Talk:United Nations

List of the UN Organisations?

[[Could we please have a section of the article or someone create an article about the various UN agencies constructd on a table or some sort of listing process whereby it displays the agency and explains to the public and wikipedians what they do? Such as well known agencies and agencies that are kept out of the public eye, either because people don't know much or wouldn't like to know - hence why the media doesn't ever get a chance to say anything about it. Is this some dogmatic decision made by the beaurocrats? Please we want to know MORE ABOUT THE UN - AGENCIES INCLUDED! LOTRrules 11:06, 17 July 2007 (UTC) FInd me on my talkpage...

You might want to take a look at the United Nations System article. It includes lists of agencies and organizations. If the page is incomplete please add to it. Teryx 04:11, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

It would be useful to have a link to Ban Ki-Moon from his name in this article. I can't edit

UN contact info would be nice, - I have a question for them, but no way to get a hold of them on their website. 76.170.117.217 00:23, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

At any rate, the current situation, a "Specialized organizations" list on the main page that is lacking important organizations like UNICEF, is amenable to improvement. OneAhead (talk) 23:50, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

Headline text

The World Bank is not an organization created by the UN and I don't believe it is affiliated at all. The UN has it's own monetary fund I believe called the United Nations Development Programme. I would edit it out myself but I am quite new to this whole process and there is probably someone more qualified and knowledgable.--147.72.92.130 17:05, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

Many UN bodies are established by either a Security Council or a General Assembly Resolution. Some are listed for example in Category:United_Nations_General_Assembly_subsidiary_organs. The Security Council organizations tend to have a short mandate which is extended each year (eg UNOCI) by a resolutions which we ought to track down and reference. Often there is a an official report on behalf of the organization which explains what it's been doing. I believe that the reason for these short mandates is the veto -- if the mandate didn't expire automatically one of the P5 could use their veto to prevent it from ever ending (Iraq sanctions regime is a case in point). Some of the more established bodies like World Health Organization were transferred from the League of Nations back in 1947. Sometimes there are treaty organizations like OPCW that are not part of the UN but which become aligned with it and use their offices.

It's all chaotic. I don't think there's going to be any complete structure that fits everything. There will simply be a series of questions which have answers after which you can decide how it fits in. Questions are: 1. How and when was it established? 2. Who controls its budget today? 3. Where does it send its reports? 4. Who appoints its executive? And so on.Goatchurch 23:48, 2 November 2007 (UTC)]]File:'Example.jpg'Bold text

Chechnya

What about the conflicts in Chechnya? and war crimes commited there by russian soldiers? LOTRrules 11:06, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

Chechnya is probably best dealt with on its own page. However, if there's something relevant to the UN and this issue, then why not add it to the page in the appropriate section? Teryx 04:11, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

Taiwan

The world map showing the members of the UN is apparently wrong since Taiwan (Republic of China) was not allowed to join the UN. See news: (1) UN rejects Taiwan application for entry ( http://www.iht.com/articles/2007/07/24/news/taiwan.php ) (2) UN rejects Taiwan membership bid ( http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/asia-pacific/6913020.stm ) (3) About UN News Service ( http://antitaiwan.com//index.php?showtopic=37 ) (4) 联合国不接受台湾加入联合国的申请 ( http://www.un.org/chinese/News/fullstorynews.asp?newsID=8167 ) (5) King of the U.N. ( http://online.wsj.com/article/SB118696621693795613.html ) (subscription required)

Of course UN will reject Taiwan, only countries can join UN, and Taiwan is just a relegate province of China. What if Texas wanted to join UN? You see the error in your logic here? Of course, some might argue that Taiwan is a country, but most countries would disagree, feel free to look this up. 24.89.245.62 04:49, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

It is the PRC's view which regards Taiwan as part of the PRC ( http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/asia-pacific/country_profiles/1285915.stm ). Although PRC forces many countries to recognize that Taiwan is part of the PRC, there are countries and people (including Taiwanese people) who believe that Taiwan is either a country or territory of U.S. ( http://www.taiwanadvice.com/ ). Please also refer to the discussion appearing at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image_talk:United_Nations_Members.PNG . 124.171.162.200 02:49, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

Although UN Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon said that the ROC was part of the PRC, there is no formal document which says so. Please check United Nations General Assembly Resolution 2758 or http://www.un.org/chinese/ga/ares2758.html for details. The Resolution 2758 does not even mention ROC or Taiwan. --124.171.211.117 12:49, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

Why is Taiwan still showing up in the map of UN members? Clearly Taiwan is not a UN member. It isn't even an observer. It shouldn't be on the map. Unfortunately I don't know how to edit maps. Unless someone can fix the map we'll need to remove it.Readin (talk) 18:36, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

