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)

I'd agree: The article appears biased towards the UN's activities (or lack of) in regard to peace keeping, etc. Humanitarian work (such as that by UNICEF and UNHCR) seems under represented. 82.41.200.77 (talk) 08:19, 25 June 2009 (UTC) (lionfish)

United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees or UNHCR, a very important and famous specialized agency of UN has not been mentioned in the article. Please correct this mistake!

Feel free to correct it yourself. This is a community project. If you have a reliable source, you can add it. Wperdue (talk) 23:05, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

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)

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)

see Shoe-banging incident Romanfall (talk) 16:53, 27 October 2008 (UTC)romanfall

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) na bah

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

Are you joking?! This page barely mentions the huge effort of UNICEF or the WFP! The WFP is the world's largest food aid organisation, it reaches about 100,000,000 people each year, and distributes about 4,000,000,000 kgs of food each year. This article seems to UNDER represent this important part of the UN's work. Similar lack of information about UNICEF appears. I'm starting to find the anti-UN sentiment a little concerning on this "objective" page! 82.41.200.77 (talk) 16:20, 6 September 2009 (UTC) (lionfish).

• • 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)

Isn't it up there though because those are the official languages of the UN??? 72.140.80.212 (talk) 17:45, 23 September 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 would like to see an additional sentence that reflects an additional criticism which is often cited as the reason behind things like rape scandals. Because poorer member states see the United Nations peacekeeping mission as a way to gain funding for troops, (they are reimbursed) they often send troops. This only applies to the poorest nations since richer nations would still see a net loss even with the reimbursement. Therefore the lowest paid and least well-trained troops are sent to missions. General Romeo Dallaire discussed this in his documentary after he failed in Rwanda while commanding UN troops to prevent genocide. --92.239.31.132 (talk) 23:01, 12 March 2009 (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)

Should there be a seperete artical of the "Anti-United Nations", to give more detaile on the negitivity against the United Nations? EmperorofFatalism 16 September 2008 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 220.235.123.17 (talk) 13:03, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

There is already a criticism section. --Joowwww (talk) 18:51, 16 September 2008 (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 [EDIT: do you mean "renegade" ?] 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".

Due to most countries belief of sovereignty (realist point of view), Taiwan will never be recognized as a country. This is just like how the country of Sudan is recognized as the government is in control of the entire nation whereas in reality, there are many warlords. This is true in many states where there may not be full control of the entire country but the government in the capital is the recognized form. Likewise, no one will recognize Taliban as a legitimate government even though they do control a part of Afghanistan. Taiwan is not a country. It is more similar to Puerto Rico where it has been recognized as being allowed to participate in some activities (Olympics for example) but they have no right to join any discussions with the UN when all members are required to be. One very important fact to not though is you can not compare flying to Taiwan and flying to PRC as a point of being recognized a nation. It is the official ruling that really matters. What happens unofficially means nothing in the United Nations. Next, a Taiwanese passport might be different from a PRC passport but then again a Greenland passport is different from Denmark too. Until it is recognized officially by the UN, Taiwan should not be considered a member country of the United Natio on its own. However, as a territory of China, it should be included in the map. Yialanliu (talk) 22:46, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

Taiwan (Republic of China) recognized as a country about about 20 other countries (the number fluctuates). However, regardless of whether Taiwan is a country, it is clearly not a UN member and should not be on the map. Antarctica is also not a country, is claimed by various UN members, and is not on the map. Puerto Rico is not a good comparison because Puerto Rico is governed by the United States. Puerto Rico is more like Hong Kong, where a great deal of autonomy is allowed but final legal authority rests elsewhere. For Taiwan, final legal authority rests with the ROC government. If the ROC Supreme Court makes a decision, there is no higher legal court to appeal to. Areas controlled by warlords in Sudan perhaps should not be shown on the map, you may make that case, but that case is nowhere near as strong as the case for Taiwan. Taiwan meets the conditions of the Montevideo Convention. Can the Sudan warlords do that?

The UN is an exclusive club for governments. Regardless of whether Taiwan is a county, Taiwan does have its own government. That government meets the conditions of the Montevideo Convention, but has been rejected by the UN. Given that clear and unequivocal rejection, it is incorrect to show that government's territory as UN territory. Readin (talk) 02:02, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

The map, being sourced to the UN itself, and being based on the China (as a UN member)'s POV of things outside of its control, clearly violates Wikipedia:PSTS#Primary.2C_secondary_and_tertiary_sources and also represents a biased POV. If it cannot be fixed, it should be removed. Readin (talk) 13:57, 15 November 2009 (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)

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

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)

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.

