The "rule" here is WP:CFORK.  Just as a question, how do you have a neutral article dedicated to negative views?  SDY (talk) 15:46, 13 April 2010 (UTC)


 * If you want to make WP:criticism into an actionable policy, then start a discussion there, or at Village_pump_(policy). Meanwhile, comments at WP:criticism can be disregarded.  Criticism of the United Nations does not cover exactly the same topic as United Nations, hence WP:CFORK does not apply.  If you want to start a crusade against "Criticisms of" articles, then good luck, because there are quite a few on Wikipedia.  Azure Fury   (talk | contribs) 17:24, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

Policy is ultimately a question of "is this a good idea?" and not strict obedience to a law. Ultimately, I think that separate criticism articles are a bad idea: from one balanced article they create two biased articles, one with hidden criticism and the other a one-sided argument. Sure, other stuff exists, and if I'm going on a crusade against criticism articles this isn't a 'start' since I've already abolished the worst I'd seen, where the criticism article was longer than the main article. Ultimately, I am not that invested in the topic and I have no intention of getting involved, just stating an opinion. SDY (talk) 19:43, 13 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Personally, I come to wiki exactly for all the controversy/criticism articles. IMO you're more likely to find balanced articles here than in the mainstream news, not because of the lack of bias in the editors, but balance of bias in the editors.  I think a better solution to deleting Criticism of the United Nations would be to add responses to the criticisms, or counter-criticisms.  I hold WP:PRESERVE higher than WP:NPOV (and child policies/guidelines).  Azure Fury   (talk | contribs) 21:47, 13 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Azure, I also am a big fan of preserving what's written. No one is talking about erasing the contents of the criticism article. We are talking about integrating it into this United Nations article or, better yet, into the articles about specific U.N. bodies. Thus, praises and criticisms will, once again, be reunited. That's what NPOV is all about.
 * From the discussion above, I say you are alone arguing against that. Emmanuelm (talk) 00:50, 14 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Me alone? Three people have responded.  I don't see how you could break that into two groups without having one group consisting of one.  Was that an attempt to guilt me into a consensus?  I am well aware of what we're talking about.  I'm well aware of policy.  And I don't see any good reason to merge or delete except that a few editors don't like criticisms of the UN.  Azure Fury   (talk | contribs) 02:00, 14 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Just as an off-hand comment, you might want to read this section of the NPOV policy. Is criticism of the UN really a distinct subject from overall coverage of the UN?  SDY (talk) 01:59, 15 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Related but distinct, as the Creationism-evolution controversy example in that section. You could also consider it a Spin-off.  You think it's a content fork because the article is biased.  This does not strictly meet the definition of a content fork as the articles do not cover the same topic.  It's just another biased article, and the solution is to balance it, not merge it.  Azure Fury   (talk | contribs) 04:14, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

Creationism-evolution controversy is a reasonable article, but a "criticism of evolution" article would be inappropriate. The argument between creationism and evolution is a topic unto itself, with a lot of very specific history that deals with the interactions between the two schools of thought.

An article on protests against UN actions and rulings would be acceptable, because it's a subset of history: facts. The "criticism" is opinion. If there are books that are critical of the UN summarizing their content is a fact, not an opinion. Articles dedicated to criticism are opinion, and that's not what this project is about. SDY (talk) 05:39, 15 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Your argument ignores the existence of every "Criticism of" article on wikipedia. Again, WP:CRITICISM is not a policy.  Azure Fury   (talk | contribs) 06:14, 15 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Try looking at Criticism of George W. Bush or Criticism of Bill O'Reilly. Look at the edit histories.  "Criticism" articles have been merged with main articles many times in the past, so they are not automatically appropriate.  Policy also does not say that these kinds of articles are appropriate, and I'd like to see any long-standing essay, guideline, or policy that endorses the creation of dedicated criticism articles.  SDY (talk) 06:28, 15 April 2010 (UTC)


 * WP:PRESERVE. It is assumed appropriate until said otherwise.  Further, the examples you've given fall under the WP:BLP policy which is much stricter.  Technically, WP:BLP trumps WP:CENSOR, so this is not a good example.  Why don't you nominate the article for deletion if you feel so strongly about it?  We can get a formal process started here and resolve this.  Azure Fury   (talk | contribs) 17:19, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

Just wanted to throw in an outside opinion to possibly restart the conversation. I don't have much of an opinion or background knowledge in this area, and just wanted to recommend some general guidelines for consideration.