I response to the "Texas" comment - the whole Taiwan is not officially a country, but we will act like they are thing was part of Nixon's detente with China. I mean even the Chinese recognize that Taiwan has it's own passport system (as a practical matter, whether it's "officially" recognized is a different thing), and the US officially recognizes it: http://travel.state.gov/travel/cis_pa_tw/cis/cis_1036.html. If travel requires passports and visas, both territories bureaucracies regonize the passports, and the region as complete sovereignty over it's territory (yes, I'm talking in practical terms, not official drawings of territory. e.g. the infamous bridge to the "breakaway province" on some maps of the PRC's future road plans), then for all practical consideration, it's a nation. So saying "most countries would disagree", is at best a misinformed statement, and in reality, is plain wrong. Try telling your government your flying to "China" or the "PRC", and then booking a flight to Taiwan, and see what happens. Taiwan or ROC or whatever you want to call it is a de facto nation, just not a de jure one. This is a very different situation then if "Texas wanted to be part of the UN".

The Shoe Incident

I seem to recall that one world leader took off his shoe and banged it against his desk at the UN. I think he also said "We will bury you". Who was that?

That guy was Tovarishch Nikita Khrushchev, though it's rather unclear whether the incidence really happened as described. Some sources allege that he only took off his shoe and just put it on the table, and some dispute the incidence at all. --Uwe 19:31, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

Never happened! Emmanuelm (talk) 19:04, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

Venezuela not a human rights violator

I modified the Human Rights Council subsection removing Venezuela from a list of "human rights violators". This is at least a POV. --MauroVan 21:29, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

It most certainly is a human rights violator...however, you're right that it's POV, and has no place in this article Travis Cleveland 06:12, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

It definatly is a human rights violator, and while we can't just put it in there because we all agree that, I would say that if there is an article in which a UN official has stated that it violates human rights then we can definatly put it in the article. 81.149.82.243 13:10, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

Problems

This is a difficult topic to write on, since it involves so many parallel facets, unlike eg, a sportsperson or a song or a small military battle, but there are some glaring problems

• Sources - many paragraphs are unsourced and there are many {{cn}} tags as well as a whole lot of sources which do not have their details done properly
• Undue weight/recentism/black holes in content
  • Almost all of the examples of "controversy" are in the last ten years
  • There is no history section. What about Hammarskold being killed in a plane crash and Waldheim being discovered to be a former Nazi. Important things like the massive UN force in the Korean War are not mentioned at all. It just jumps from the start to a list of contemporary things.
  • No section on the Secretary General - how is he elected? What is the politics of the bloc voting and horsetrading between the countries to install a friendly candidate. What power does the SG have?
  • Undue weight in that the model UN, an event for schoolchildren to engage in mock debate, gets as much as the General Assembly, which is on the news across the world on a regular basis. Too much on the fact that smoking is banned inside the building and same-sex policy of its staff. This is not what the UN is known for!
  • The coverage of programs is highly sanitised and it gives the impression that the UN is some apolitical charity and research type organisation. The coverage is excessively skewed towards humanitarian things
  • Need a lot of coverage of the political nature of the UN. How governments try to use it for political gain and so forth
  • Need more on UN security council, how there is factional manoevring to get votes and deals. Countries shielding their allies from criticism using the veto and so forth. What about the planned expansion? Didn't India and Brazil ask for permanent seats and vetoes?
  • "Peace enforcement" is one line section
  • There is nothing there about corruption.

I did not go through the prose issues et, since the major porblem here is a lack of content. I know its really hard writing on such a wide ranging political organistation, but when things like a history section isn't even there then that really sticks out.Blnguyen (bananabucket) 07:51, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

I agree with all the comments of Blnguyen. This article really needs a lot of extra work, especially in the area of history and political organization. I suggest that the "Model United Nations" section be removed. Instead, it suffices to give a link to Model United Nations under "Further reading" or "See also". Regards, Nsk92 12:53, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

Should some information about the United Nations Protection Force be added?63.95.64.222 01:34, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

Removal Of Multi-lingual names at top of infobox.

Since this is the English-written article, should the UN really be given in it's translations? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ecopetition (talk • contribs) 16:27, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

I think it should be removed. Radical-Dreamer 15:29, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

I agree. UN is something like a multinational company originated from everywhere. English is not special, neither is Russian, Spanish, etc. So no need to enumerate names in other (official) languages. Jisok 09:37, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

It looks a mess and only the English one should be given since this is the English Wikipedia, like on the Spanish Wikipedia only the Spanish name is given in the infobox. I'll remove the others. - Animagentile (talk) 04:35, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

Criticsms

I see no section for criticsm of the U.N: Oil for food scandal, rape of women by U.N Workers, bias against Israel Failure of Dafur. Thay sould be a major part of the article.Kirin4 14:37, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

These issues are in the article, if you take the time to look. Teryx 04:17, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