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)

This section appears heavily biased in favour of Israel. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 131.236.169.113 (talk) 05:55, 4 August 2009 (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)

Good for you. 89.216.184.170 (talk) 09:00, 29 December 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)

The "United Nations Directory" link is broken. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 159.50.249.149 (talk) 12:49, 9 February 2010 (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) -- —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.151.173.229 (talk) 03:10, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

The UN doesn't impinge on the sovereignty of any nation - it is in no way a world government. UN resolutions have to be approved by its member states. --Joowwww (talk) 11:36, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

Alternatives to United Nations

I'm interested to read in the article about Alternative organizations -

You'd be looking for League of Democracies then, recently proposed by John McCain. Remember, the UN isn't a place for democratic countries to cooperate, it's a place for all countries to cooperate. --Joowwww (talk) 10:46, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

Good. BTW, the Community of Democracies is not Created by McCain as the above comment made me think, his name is nowhere in the article. (Can someone incorporate it in the article or put it in the 'see also', it's locked to me). Apotetios (talk) 10:56, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

Accusations of bias in the Arab-Israeli conflict: removed transclusion

A while ago, I created that section with the transcluded content of the lead section of the main article. Today, User Joowwww replaced the transclusion with the actual text. You may not have noticed the change -- it looks the same right now.

On one hand, he is right: modifications to that lead section will appear in this UN article but not in the history of edits. On the other hands, modifications to that text will be examined by non-specialists. Hence, the usefulness of transcluded lead paragraphs: they are continuously edited by the best editors in the field, thus saving them the chore of watching multiple articles and increasing the quality of the summary article. What do you think: plain text or transcluded text? Emmanuelm (talk) 20:32, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

There are some who don't watch the Israel article (me included) and if this article ever attained GA or even FA status I would want possibly contentious changes or vandalism to show up in my watchlist. It's just my opinion. I can understand your viewpoint but I don't think transcluded article sections is about to become an accepted thing on Wikipedia. --Joowwww (talk) 21:28, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

I know I am fighting an uphill battle, but if you are afraid of undetected contentious edits, a transcluded text is your best protection! Emmanuelm (talk) 03:02, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

I'm not sure how. If you stopped editing Wikipedia for whatever reason then changes to the transclusion would go unnoticed for much longer. I may be wrong but I would assume that more people have the United Nations article on their watchlist than the Israel bias article. --Joowwww (talk) 10:08, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

You keep bringing arguments for my point! Less people keep the specialized article on the watchlist but they are more knowledgeable and can catch malicious edits more reliably.

A while ago, I posted in the Israel & UN article a map of the 1947 partition plan. Someone changed the image for another map with a very similar name and appearance, where the Jewish partition was greatly enlarged. It took a specialist to catch this malicious edit. Since then, I've been thinking about how to protect Wikipedia against this kind of expert vandalism. The only answer is expertise, which always implies specialization. I don't know everything but I know my little part and no one can trick me there. Transclusion makes it easier.

To get back to your latest comment, I'd guess that the number of people watching the specialized articles is not much lower than for summary articles. But we'll never know because WP keeps this information confidential. Emmanuelm (talk) 18:12, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

Seeing as how you saw my removal of the transclusion, surely you would see any other changes to the UN article? If someone cares enough about protecting information on the UN and Israel, they would have every page that deals with it on their watchlist, including this one, meaning any vandalism here would be seen by a specialist and reverted. --Joowwww (talk) 18:26, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

Edit: I just realised my wording in the previous message probably needs clarification: I meant to say "If you stopped editing Wikipedia for whatever reason then changes to the transclusded information would go unnoticed on the UN article" --Joowwww (talk) 18:28, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

Is there any evidence that the United Nations article has been the target of "expert vandalism"? If not, this strikes me as a solution in search of a problem. I would tend to agree to Joowwww that bad edits are more likely to be picked up on the main article than at the lead section of the Israel, Palestinians and the United Nations article. I don't agree that "the only answer is expertise, which always implies specialization": actually, I think the more eyes are watching an article, the more likely we are to pick up bad edits. And we have a lot more experts watching the UN article than the Israel one.

I could be wrong about this, but I think the community generally disapproves of transcluding article prose. If this is the case, I think you'd need to run your proposal by the village pump before transcluding any more lead sections. Polemarchus (talk) 12:45, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

About expert vandalism, I just remembered another example, also at the Israel & UN page: someone changed the text of a direct quote, thus wrapping their POV into quotation marks with a source at the end. That one was easy to catch since I knew the quoted author well and the new words were not her typical discourse.