As to the naming of the section or article, perhaps it could be renamed Public reception to the United Nations, Viewpoints on the United Nations, Reactions to the United Nations, etc. A wider set of opinions could be provided in the article in proportion to their coverage in reliable sources. The material could be tagged until there was a consensus that the material was fairly balanced in whatever material was perceived to be lacking.

As to the question of whether to give all of this material its own article or just a section, this might best be determined by whether the material is from a reliable source, whether the material is directly relevant to the article and its subject, and by whether the material is historically significant (would a general reader care about said material in 5-10 years?). The burden would be on demonstrating reliability, relevance, and historical significance if the material were to have its own article.--134.68.140.121 (talk) 18:04, 15 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Thanks for your response. The biggest issue here is whether or not an article entirely devoted to criticisms of the United Nations can be "neutral" as required by our neutral point of view policy.  Indeed, some editors have recommended that all criticisms about a subject be directly in the subject's article.  This is not a policy, however.  As I've said, I prefer the organizational advantages of finding every criticism in the same place.  I already know what the UN is, and I'm not interested in its history.  I looked for that article because I understand that some people really do despise the UN, and I wanted to know why.  I think most large organizations have an analogous article, such as Criticism of the United States which redirects to Anti-Americanism (this would support a renaming of the article), or Criticism of Islam, etc.  The article as it stands right now may very well be biased.  I think the solution is to balance the views, rather than move them.  Azure Fury   (talk | contribs) 19:39, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

WP:PRESERVE is a canard. No one's suggesting deleting the information, just moving it to a more appropriate framework. A "reception" or "controversies" article is better structured to deal with multiple points of view on the topic, not just the whining and retorts expected in a criticism article. SDY (talk) 23:20, 15 April 2010 (UTC)


 * All arguments aside, here's a proposal for what to do with the criticism article that satisfies WP:PRESERVE as well as WP:CRITICISM. SDY (talk) 23:33, 15 April 2010 (UTC)


 * The debate seems to have moved to the other talk page. (can we call that a talk fork?) Emmanuelm (talk) 12:04, 17 April 2010 (UTC)

Criticism section gone, washed, blotted out etc
Who did it? what interest there was to erase it? a lot of groups have problems with the UN and the section has existed prior... who decided that it's non notable?? 79.182.50.19 (talk) 10:20, 17 April 2010 (UTC)
 * The section has been merged with the rest of the article per WP:NPOV. Laurent (talk) 11:06, 17 April 2010 (UTC)
 * No Laurent, it has been moved to a separate article, Criticism of the United Nations. This move is hotly debated in the topic above this one. Emmanuelm (talk) 11:54, 17 April 2010 (UTC)
 * This is horrible, the section has been effectively hidden79.180.40.212 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 03:55, 19 May 2010 (UTC).

HYPERLINK
IN THE SECRATARIAT COLOUMN, AUSTRIA AND JAPAN ARE NOT HYPERLINKED. PLEASE CHECK IT.

SONI (talk) 14:15, 8 May 2010 (UTC) 14:15, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

Spelling Error
Spelling Error under the map of UN member states. "Areas" has an ('s) where it should be on government('s) ....nor does it accurately reflect which areas's government have UN representation

Spelling Error in the last sentence of the HISTORY section. Defense is mispelled "defence." Respect kidddd.


 * If you find spelling mistakes, just correct them, don't tell us about them. "Defence" is the correct spelling, "defense" is American. McLerristarr (Mclay1) (talk) 04:19, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

Map
The map of the world that shows members of the UN has a problem. It shows Taiwan, which clearly isn't in the UN, as being part of the UN.Handbook3 (talk) 01:47, 14 February 2010 (UTC)


 * it's because it's claimed by china. and no one will aginst the commy, becuase no one has any guts since the end of the cold war. and because we bu almost everything from china. ugh, i hate them. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.115.204.217 (talk) 00:24, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

Alaska also isn't colored in on the map. 98.240.187.233 (talk) 23:19, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

citation needed?