I agree with Kirin4. A criticism paragraph is required and not just "failures". Radical-Dreamer 13:18, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

Footnotes 27 and 28 are from a blog called powerlineblog and are obviously not neutral. They even have a "I'm a proud friend friend of Israel" banner on their page for christ sake. The other sources (footnotes 25 and 26) are questionable as well (youtube and fox news). Equally problematic is the use of the term "terrorists" in the "Failures in security issues" paragraph. For some they are, for others they aren't. "Armed men" or "armed Palestinians" is a better wording. --Tristan Bukowski 18:34, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

Seems to me that you consider a source to be 'unreliable' if it doesn't fit your POV. Moreover, you kept reverting my changes although I had several reliable sources. You completely ignored other unsourced material within the article. I will remove 'powerline' as a source, but calling 'Fox News' a 'unreliable source' is a joke. Radical-Dreamer 19:10, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

I agree, Fox News isn't that valid of a reference. Francis Ssekandi, past UN employee, is both proof of this and, perhaps, reason for it. In a small sense, of course. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.212.156.168 (talk) 12:38, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

And what exactly is my point of view? I've simply removed your links to sources which were clearly biased. I'm interested in maintaining an article free from "points of views"; as opposed to you who seem to push some sort of pro-Israeli agenda. I am sure you would have done the exact same thing if I had edited the Wiki article on the IDF with links to obvious pro-Palestinian blogs etc. I bet you would have even called it "vandalism". I see that you've at one point deleted the comment above mine too. That's a nice one... censoring people's opinions in an article discussion. Good job.--Tristan Bukowski 23:52, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

You clearly have a pro-Arab point of view, so starting an argument with you is pointless. Moreover, the unsigned comment was obviously yours. Faking comments as people who agree with you is just lame. Radical-Dreamer 13:43, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

So because I removed your link to an obscure fringe blog ([1]) which even the most apolitical kid out there could have told was partial in the matter, I'm "pro-Arab"? That's rich. I missed one too: BICOM, the Britain Israel Communications & Research Centre, [2] ("an independent organisation devoted to creating a more supportive environment for Israel in the UK"). Yeah, cause that's a credible source in an encyclopedia, lol. As for faking comments, I agree, it is lame. Which is why I don't do it. Take off your tinfoil hat.--Tristan Bukowski 21:43, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

The complaints about the lack of criticism appear to me to be extremely weak. It's a bit like complaining that the criticisms of Al Capone lacked a discussion of his bad taste in neckties. There have been many criticisms, whether they are true or not, that are of a far different magnitude than the ones discussed here. The alleged assault on a peaceful Katanga, for example, with the alleged purpose of deposing Moise Tshombe and re-uniting Katanga with the Belgian Congo. Or the origins and the intent of the organization, such as the role that Alger Hiss played, similarity of the UN and the Soviet constitution, etc. Also missing is any real discussion of American and global attitudes toward the UN in response to such criticisms, e.g. that 11 Million signatures were delivered to Congress to "Get us out of the UN". (Or any discussions of attitudes, positive or negative.) Whether or not these criticisms are valid, or the attitudes are justified, to leave them out entirely compromises the integrity, credibility and objectivity of this article in particular, and of Wikipedia in general. If any such extreme criticisms are invalid, they can be rebutted, either in Wikipedia or elsewhere.

Cliff b adams 15:30, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

I agree that a "criticism" section is needed here. The section on "failures" is inadequate and even misleading in the narrowness of its scope. (And I'm not talking about the Arab-Israeli conflict - although that is one isolated and salient example of how the UN can be, not only simply ineffectual, but actively detrimental to world peace.) I'm talking about more fundamental structural systemic problems. For example, a serious discussion of the virtual paralysis of the United Nations by two voting blocs backed up by veto power on the Security Council for almost forty years during the Cold War period is indeed relevant to this topic. A handful of watered-down "failures" along the lines of "The UN tried its best, but even with the best of intentions it was unfortunately unable to solve or avoid the crisis" does not give an accurate reflection of some of the very real underlying failures of the UN as an organisation. Much of this article could have been taken from a self-promotional page from the UN website. Mardiste (talk) 15:06, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

However, couldn't the same logic for having a section on failures and critisism also be used for having a section on the far more numerous successes and responses to critisim.

INFERNALISM:... 333: it became obvious that something to do to curb a countries progress in this way revolutionary was to see that country as a 'little girl', & if that "little girl" goes missing [333= PACE OF MEN]... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.139.113.170 (talk) 10:49, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

The U.N. and Iraq

Does anyone know if Wikipedia contains information regarding the subject? Prior to and shortly after the toppling of Baath party Iraq, the U.N. had a strong presence in the country. But after the horrific attack on their office complex, it would seem the U.N. distanced itself from the conflict. Just today, I came upon an article posted on CNN suggesting this may change. [3] Should this be mentioned in a Wikipedia article? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.188.22.40 (talk) 04:00, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

"But after the horrific attack on their office complex, it would seem the U.N. distanced itself from the conflict" - Can't really blame them for that. Radical-Dreamer 15:28, 3 October 2007 (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? Octane ^{[improve me]} 11.10.07 0408 (UTC)

27% of what?