About proposing this to the village pump, I did that a while ago. Like you guys, they do see the point. They also did not understand my frustration every time I see that WP:No duplication is still a red link. Clearly, you won this argument. All I can do now is work to keep two essentially identical texts identical. Waste of my time. Emmanuelm (talk) 02:23, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

Map

SADR is neither a de-facto nor de-jure country. and if we are putting in de-facto countries where Abkhazia and S ossetia? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.217.59.87 (talk) 07:09, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

Where does it say SADR is a de-facto or a de-jure country? --Joowwww (talk) 10:37, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

The Map: 2

Isn't it POV to say that the ROC is a Un member (as a part of the PRC iu can only assume). Though this raises the fact that its POV to say the other way as well. How do we fix this POV problem where either way its POV?--Jakezing (talk) 23:12, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

It is a point of view but thats the point of view of the United Nations. The United Nations does not recognise Taiwan because it accepts PRC has sovereignty over all of China. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Nations_General_Assembly_Resolution_2758 This link will explain the situation. BritishWatcher (talk) 23:31, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

But is that absolute fact? Nope. If we went by t6hat then western Sahara should be merged with Morocco.--Jakezing (talk) 00:37, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

Western Sahara is on the United Nations list of Non-Self-Governing Territories. The UN recognises Western Sahara as a colony, not as a sovereign part of Morocco. --Joowwww (talk) 11:37, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

Still dosnt fix the problem of the infinite POV status of taiwan.--Jakezing (talk) 22:51, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

It is the point of view of the United Nations, it may not seem fair but we sadly can not decide UN policy. In the eyes of the United Nations and most Sovereign States offically there is only one china and thats ruled by the PRC. Once the PRC get over the past then Taiwan will be welcomed into the UN, till then despite trading with Taiwan and having relations, there is only one China. BritishWatcher (talk) 23:00, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

that answer did not solve the POV issue we are having by saying taiwan is a part of china by sayiung it is in the UN> The UN does not decide who is a real nation; the UN's true power lies in the willingness of its members to care about what it says. The UN is in realty a confederation. its members can easily choose to ignore it.--Jakezing (talk) 23:23, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

its members decided that China was ruled by PRC and currently its offical view is CHina ruled everything including Taiwan. It is a point of view but its a point of view adopted by the international community and there for UN policy, making the comment about it in that map info correct even if we all know its wrong in reality BritishWatcher (talk) 23:27, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

So wikiepdiua is ignoring pure fact in favour of a POV; what a violation.--Jakezing (talk) 23:44, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

This wiki article is simply stating the United Nations policy and view, its not saying it agrees with it.

"An animation showing the timeline of accession of UN member states, according to the UN. Note that Antarctica has no government; political control of Western Sahara is in dispute; and the territories administered by the Republic of China (Taiwan) and Kosovo are considered by the UN to be provinces of the People's Republic of China and Republic of Serbia, respectively"

The words "according to the UN" and "Are considered by the UN" are very clear, its simply explaining UN policy which we can not change no matter what we think about this issue. BritishWatcher (talk) 23:49, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

If I understand correctly, the whole of China has always been a member of the UN. The only change has been over which government is the legitimate representative of that single country. Therefore there's no reason for the map to change. Taiwan/ROC has never declared independence, so it's still just one country. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 01:22, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

That's because it never had to declare independance. the ROC already existed at the time the PRC took mainland china and when the PRC became the foreign recognized china. Why should it declare independance when it already existed seperate from the Peoples republic? --Jakezing (talk) 00:20, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

IIRC, the ROC/Kuomintang claimed for decades that there was only one China and that it was the legitimate government of the entire country. I'm not sure when, if ever, they officially changed that policy. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 19:18, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

This is why politiicians are stupid they understand nothing--Jakezing (talk) 21:42, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

Amen to that! ·:· Will Beback ·:· 21:47, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

Controversy and criticism section

I have a problem with the reverted version done today by Korny of this section. I agree the revert offers more detail which is important but could this not be placed under a heading of US critism of the UN, then later expand the section to include points of views of others major countries as well. At the moment it is too much of a point of view of the US with out even labelling it as such, which is obviously why a tags there.

Personally i would like to see this section just sum up some of the basic concerns like the Israel/Palestine problem and failure to deal with genocides etc. But then link to a new page on Critisms of the United Nations, which could go into alot more detail of different countries and peoples concerns. But i dont know how others would feel about that BritishWatcher (talk) 18:39, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

I agree that it would be more suited to the United States and the United Nations article. Some of the criticism just seems to be there for the sake of it. I've always been opposed to "Criticism of..." articles, they just seem like places for people to put as much POV as they want in. One of the points made at WP:STRUCTURE (dealing with achieving a neutral presentation) discourages criticism sections altogether, something that can turn the article into a pros and cons debate. Something like US attitudes towards the UN could be integrated into an "Influence" section (something I suggested a while back but haven't got round to doing) and the Oil-for-food scandal would be better placed in the History section if that section was expanded to include UN history from 1946 to present. --Joowwww (talk) 22:34, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