 * Conceivably, the one state, one vote power structure could enable states comprising just eight percent of the

world population to pass a resolution by a two-thirds vote.[citation needed]

Why is there a citation needed for this statement? Everybody can do the math for themselves based on the internal link to List of United Nations member states and List of countries by population (ok, someone should maybe do the math first :)). (Under the assumption that all nations are member states, a 2/3 majority needs a to be accepted by 2/3 of 223 countries which is (rounded off) 149. Adding up the populations of the top-(223-149=74) countries yields the percentage of people that don't agree. When I quickly add up all countries with more than 1% of world population and distribute the other countries in bins of 0.1% width and multiply the number by the central value of their bin I find 93.15%, which is more or less what is stated in the article).

--Tampert (talk) 14:32, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

Edit request from ChrisDaniel58, 14 June 2010
under history, it says the Atlantic Charter was signed on january 1, 1942. that's wrong. the AC was signed in June 1941. the document signed on january 1 1942 was the Declaration by United Nations. (ChrisDaniel58 (talk) 01:46, 14 June 2010 (UTC))

ChrisDaniel58 (talk) 01:46, 14 June 2010 (UTC)


 * Until we have a source for this, there is not a need to change the article. Please let us know when you have a good source, and we will make the change.


 * Avicenna sis @ 05:01, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

Pending changes
This article is one of a number selected for the early stage of the trial of the Pending Changes system on the English language Wikipedia. All the articles listed at Pending changes/Queue  are being considered for level 1 pending changes protection.

The following request appears on that page:

Comments on the suitability of theis page for "Pending changes" would be appreciated.

Please update the Queue page as appropriate.

Note that I am not involved in this project any much more than any other editor, just posting these notes since it is quite a big change, potentially

Regards, Rich Farmbrough, 00:29, 17 June 2010 (UTC).

Defamation of religions and the United Nations
Hi everybody. This is a just quick heads up about the Defamation of religions and the United Nations article (recently renamed from Blasphemy and the United Nations). --DanielRigal (talk) 12:10, 19 June 2010 (UTC)
 * It is up for AfD at Articles for deletion/Blasphemy and the United Nations. You might wish to express an opinion.
 * The article is well linked from articles related to blasphemy but poorly linked to UN related articles. If it survives AfD, the article will need improvement and integration with other UN related articles.

Is there a template for the number of UN members
There are articles where we mention how many members of the UN there are. I was thinking that all those articles would need to be individually edited if a new UN member joins (and so the number of UN members changes). A new UN member seems to join every other year...so I was wondering is there a Template that we could use that automatically would update if a new UN member joned? What I had in mind was something like this (which concerns the number of states that recognise Kosovo - which also changes from time to time): 69

''This template shows the current number of United Nations member states that recognize the Republic of Kosovo as an independent state. The purpose of this template is to simultaneously update all the articles that show the number of recognition by UN member states. Please make sure that this template is in sync with the sourced and verifiable additions to International recognition of Kosovo.''

Usage
Articles using the template: Special:Whatlinkshere/Template:Kosovorecognition

Category:Kosovo id:Templat:Kosovorecognition pt:Predefinição:Kosovorecognition

— Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.203.69.86 (talk) 20:35, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

Members' map
Andorra is not represented on the Members' Map (I know it can be seen upon close inspection, but other similarly sized nations are repsented with ether a blue or grey dot, so why not Andorra)? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.107.37.245 (talk) 13:07, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

"Animation in Membership area"
Alaska does not appear to be blue in the animation of member states. 72.165.161.50 (talk) 18:24, 18 August 2010 (UTC)sk

Portuguese as an official language
Why is Portuguese used in the introduction and the info box as though it were an official language of the UN (or as otherwise having some special status)? A search revealed that this has never been discussed. (The word "Portuguese" returned no results in an archive search.) I think it should be removed unless its presence, as well as a rationale for excluding other languages, can be presented. -Do c <font color="#a00040">t <font color="#0000a0">orW  16:32, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