In Peacekeeping - Assessments there was the following comment on the peacekeeping scale:

and was projected to be near 27% in 2003

I moved that here, because it doesn't make any sense for anybody who doesn't know how the scale works, which also is the case for most readers, since there is no such article. Before reinsertion - what is this totality that the scale is 27% of? Mikael Häggström 12:56, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

What do you mean? THere should be no article for the following because the figure just represents a percentage. Nevertheless I'll check it again and get back to you... LOTRrules (talk) 00:01, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

It speaks for itself 27% of all UN peacekeeping forces available to the UN. Sorry for the late response. LOTRrules (talk) 01:56, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

Bad example

I moved this example from Personell policy, because it is an incomprehensible example to the immunity of UN personell:

For instance, a person who is otherwise eligible for employment in Switzerland, where the International Labour Organization (ILO) has its headquarters, may not be employed by the ILO unless he or she is a citizen of an ILO member state.

Does it want to say that the immunity avails people to be employed in non-ILO states if they are UN personell? Then why is it important that ILO has its headquarters in Switzerland, since it is international? It rather seems as if the text wants to say that ILO has certain critera for employment, compared to working in Switzerland generally. Mikael Häggström 15:41, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

Necessities

I think someone should add a section that mentions that the UN has declared that water is a basic human right, and maybe some dialogue about possible intentions to declare food and land basic human rights, as well. Making the necessities in life basic human rights is a huge step. This means that these things must be provided to people in some way (or for people to be allowed to provide them for themselves) or this is an infringement upon a person's rights. I can't stress enough the relevance of this. And I think it should be included in the article in some way. 63.95.64.254 (talk) 21:44, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

That would be the Universal Declaration on Human Rights, wouldn't it? And that is included under the Aims section. Michaelbusch (talk) 21:45, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

Hmmm.. Not finding it. Maybe link me to it? 63.95.64.254 (talk) 00:57, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

Integrate controvery section

According to Wikipedia:Criticism, this controversy section may better be integrated into the rest of the article. Anybody disagrees? Mikael Häggström 09:09, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

Actually, Wikipedia:Criticism says: all featured articles should contain criticism, either as necessary in each paragraph or in its own paragraph or Criticism section. I personally like a separate section. For example, accusations of anti-Israel bias are directed at several bodies. To integrate it in the text, this statement would have to be repeated all over the article, each time with a link to the main article on the issue -- not very elegant. Emmanuelm (talk) 19:19, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

Wartime poster of the United Nations

Contrary to the caption, the poster was issued by the U.S. in 1943 during WWII, and has nothing to do with the U.N. As such, I removed it.--Falkan (talk) 18:22, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

geography

http://unstats.un.org/unsd/methods/m49/m49regin.htm is there similar document for physical geography, by UN or another authoritative body? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.60.96.22 (talk) 15:26, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

Successes in security issues

Is this report of UN's success too vague? It comes from one source. The facts could be interpreted a different way. Has violence declined because of the end of the Cold War? Although I do think the UN has done good things, I think this is worded in biased way. I would prefer a CNN news report that quotes this report than a report that says that violence has declined since the Cold War because of the UN. I also think there should be more than one "report" of UN success for this section to be an informative resource. We really solid success stories: UN did this. Htmlqawsedrftg (talk) 18:14, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

Creation of "Accusations of bias in the Israeli-Arab conflict" paragraph

I added a short paragraph summarizing the most important accusations of anti-Israel bias at the UN, with a link to the main article on the subject. I think this paragraph was long overdue. I also rewrote and fleshed the Human rights criticism section. Emmanuelm (talk) 21:55, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

User:Animagentile deleted this section on Jan 20th without discussion. He is a new user, so I will remain civil. I reverted and will continue until the issue is discussed here. Emmanuelm (talk) 12:03, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

I will also keep it.if Animagentile use personal attack then it should be reported.Oren.tal (talk) 14:17, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

Which personal attack do you refer to? Emmanuelm on his page has an anti-NPOV box. Fact. The section if heavily bias against Palestianians and Palestine, making it sound like anybody outside of strongly Islamophobic Jews and the USA media claim that the UN is bias in this situation. These two sources are not neutral and certainly not representative of the world's views.

