Talk:United Nations Security Council/Archive 2

Going for Good Article status
I'm currently working to bring United Nations to GA status, and I thought that as long as I have all these books here, I might work on this article next. Let me start by asking the regular editors here for input--are there any changes you particularly want to see? How close do you think this one is to GA status as it is now? Thanks to everybody who's worked on this one before me--I'll look forward to collaborating with you, Khazar2 (talk) 16:47, 9 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Okay, I'm mostly done with my revisions at United Nations and hoping to turn my full attention to this in the coming weeks. One obvious addition will be a history section to discuss the body's origins, the initial wrangling over its structure, its evolution over time, major interventions it has authorized, etc.
 * I also intend to rewrite the "criticism" section to give a more balanced overview of evaluations of UN peacekeeping; it seems obviously biased to include criticisms but not voices that find it an effective instrument. The "power of resolutions" section, in contrast, seems at first glance to be excessively detailed, but perhaps that's just because the rest of the article is currently so short.
 * More broadly, I intend to source, replace, or remove almost all unsourced information from the article, but I have a number of sources on hand, so in most cases, sourced information will take its place.
 * Obviously, any input is welcome! I'm a big believer in WP:BRD, so if at any point I get excessively bold, please feel free to raise any issues on this talk page and I'll stop to chat. Cheers, Khazar2 (talk) 19:39, 24 November 2013 (UTC)
 * I've now added a very skeletal history section mostly cribbed from United Nations (see that article's history for attribution; I wrote most of it but others have tweaked a few things). I'll work to flesh this out in the coming days, and then start revising and sourcing the remaining sections. -- Khazar2 (talk) 01:17, 25 November 2013 (UTC)
 * I've removed some unsourced detail on the transition between the Fourth and Fifth French Republics; even sources I have that discuss the Chinese and Russian seats turning over don't mention this, so I'm not sure it's relevant enough to include. -- Khazar2 (talk) 01:15, 26 November 2013 (UTC)
 * I've removed the representative column from the Members tables, as this seemed like too much of a chore to keep track of and keep updated; just checking today, for example, it seems that no one updated this when South Korea's represenative recently changed. If anyone disagrees, though, the diffs are here to undo this. -- Khazar2 (talk) 04:08, 26 November 2013 (UTC)
 * I've added a POV section tag to the criticism section until it can be properly balanced with other evaluations. Having a section designed only to portray the subject negatively seems to me inappropriate. I hope to address this issue in the next week or two, though, and will then remove the tag if there are no objections. -- Khazar2 (talk) 16:53, 26 November 2013 (UTC)
 * I've moved a very detailed discussion of whether Chapter VI resolutions are binding to Chapter VI of the United Nations Charter, and kept a summary version here. I'm glad to talk further about how to balance this if anyone objects. -- Khazar2 (talk) 21:45, 26 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Further text on peacekeeping and evaluation of UN military actions was taken from United Nations in this edit and this edit. As before, see article history of United Nations for attribution. -- Khazar2 (talk) 02:09, 27 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Text on funding of UN military operations was taken from the article United Nations with this edit. -- Khazar2 (talk) 02:37, 27 November 2013 (UTC)

Still to do
Anybody else have suggestions? Feel free to add them on.


 * Add positive as well as negative evaluations of Security Council actions.


 * Add detail about current UN peacekeeping missions, budget, etc.


 * Discussion of sanctions as a Security Council tool.


 * Expand lead to reflect new content in article.


 * Detail and source various reform proposals. -- Khazar2 (talk) 21:47, 26 November 2013 (UTC)

Infobox
I would think it would be pertinent to name the members of the court in the infobox. I would think one section for permanent members and another for current members of rotating seats. I was trying to figure out how exactly one goes about this, and I'm guessing we would need a new template? I doubt there's a parameters for 'permanent members' anywhere. Anyways I'm listening to the page on info boxes and writing on the talk page to ask - does this sound like a good idea? kaireky (talk) 17:03, 6 December 2013 (UTC)

G4 image legend
The legend under the G4 image in the reform section now runs "The G4 nations: Brazil, Germany, India, and Japan. Most support one another's bids for permanent seats on the Security Council, though they are heavily opposed by various member nations of the UN.[106]". This seems to me to imply that the G4 support one another but receive little support from outside. This is not supported however by the quoted article which is given as a reference, which mentions that opposition of the UfC is regarded to be in the minority, and does not mention any opposition which I would describe as heavily - especially since most of the opposition questions the idea of expanding more than the four countries "applying" - with the exception of China-Japan apparently - while the text refers to the countries being opposed, which reads a bit as "expansion is okay, but please not these four." I will remove the part starting from "Most..." for three reasons: (1) too long for a short explanation, (2) badly worded so gives wrong impressions, (3) not supported by the quoted source. --Ulkomaalainen (talk) 17:52, 1 December 2014 (UTC)

Last paragraph in "Membership reform subsection"
The last paragraph in the United Nations Security Council deals specifically to India and is actually an exact copy from the third paragraph of Reform of the United Nations Security Council. I think it should be removed from the "Membership Reform" subsection, as the link to the separate article is already mentioned in the subsection. Otherwise we should also enter at least a paragraph each detailing the specific cases of other three of the G4 Nations. I think that this subsection should just be a broad summary and not discussing each proposal and case in detail as there is a separate article for that, so this one paragraph detailing India's case should be removed from here. What do you think? Sohebbasharat (talk) 14:04, 10 March 2015 (UTC)

Russia was not a belligerent of World War II
I think that we should replace it with "the Soviet Union (now represented by Russia)" as opposed to its present mark up, Russia as a country did not exist during the period of 1939-/1940-1945 thus could not have done anything during World War II. --42.114.35.42 (talk) 01:02, 22 January 2016 (UTC)
 * I know that WP:ASTONISH exists, but one can apply that same principle to the history section and see how the Soviet Union is referenced then and Russia in the introduction thus WP:ASTONISH goes against WP:READER in this case, therefor using WP:ASTONISH "only use modern names for historic entities" policies is a flawed one. --42.114.35.42 (talk) 01:04, 22 January 2016 (UTC)