Unlock
Unlock the page now! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.82.3.193 (talk) 11:19, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

Edit request from Joachim2222, 6 October 2010
==External links==


 * Publications on United Nations

Joachim2222 (talk) 14:21, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

Not done: That seems to be a self-published site and doesn't satisfy the guidelines for external links. Celestra (talk) 15:17, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

“This map does not represent the view of…”
Whose view is represented by the map in the infobox? —Altales Teriadem (talk) 23:43, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

PEACE
Peace keeping

Indian Army T-72 tanks with UN markings as part of Operation CONTINUE HOPE. India is regular contributor to United Nations Peacekeeping mission and were other peacekeeping missions.The troop-contributing to UN peacekeeping operations as of March 2007 were 9,471.[2] It also suffered the death of 127 soldiers, who died while serving on peacekeeping missions.[3] India also provided army contingent for performing peacekeeping operations in Sri Lanka between 1987 and 1990 as Indian Peace Keeping Force and In November 1988, India also helped restore government of Maumoon Abdul Gayoom in Maldives under Operation Cactus. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 115.108.123.206 (talk) 12:44, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

India, the prospective permanent UN SC member.
I think when the UN formed, the contemporary states of CN, FR, GB, RU, & US controlled most of the world's land area, population, & GDP, so they were reasonable choices for the permanent SC members. This is no longer true. FR & GB would not even fit in such a category today. I believe this is why IN & JP have announced plans to become permanent members as they are, respectively, the second most populous nation and the one with the second highest GDP. Similarly, CA is the second largest one in land area, not to mention EU. Interestingly, GB has recently supported IN's claim among others in. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Thecurran (talk • contribs) 21:02, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Its now acknowledged by almost all great powers ,the India's position in world's economy and polity. India is a worthed representative from Asia.

India's application to the security council is completely opposed by Pakistan and Bangladesh, among other nations. Although its application has the support of many UN nations, major opposition countries such as Pakistan and Bangladesh (which constitutes a significant population in the region bordering the applicant country) prove to be major roadblocks. All five security council nations show some degree of approval for India's application, but disagree upon whether it should receive veto power or not. For instance, RU backs veto power for India to act as a counterweight against CN (although CN has only used its veto power 6 times and used in conjunction with RU) while the US publicly rejects the application for reasons unstated but has said that it supports India in private during a visit by George W. Bush in 2006. CN shows support for India's bid with the exception of the veto power. FR and GB show full support. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.84.46.109 (talk) 00:06, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

The status of Japan is currently being blocked by China, but that could change in the future, considering the global economic torrent is in full motion. Also note that there has been some talk about Germany becoming a permanent member as well. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Gizziiusa (talk • contribs) 11:41, 2 September 2010 (UTC)


 * I can see what you mean by France but not UK, the Commonwealth of Nations is still huge. It isn't imperial anymore but it is a commonwealth nontheless which is stronger than any treaty. --Teacherbrock (talk) 14:48, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

India should definitely be a permanent member of the security council.Countries such as Russia do not hold much power in today's world even thought it may have been a superpower when it joined the UN.It is just the militarily threat posed by Russia, which is feared by other countries which has made it secure a seat in the so called security council.Countries such as China may be powerful but they try to exert it on another countries such as India,by infiltrating its borders and other countries such as Taiwan which it consistently threatens to not call itself an autonomous state and classifies it a rogue state of the Peoples Republic of China.Countries which hold revelance in todays world are the ones who should hold power in the security council. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 120.56.172.164 (talk) 14:28, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

If anyone was confused by the reference to CA, it means Canada, not California. Do not post comments that California is not a country.71.109.150.229 (talk) 06:48, 18 December 2010 (UTC)

List of non-members
Since based on the map the UN comprises pretty much all of the land mass of the planet, it would seem logical to include a list of non-member countries/areas/etc. From what I can see, Antarctica and Western Sahara would be good starters for the list. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Gizziiusa (talk • contribs) 11:48, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

Hopefully there will be a global opposition. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.59.18.194 (talk) 12:49, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

Antarctica is not a non-member country; it is not a country at all.