I mean take a look at the so called sources you have use... websites like "www.palestinefacts.org" a militant Jewish propoganda website... clearly bias in favour of a their stance. Sources are supposed to be always neutral (even if you hate that policy) please find non-Jewish, non-USA sources (who have bias agendas in this topic) that claim that the United Nations are bias in here. Or you're going to have to find a better title like "Some Jews and United States media accuse UN of bias in the Israeli-Arab conflict" Thankyou. - Animagentile (talk) 08:50, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

saying "happen to be Jew" is personal attack.Not because there is problem with being Jewish but because there is no need to mention such irrelevant fact.It will be like mention that someone is black when you talk about his edit about racism.Claiming that all U.S. sources are bias is ridicules and unacceptable.As for world view it mention criticism as has been said and there has been criticism.World view consist many opinions and wikipedia should reflect them all.Oren.tal (talk) 11:23, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

I reverted some modifications by User:El C, including the hiding of the antisemitism portion. Allow me to point out that this paragraph is a summary section, with a prominent link to the main article, Israel, Palestinians and the United Nations. Discussions, arguments, accusations and personal attacks should be directed to this article. Emmanuelm (talk) 15:07, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Looking at the land chosen for Israel by the UN GA Partition Plan of November 29th, 1947 (Resolution 181) among other iterations in Image:1947-UN-Partition-Plan-1949-Armistice-Comparison.png, and comparing these to the much larger land the UN lets Israel currently control, it would seem the UN has a pro-Israel bias in this conflict, right? BTW, the complete exclusion of US would be inappropriate. A scan of each reference shows that they come from CA, CH, EU, IL, UK, and US sources. There seem to be no sources from the UN or members of the African Union, the Arab League, or the Organization of the Islamic Conference though. I think that means this section will have a "Western" view but not a balance of Arab and Israeli views, which is a shame. Oops! I didn't mean to add the pic just a link to it. --Thecurran (talk) 20:41, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Thanks User:Emmanuelm for fixing that. LOL - A colon's all I needed. --Thecurran (talk) 21:14, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

To User:El C and User:Korny O'Near, about the UN being accused of tolerating antisemitism: regardless of how controversial the issue is, four reliable sources ought to be enough. If you cannot be bothered to read the sources, I quoted them in main article on this subject. Please stop trying to delete or distort this statement. Emmanuelm (talk) 18:31, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

Korny, discussion is the antidote to an edit war. True, many writers equate antisemitism and anti-zionism, but this is a mistake that should not be repeated here. The references listed contain, besides anti-zionism, classical antisemitic discourse within the UN walls.

I suggest the following sentence : The UN has been accused of tolerating antisemitism, which is distinct from anti-zionism and is condemned by several UNGA resolutions. Emmanuelm (talk) 14:36, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

if it is about the U.N. then it should be in this article.Oren.tal (talk) 18:33, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

Oh, sorry, I didn't realize there was a discussion here about this. Some people think antisemitism is distinct from anti-Zionism and/or criticism of Israel; some people think they're tied in. They're both opinions, and Wikipedia shouldn't take an opinion about it one way or the other. If certain sources (such as UN Watch) categorize criticism of Israel within the general banner of antisemitism, I think the article should indicate that. Korny O'Near (talk) 23:16, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

No worries. I was just trying to tie in User:Emmanuelm's sentence without deleting the previous one. Some notes about an edit war have flown up. I haven't been involved in one before so I thought if I add but don't delete or hide, I could stay neutral.

I'm sorry but just look quickly at UNwatch's home page. It applauds the US for being the only one to vote against a racism conference supported by Libya, Cuba, and Iran, countries with poor human rights records but much better racism records than the US. If the US votes against the rest of the UN, this is not a vote for harmony and praising such a vote spells bias. I have a lower opinion of Iran than the US, but this one entry page calls the UN antisemitic and anti-Israel and speaks negatively of the Muslim majorities of Libya, Iran, Egypt, Syria, and Sudan. Now I've worked with Darfur refugees and I know some of how terrible the Khartoum government is. That still does not excuse a source for strongly showing pro-Jewish and anti-Muslim rhetoric. In other arenas, such a source might yet be unbiassed and they have done a lot of work to make the world a better place, but they simply lose too much credibility to be the lynchpin of an argument specifically on Arab-Israeli affairs. That's not to say they're useless. I still think we can and should represent their material here but we need a counter-balance and if our argument rests solely on their shoulders we need to build that argument.

In addition, UNwatch somewhat sloppily accuses Egypt and Syria of anti-Semitism instead of antisemitism. As Arab countries, they are Semites,... You know the rest. That would be like using BC/AD as opposed to BCE/CE on a page about Jewish history, or calling the Tanach/kh the Old Testament as opposed to the Hebrew Bible. Humanity's worked so hard to find PC terms. Why ignore that work on a site devoted to human rights? :)--Thecurran (talk) 00:11, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

Well, I disagree with some of your opinions (like "anti-Semitism" somehow meaning hatred of all Semitic people - maybe that's what it literally means, but that's not what it's ever actually meant to anyone), but that's all beside the point - my or your opinion shouldn't factor into this. UN Watch is obviously not unbiased - they have a stated anti-UN bias, and the same is most likely true for any of the sources quoted in the "Criticism" section. The point is not to only quote unbiased sources, it's to quote notable sources, and make it clear that the opinions expressed are theirs and not the article's. Korny O'Near (talk) 02:46, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

The point is also to reach NPOV. We just need to counter-balance such biased sources, so we don't represent them as the only authorities on the matter. BTW, please scan Antisemitism#Etymology and usage to see why the term "antisemitism" is preferred to "anti-Semitism".

Now the poor Jews that were settled in Gaza Strip by the Israeli Government and even parts of the West Bank are against the PM and former PM (G*d rest his soul) for having chosen to remove them from their homes with the Army. Does that mean they're anti-(Israeli Army) -> anti-PM -> anti-Knesset -> anti-(Israeli Government) -> anti-Israel -> anti-Zionist -> anti-Judaic -> anti-Jewish -> anantisemitic -> anti-Semitic? Does that make them self-hating Jews? I do not believe so. I believe there are people who are against the Israeli Army but not the PM, or the Knesset but not the Government, or Israel but not Zionism, or Judaism but not Jews, or Jews but not Semites. Distinctions must be made somewhere. I think that although these themes have a significant overlap, there are still lines of racial antisemitism separate from religious antisemitism. I think the criticism of the Government of Israel should not always entail a label of antisemitism and conflating such views serves hatred and confusion, not peace and harmony.

I abhor antisemitism and existential threats to Medīnat Yisrā'el. I support its right to exist and want to spend more time there, but I think few people in the world believe that it cannot be improved upon; even in the Diaspora, the Country, the Knesset, Kadima, or the Cabinet. BTW, my capitalization leaves much to be desired. :)--Thecurran (talk) 05:05, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

I was sure there was a section here last year on anti-Israel bias in the UN. I found it. [4]

I don't know why the removing change was left. Maybe we can mine this for more sources. Anyhow, I'm starting to think that every nation probably has at least one complaint about the history of the UN. It spins my head trying to figure how to balance it properly. I guess we go with the loudest allegations of bias in different conflicts, so that their view is not unheard, but dilligently find counter-sources, so we can claim NPOV. What do you think? :)--Thecurran (talk) 05:37, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

The WP:SUMMARY policy states : To keep articles synchronized, editors should first add any new material to the appropriate places in the main article, and if appropriate, summarize the material in the summary article. To clarifiy :

• United Nations is the summary article containing short summaries and a prominent link to main articles,
• Israel, Palestinians and the United Nations is the main article on this issue.

Therefore, for the third time, please stop expanding this summary section, please move the discussion to the main article. I will, once again, shorten this section after giving you a chance to read the policies. Emmanuelm (talk) 14:10, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

Well, I'll wait to see how you shorten this section before offering any more thoughts. Korny O'Near (talk) 15:00, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

Done.

If you want to edit this summary, please edit the main article first, then decide if this particular point is notable enough to be mentioned in the summary.

Curran, I deleted both maps; they are too much for a summary. I invite you to add the before-after map to the main article, next to the text about the Lausanne Conference, 1949. Emmanuelm (talk) 18:18, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

Okay - I still disagree with the phrase stating that anti-Zionism is distinct from antisemitism - that's an opinion, and not a universally-held one. Also, the part right afterwards that notes that the UN has condemned antisemitism seems irrelevant, and an unnecessary attempt at defense - sort of like saying, "The United States has been accused of imperialism, a type of activity that it has condemned in many congressional resolutions." Actions and words are not necessarily related. Korny O'Near (talk) 19:02, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

I added "condemned by the UNGA" to clarify that, at the UN, anti-semitism is not equivalent to anti-zionism. True, many see both as the same thing, but not the UN, and that's what matters in this article. Again, I invite you to read the main article on the subject, complete with a section about this. Emmanuelm (talk) 19:53, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

I don't see why the UN's view of the subject is what should matter in this article. I have an opinion, you have an opinion, the UN has (to some extent) an opinion; the article shouldn't have an opinion. Korny O'Near (talk) 20:10, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

User:Emmanuelm, I did not previously understand how you were getting at moving the discussion to a different, more appropriate page. It makes perfect sense, though. I want to present something substantial here to show ways the UN has been pro-Israel because of all the anti-Israel parts. I will only use stuff from thst main page. If it's possible, please keep in touch to make sure what I add here is appropriate. Once again, thank you. :)--Thecurran (talk) 21:21, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