It is also questionable whether it is truly "land mass", since most of it is under ice (frozen water) and we do not count rock under water (melted ice) as "land".71.109.150.229 (talk) 06:46, 18 December 2010 (UTC)

Tucking in\hiding the critisicm\controversy section
Very strange, given the organization has been and is still widely criticized for various problems and shortcomings. 109.65.16.62 (talk) 20:54, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

Edit request from 71.109.150.229, 18 December 2010
Please change

to

because 1) I am concerned that someone might receive one of the scam e-mails and look at this article to see if the "United Nations" is a legitimate organization or a fraud and not think to check whether the e-mail really came from the UN or is fake. 2) The band and album are also called United Nations, are there is no "United Nations" disambiguation page. 71.109.150.229 (talk) 06:34, 18 December 2010 (UTC)

71.109.150.229 (talk) 06:34, 18 December 2010 (UTC)


 * Yellow check.svg Partly done: (1) Scam emails purport to come from all kinds of legitimate organisations, from banks to credit card companies to websites. So the hatnote your proposing could be added to all kinds of Wikipedia articles.  I think if someone's suspicious enough to check that the organisation exists they should be suspicious enough to check whether there's any evidence the email comes from them.  (2) UN (disambiguation) lists several things called "United Nations".  Accordingly I've changed the hatnote to:


 * Thanks, Adrian J. Hunter(talk•contribs) 15:33, 18 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Come to think of it, it's not strictly true that "United Nations" redirects here, as there's no redirect involved. So I've changed it to:


 * Adrian J. Hunter(talk•contribs) 15:39, 18 December 2010 (UTC)

Using facts or opinions in the article lead regarding discussion of the UN's ability to prevent international war?
-- (RFC Template added by User: harej  at 03:43, 19 January 2011) --

It's a fact that the UN was established with the intention of achieving world peace. It's a fact that since its inception, it has not achieved this. Its a fact that since its inception there have been no full-scale conflicts between any two major world powers. It is also a fact that the UN does not yet have the necessary authority or resources to prevent all international conflicts. These are not opinions, but facts. I hope you don't mind me simply stating the obvious in the intro. It seems to me that unless these types of considerations are allowed to be openly noted and debated, the UN will remain only semi-capable of preventing war, as is now the case. Scott P. (talk) 17:46, 13 January 2011 (UTC)


 * Giving our opinion that the UN does not work, does not make it a notable or factual.


 * "...its available authority and resources do not enable it to fully accomplish this mandate."  Need a source for that.


 * "Such unanimity on the Security Council regarding the authorization of armed UN enforcement actions has not been reached in time to prevent the outbreak of numerous international wars since the UN's formation." Also a POV not factual.


 * CanadianLinuxUser (talk) 18:14, 13 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia lists the outbreak of approximately 50 international wars since 1945. It seems to me that the a typical reader would not question the existence of these many wars since the inception of the UN and would not need to see documentation for this fact.  Scott P. (talk) 18:19, 13 January 2011 (UTC)
 * 50 international wars.... Fact.... Blame it on the action or inaction of the UN.... POV. CanadianLinuxUser (talk) 18:20, 13 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Fact: the UN has not prevented the wars that its charter mandates as its responsibility to prevent. POV: It's all the UN's fault.  The article states the fact.  You are making the assignment of blame, no?  Scott P. (talk) 18:25, 13 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Until such facts can be openly admitted to and discussed, such wars will necessarily continue indefinately, no? Scott P. (talk) 18:30, 13 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Blogs, bulletins boards are wonderfull places to discuss this POV. Wikipedia is not such a place WP:SOAP. CanadianLinuxUser (talk) 18:45, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia is a place to note the fact that the UN has not fulfilled its charter mandate to prevent all wars. Blogs are a wonderful place to discuss why. You are trying to make this into a forum about whose fault this is. I'm merely stating this fact. Scott P. (talk) 18:49, 13 January 2011 (UTC)
 * We have now each reverted 3 times. Please submit this as an RFC before making this into an edit war. Scott P. (talk) 18:54, 13 January 2011 (UTC)


 * Who says the UN has not fulfilled its charter... you are... You MUST cite a reliable source to justify such a statement. CanadianLinuxUser (talk) 18:57, 13 January 2011 (UTC)
 * All of this seems out of place in the lead of the article. Facts about the apparent effectiveness of the organization tread on a POV area, but may be appropriate in a criticism section if properly sourced.  Sea photo <sup style="color:#3333cc;">Talk  19:40, 13 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Implying that the UN is inefficient because there have been many wars since its creation is a synthesis. In fact, the last time someone tried to add this POV to the article it ended up as an example of what not to do at WP:SYNTHESIS (see the first example). Laurent (talk) 04:44, 19 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Laurent/WikiLaurent and harej, I'm not exactly certain if you two might understand that this discussion here was about the article lead, for which all editors who posted in this talk section prior to the 19th are currently in agreement (to the best of my knowledge.)  If either of you two still might have concerns about whether or not the cite referring to president Bush's questioning of the relevance of the UN should be permitted in this article, or if either of you might want to place an RFC regarding this question, perhaps the following talk section would be a better place to post your apparent concerns about this. If there might still be some other specific text in the current article lead that you still find to be "implying that the UN is inefficient", could you please be more specific and explain here, to which text in the article lead you are referring?  Thanks, Scott P. (talk) 09:41, 19 January 2011 (UTC)
 * If you can find reliable sources, feel free to include this information. Otherwise, it is a mess of WP:SYNTH and WP:RGW. Simple, really. Lothar von Richthofen (talk) 10:47, 21 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Something worth considering is, what aspects of the UN are most frequently described in the sources, not which ones we'd prefer to emphasize. However, WP:LEAD does say that e.g. significant controversies should be mentioned so to the extent there is criticism of the UN in RS that it hasn't been able to prevent all wars, that should be in, with due weight of course. --Dailycare (talk) 19:53, 22 January 2011 (UTC)
 * I agree with User:Lothar von Richthofen completely.--Tomobe03 (talk) 20:35, 28 January 2011 (UTC)

Effectiveness (formerly Criticism) section
I did not want to fight you about an opinion I agree upon, but we can't put our opinions in a Wikipedia article unless cited sources happen to be the opinion we agree upon. I am in full agreement that the UN cannot accomplish its mandate, but our opinions are irrelevant in an encyclopedia. Good job adding the criticism section with the cited sources. CanadianLinuxUser (talk) 13:07, 14 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks for putting up with my little fight yesterday CLU. You got me back onto the right track. Scott P. (talk) 13:13, 14 January 2011 (UTC)
 * I don't know if this section really is necessary. The first paragraph essentially says that the whole Security Council needs to agree before allowing armed UN enforcement actions, but this is already covered somewhere else in the article. The second paragraph claims that the UN seemed to have had a moderate success maintaining world peace, and that could probably be added somewhere else in the article (perhaps in "Stated objectives"?). Actually, the previous "Criticism" section was quite similar to that one and has been integrated into the rest of the article. In my opinion, we don't need a mini-pov fork inside the article, when everything can be said, in context, in the appropriate sections. Laurent (talk) 13:54, 14 January 2011 (UTC)
 * I agree with Laurent. Having a section titled criticism is just asking for trouble. Information should be integrated into relevant sections. Chipmunkdavis (talk) 15:12, 14 January 2011 (UTC)
 * I have no objection to renaming the section "Effectiveness". In fact I support it.  I was actually first planning on naming the section by this title, but opted against it for uniformity's sake.  I could find nowhere else in the article where the tendency for permanent members of the Security Council to sometimes actually block the UN from carrying out its mandate responsibilities was discussed.  I also could not find any of the other points or studies about 'UN effectiveness' that were addressed in this section spoken of anywhere else in the article.  In American politics, the effectiveness of the UN is a very hotly debated topic, with as you probably know, significant numbers of folks actually publicly claiming that the UN is the anti-Christ or some such nonsense. In fact, just now I did a Google search for the two terms "UN & Antichrist" and got over 1 million hits! For this, amongst other reasons, I thought that a well documented section on UN effectiveness here might be helpful.  I accept your renaming of the section, and I hope you might agree with me that a brief summary review of the actual effectiveness of this unique organization, as found in this new section, is probably a generally helpful and pertinent point of information for many readers.  Scott P. (talk) 16:17, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

Timewasting and tantrums when shown in popular culture
Can someone add something about the UN's timewasting and it's tantrums whenever it's represented in media?