Curran, I am glad you now understand this important but poorly known WP policy, and am looking forward to reading your edits. You will find in the main article a few sources accusing the UN of being pro-Israel. They are not many; I invite you to find more sources. Please remember to respect the relative importance of each opinion, as explained in the wp:weight policy. Emmanuelm (talk) 20:38, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

"Controversy and criticism" mergers

I think the bulk of "Inaction on genocide and human rights" seems to fit better in "Accusations of bias in the Arab-Israeli conflict", because of its frequent mentioning of that conflict. --Thecurran (talk) 20:08, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

This is merely the reflection of my own bias. You could improve it by expanding the discussion of other issues. Emmanuelm (talk) 19:11, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

I think the EU and UN both failed with regard to Milosevich's genocide in Yugoslavia and even NATO responded too slowly. Anyone (dis)agree? :)--Thecurran (talk) 07:19, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

Could you find good sources for that?Beam (talk) 00:31, 30 March 2008 (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 [5]. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Thecurran (talk • contribs) 21:02, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

www.un.org now blocking access to documents?

When I try to read the text of a specific UNGA or UNSC resolution in the www.un.org site, I get a "No Authorization" message. Try this or this to see what I mean. It worked well last year. Is it just me? Emmanuelm (talk) 19:30, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

Start again here, click here, and it'll let you read the first one here. :)--Thecurran (talk) 22:20, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

I still get an error message -- must be me! thanks, Emmanuelm (talk) 14:23, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

headquarters

it would be nice to include a history of the headquarters used for the UN. I recently heard that the UN had been located in Nassau County, Long Island - before it's present location in NY. Is that true? Would be great to get photos, and show a map of how/why it moved. Sign your username: Newtowiki2 (talk) 13:12, 13 February 2008 (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?

Opening of article

"There are now 192 member states, including almost every recognized independent state." Including almost every recognized state of what? Of the world? Of the U.N.? Pbr2000 (talk) 19:18, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

And recognized by whom? Most of the articles we have on countries and states base their "recognition" status on the UN. See List of sovereign states for example. So the opening seems to be saying that UN contains almost all the states that are in the UN. Readin (talk) 00:30, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Recommend semi-protecting article

Due to recent vandalism of the page, and seeing as the United Nations is a well-known organization whose article is prone to vandalism, I recommend an admin semi-protects this page. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Heat3000 (talk • contribs) 03:11, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

I really tried to remove the vandalism, but failed miserably, not knowing too well about Wikipedia's undo functionality. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.139.233.216 (talk) 18:57, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

I was pondering semi-protection for the same reason; random click-by vandalism continues. I've instituted it on a trial basis; other admins should feel free to modify as needed. -- Beland (talk) 12:18, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

un member map flawed

according to the United Nations own members list, neither South Korea, nor North Korea are members of the UN, therefore it seems premature to place them as members on the members map. If they are indeed members, then the article needs the citation for it. 06:25, 21 April 2008 (137.229.58.98)

From South Korea Page: ``The country has also been a member of the United Nations since 1991, when it became a member state at the same time as North Korea.`` South Korea#Other nations--Rockybiggs (talk) 15:00, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

Member state	Date of admission
North Korea	19910917 1991-09-17
South Korea	19910917 1991-09-17

Re. "Accusations of bias in the Arab-Israeli conflict"

You will notice a complete re-write of this section. Note that its content is in fact the lead paragraph of the main article, transcluded into this summary article. No sources are required as per WP:SUMMARY and WP:LEAD guidelines; they can be found in the main article. Please remember that, as you edit this summary, you are also editing the lead of Israel, Palestinians, and the United Nations. Emmanuelm (talk) 20:02, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

re: the history of the UN

How could Wikipedia fail to mention that the UN concept was proposed by Lester B Pearson, Canada's Prime Minister - who later won the Nobel Peace Prize for having done so? Please give credit where credit is due. This is insulting to leave out such a key figure. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.187.234.66 (talk) 01:28, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

Dear anonymous, "Wikipedia" does not exist, only Wikipedians, like me but also like you. Be bold, insert this information yourself, without forgetting to cite a reliable source. Emmanuelm (talk) 12:13, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

Image:United Nations peacekeeping missions 2008.png

The description for this image in the article itself said that dark blue represented current missions while light blue represented former missions, the description of the image itself and further investigation shows that this was actually the opposite of the truth, the dark blue represented former missions and light blue represented current missions. I edited to make the change. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 206.45.199.127 (talk) 02:26, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

New critic of the UN

This is from the website www.getusout.org. The org behind this says the UN is a corrupt (to be polite) mess, is Anti-American. They want the US out of the UN.