It threatened to sue nationstates.net (http://www.maxbarry.com/2008/04/02/news.html) and also complained about UNIT in Doctor Who. Isn't that pretty fucking pathetic?
 * wasnt UNIT part of the UN? 69.140.35.147 (talk) 23:31, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

Edit request from 136.223.36.232, 22 February 2011
The terms of Austria, Japan, Mexico, Turkey, and Uganda on the security council have ended. Colombia, Germany, India, Portugal, and South Africa have replaced them.

136.223.36.232 (talk) 20:42, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

Not done: Absolutely correct, thanks for catching the failure to update. Qwyrxian (talk) 03:24, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

Edit request from 216.170.199.167, 25 March 2011
Please change: Charles de Gaulle criticized the UN, famously calling it le machin ("the thingie"),

To: Charles de Gaulle criticized the UN, famously calling it le machin ("the thing"),

I believe your semi-protected history of the UN may have been vandalized. Perhaps it should have been better protected without counting on the Krupuk.

Charles de Gaulle also criticized the US and NATO, famously calling it le Kia ("the krupuk").

Civilians may not be maimed. It is worth fighting for.

216.170.199.167 (talk) 04:26, 25 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Yes check.svg Done -- gtdp (T)/(C) 17:14, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

Security Council President
In the info box to the left, it still has Li Baodong of China as the security council president. This should be switched because as of now it is Lestor Londono of Colombia. The box should be updated monthly in accordance with the rotation of the presidency. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Joshtanic (talk • contribs) 02:46, 13 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Yes check.svg Done --Mátyás (talk) 10:54, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

Nur KKW sind sicher.
The maiming of civilians requires an umbrella to protect civilians as well as a credible punishment for those who have maimed civilians. The United States appears to be part of the problem and not part of the solution. The article does not describe the steps the UN is taking to punish those who maim civilians as well as the defensive measures being put in place to defend the civilians of the world from officials who are guilty of targeting civilians. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.55.246.199 (talk) 18:32, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

Where's the controversy or criticism section?
Is it not a controversy that the UN attempts to rule the world as if it were the world government, even though its officials are not elected? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.32.129.220 (talk) 19:14, 27 June 2011 (UTC)


 * See WP:NOCRIT; And I doubt that they "rule the world" very much. We (the US) on the other hand... TMCk (talk) 19:32, 27 June 2011 (UTC)


 * No comment on your assertion but at least the US is a legitimate national government which has elected officials. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.32.129.220 (talk) 22:16, 27 June 2011 (UTC)


 * And the UN is a collection of elected governments so what is your point?TMCk (talk) 22:58, 27 June 2011 (UTC)


 * Keep in mind global governance is not the same thing as world government. Conspiracy theorists and other cranks hold fringe views on the UN, but none have been demonstrated to be notable for this article. There are other more relevant articles where such views are appropriately represented as fringe views. You might take a look at New World Order (conspiracy theory), for example. A controversy or criticism section on the United Nations article would pretty much have to consist of criticisms regarding how effective it has or hasn't been at achieving its stated aims, scandals and conflicts, inaction, calls for UN reform, etc. Most of these actually end up being more relevant and more notable for those articles that discuss subsets of the UN system anyway, such as the United Nations Security Council, United Nations General Assembly, United Nations Secretariat, UNAMIR, etc. <font color="#2c7c9f">John <font color="#1d5575">Shandy`  &bull; talk 23:12, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