Can this website be used in this article? 65.163.115.254 (talk) 03:50, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

• This isn't a "new critic"; this is the John Birch Society. --jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 14:06, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

I HAVE TAKEN OVER THE UNITED NATIONS. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.30.142.218 (talk) 08:29, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

External links

I've removed some links from the External links section. According to WP:EL, the list of links should be "kept to a minimum of those that are meritable, accessible and appropriate to the article", according to WP:NOT, "Wikipedia is not a mirror or a repository of links", and according to WP:SPAM, "adding external links to an article or user page for the purpose of promoting a website [...] is not allowed".

Regardless of an individuals opinion on the UN, Wikipedia isn't a directory of links to websites that advocate a certain opinion. Links such as "GetUsOut", "The Quest for UN Reform", "ReformTheUN" and "The UN is evil" aren't appropriate for an NPOV encyclopedia. At the very least there should only be a small number of links to websites of UN institutions. --Joowwww (talk) 14:53, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

Section reform

This article's currently too big and a bit disorganised, so if nobody objects I'd like to propose a change to the section layout. This will keep the sections to a minimum but enable a summary of each topic to be turned into a paragraph, like a summary article such as this one should.

• History - needs to be expanded with info about 50s to present, 5-6 paragraphs at most summarising the key points. Keep details for the History of the United Nations article.
• Organization - Explains the structure of the UN, includes languages and personnel policy
  • Principal organs - A large-ish paragraph for each 5 main organs, summarising and linking to their own pages
  • Specialized institutions - Not a list, but a few paragraphs detailing the various other institutions, with a link a new article
  • Member states - Info about who has/hasn't joined and criteria for doing so, and G77
  • Secretary-General - What he does and previous SGs
• Functions
  • Peacekeeping and security - Summarise the current Peace and Security section, possibly break off into another article
  • Human rights and humanitarian issues - Summarise the current Human rights and humanitarian assistance section
  • Social and economic development - Current section summarised
  • Observation of elections - New section, 1-2 paragraphs
  • Environmental issues - New section, 1-2 paragraphs
• Funding - current section
• Political influence - New section detailing the influence the UN has on global policies, or over other nations, and how influence has changed in regards to Cold War, globalisation, etc
• Reform - Summarise current section

There isn't a criticism section as per WP:NPOV, which states that criticism (which should of course be included in the article) should be merged into the appropriate sections, and not turn the article into a Pros and Cons debate.

If this was done overnight a lot of sections would be huge, so it would be best to do it gradually, but it would also be a good incentive for them to be summarised. Only then could it possibly get GA status.

What are your opinions on this. Many thanks --Joowwww (talk) 14:09, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

OK It's been 4 days without objections so I'll start to implement this. It'll be a slow process so there'll be plenty of time for objections if anyone missed the first announcement. --Joowwww (talk) 10:15, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

Language

I propose the article use British English with Oxford spelling (ize), which is the standard for UN documents according to the UN Editorial Manual. Any objections? --Joowwww (talk) 10:15, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

Yes, I object - the UN's headquarters are in the United States, and it gets most of its funding from the U.S., so it seems to me more of an American institution than a British one. I don't know what the exact guidelines are for determining which spelling an article gets, but I doubt that the spelling that the subject of the article chooses to use plays a factor - otherwise the article on E. E. Cummings would be in all lowercase. Korny O'Near (talk) 15:29, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

The UN is certainly not an American institution, it is an international institution. Its headquarters is not even in the US, it's in international territory. Also, the majority of its funding comes from the US because it's the richest member-state. Funding is proportional to a member's ability to pay. There are two relevant guidelines, Wikipedia:Manual of Style#National varieties of English and Wikipedia:Manual of Style (spelling), the latter of which even states that the UN uses en-gb-oed spelling. I'm just trying to achieve consistency among UN-related articles, which is a criteria for reaching GA and FA status. --Joowwww (talk) 15:42, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

Well, I didn't say it's an American institution, just that I consider it more American than British. And I don't dispute the fact that they use Oxford spelling, I just think that it's irrelevant to what's used for the article; and the manual of style pages you link to seem to confirm that. To take another example, since you didn't seem to like my first one: the band Living Colour, though based in America, uses a British spelling for their name. Does that mean that their article should use British spelling as well? Korny O'Near (talk) 16:42, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

I think you are misunderstanding the guidelines on spelling systems. The guideline goes by national ties to a topic - the E. E. Cummings article uses American English because he's American. The Living Colour article uses American English because they're American. The United Nations is neither American nor British, so "national ties" can not apply - another factor must be used in determining which system to use - hence my mention of the UN's official policy. --Joowwww (talk) 17:01, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

I understand; I just don't see that as a relevant factor. Korny O'Near (talk) 20:17, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

Discussion on effects on sovriengty and rule

I notice the article is light on criticism of UN activities which impinge on the sovriegn rule of member nations. An example of which would be programs to eliminate small arms being in contradiction to a number of member stat's constitutions (not just the US) --