United Nations
Non-Governmental Institutions of International Development

The United Nations is a prime example of a non-governmental institution for international development that participates in international politics. The United Nations is the organization that first created the term NGO. A NGO “is a legally constituted organization created by natural or legal persons that operates independently from any government” (Wikipedia.org). An NGO is an organization which has goals such human rights, economic assistance, politics, and health care. An NGO makes a significant difference in assisting developing countries. The United Nations participates by raising awareness in education health, and working with developed and underdeveloped countries to create a better life for those in need of it in developing countries. The United Nations was created in 1945 shortly after World War II to literally help unite the nations after a significant war. Before World War II the League of Nations existed but failed to keep the peace. The United Nations was than created in replacement of the League of Nations and has turned out to be much more successful. As of now there are 192 states that are apart of the United Nations. Objectives of the United Nations are broken into different organizations the General Assembly, the Security Council, the Economic and Social Council, the Secretariat, the International Court of Justice, as well the United Trusteeship Council. Each of these organizations has different purposes. For example the Security Council’s job is to promote peace and security. Where as, the Economic and Social Council makes a point to help assist economies and social development. Part of the reason as to why the United Nations was created was so that countries could receive aid in every aspect whether it be for economic development or providing peace. Since, representatives for the United Nations deal with such significant problems they must have a noteworthy resume.

The United Nations is broken into multiple organizations, each one having different ways as to how members are elected. For example the Council members are elected by the General Assembly organization that is based of a majority of votes. I found it very interesting that ballots are secret due to the fact that most elections for any organization. Once elected members are than expected to fulfill their job’s requirements by promoting human rights. Members are expected to be fully committed throughout their term. Yet, once elected the General Assembly has the right to suspend any members that openly violates the idea of human rights. Suspension would require a two-thirds majority vote by the General Assembly though. Election of officials, suspensions and expulsion of members in general is discussed at their meetings that are conducted over a two week period with the General Assembly group of the United Nations. Since the United Nations must discuss so many items within such a short period of time it must run very efficiently.

The United Nations overall seems to be an efficient non-governmental organization. Due to the fact that there are groups broken up within the United Nation having a group such as Security Council that looks to obtain peace among nations. I find that the Security Council is a vital group of the United Nations with over 60 peacekeeping forces. The peacekeepers are important due to the fact with modern technology for warfare feuding countries can easily become involved in a deadly war. The United Nation also helps assist countries in unplanned events such as natural disasters. When a underdeveloped country is recovering from a natural disaster the United Nations offers food and shelter for millions. Yet, they also help those in developing countries with struggling economies and severe poverty. In developing countries there is a significant lack of education and health system but the United Nations is working to make people more educated. The United Nations is also interested in not just helping the well-being of humans but also the environment. The United Nations has the ability to bring together many countries to plan on how each country can help save our natural resources. Therefore I find that by the United Nations creating multiple groups to fulfill different objectives that the United Nations is more successful. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kangarcia23 (talk • contribs) 03:07, 9 July 2011 (UTC)

Map is pointless.
All it shows is most of the world coloured blue. The only pieces of land not considered parts of a UN state are tiny (western sahara, palestinian territories and the vatican) and only someone who already knew would find them on it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Phil Ian Manning (talk • contribs) 15:44, 14 July 2011 (UTC)


 * Isn't it useful to note most of the world is a member then? Would you get the same impression otherwise? Chipmunkdavis (talk) 16:05, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

The version we have on this page doesn't have a separate South Sudan. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.224.192.255 (talk) 19:58, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

mistake?
why does burma have taiwan's flag???--99.62.38.205 (talk) 04:00, 29 July 2011 (UTC)


 * It's actually a former flag used by Burma (officially the Republic of the Union of Myanmar) up until sometime in 2010 when the flag was changed to the current flag (see Flag of Burma and scroll down to see its historical flags). The flag is extremely similar to the Flag of Taiwan, but they are different. The small flag for Burma probably just hasn't been updated yet to reflect Burma's change to the new flag.  John Shandy`   &bull; talk 05:06, 29 July 2011 (UTC)


 * On second thought, now that I've noticed that this article is using the old flag and the name Burma in reference to U Thant in the list of Secretaries-General, I don't think this article should be updated to show Myanmar or its current flag. That list of Secretaries-General is serving the purpose of illustrating history about the UN, and since during the time of U Thant's term as Secretary-General the country was officially known as Burma and flew the flag of that time, I think it's most appropriate to leave the name and flag as they were at that time. I figure that's probably what the editor who contributed that table was intending.  John Shandy`   &bull; talk 05:14, 29 July 2011 (UTC)