Well, it seems to me that the vast majority of criticism of the United Nations, especially from high-level officials, comes from the US - I don't think any other country (maybe Israel) comes close; and that seems to be an important piece of information in and of itself, that I think the article should reflect. If there's a better way to organize this information, though, that's fine with me. Korny O'Near (talk) 06:53, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

There is huge criticism from around the world of the United Nations, Presidents of countries have given speeches at the united nations condemning it for being a puppet of the west or not representing africa etc. I did not realise before that there was a separate article as mentioned by Jooowwww at United States and the United Nations where all those US issues clearly belong. So i would support Joowwwws suggestion about doing away with the criticism section and putting Oil For food and a mention of the Arab- Israel conflict as the main ongoing dispute over the past 40 years in an expanded History section. That seems like a sensible way to clean up that part of the article. BritishWatcher (talk) 13:21, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

If it's true that there's been lots of notable non-U.S. criticism, why not add that in as well? It seems extremely relevant to this article. Korny O'Near (talk) 16:38, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

Well thats why i suggested maybe a new article, just for criticisms from notable people and nations, but that would take a long time to create to find sources and present views of so many different countries and people. The easiest solution is the suggestion made by Joowwww to include basic information in the history section rather than an entire criticism section. There doesnt need to be an entire paragraph on the main UN page of different Americans views of the United Nations, especially when most are just political views. Democrats in America have been angry over the past few years at the Bush admins lack of respect for the United Nations and defend it. BritishWatcher (talk) 16:49, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

Yes, but in this case the easiest solution is also the least informative one. Political views of the UN seem to me to be very relevant to any history of the UN, and I haven't seen anyone argue that they're not. A few more sentences, or another paragraph, with more opinions from other sources, I don't think will overwhelm the rest of the article; that can include both more criticism and praise. Add away, I say. Korny O'Near (talk) 16:57, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

Like I suggested above an "Influence" section would deal with the UN's political influence on countries' foreign affairs and would also be able to hold countries' attitudes towards it. --Joowwww (talk) 11:24, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

Taiwan on UN members map?

Looking at the map on the left side of the page, it asserts that Taiwan is a member of the UN. Taiwan, however, has failed to achieve representation with the UN, as it is not recognized due to UN resolution 2758 (see: China and the United Nations.) Greenknight04 (talk) 17:38, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

I would think its coloured in on the maps because the United Nations recognizes that there is only one China, and there for the island of Taiwan is part of that 1 China even though in reality China has no control over Taiwan. BritishWatcher (talk) 17:51, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

That's right, the map reflects the UN's position of Taiwan being part of China. --Joowwww (talk) 23:20, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

Erroneous and rascist information

{{editsemiprotected}} Hello, please remove the following line:

"It is run by Saudi-Arabian terrorist lovers Osama Bin Laden and John McCain."

Located here:

The United Nations (UN) is an international organization whose stated aims are to facilitate cooperation in international law, international security, economic development, social progress, human rights and achieving world peace. It is run by Saudi-Arabian terrorist lovers Osama Bin Laden and John McCain. The UN was founded in 1945 after World War II to replace the League of Nations, to stop wars between countries and to provide a platform for dialogue.

I believe it was changed by Rabidabba

Panchovillados (talk) 00:04, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

Already removed :) Thanks for the heads up. NuclearWarfare _(Talk) 01:25, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

U.N. BLASPHEMY LAWS/Controversy and Criticisms

How come the controversy and criticism section does'nt mention the current blasphemy laws the U.N. is considering approving on behalf Muslim extremists and religion in general? This has been critisized and generated some controversy{as well it should} as of late--Iconoclastithon (talk) 20:30, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

Every UN resolution causes debate and/or controversy. Criticism of a particular resolution should go on that resolution's article, if it exists. P.S: nothing the UN does is "law". --Joowwww (talk) 20:44, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

High Commissioners

Is it possible that on that site there is not link to the High Commissioners? for example to the High Commissioner of Human Rights? for example, United Nations Human Rights, for example [6].

Austerlitz -- 88.72.18.42 (talk) 19:51, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights

Austerlitz -- 88.72.18.42 (talk) 19:55, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

Something is just not right

One question. did the UN members and staff know about Victor Bout, the U.S. military (DoD), and themselves being involed with each other? also how is it that "some people" used this individuals services and then throws away all that was accomplished through the subjects qualities? it is not a question of defaming anyone in particular. turkish vitali —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.85.0.18 (talk) 17:29, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

Spelling error!

At the end of the section, "Accusations of bias in the Arab-Israeli conflict," it says "The usual IDF respones are airstrikes on weapon smuggling tunnels." "Respones" is not a word. Please fix.

144.171.190.146 (talk) 19:40, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

Done, thanks --Joowwww (talk) 21:51, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

Same section, last paragraph, please correct: someof --> some of

 Done. Thanks! —Jroy5 (talk) 23:36, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

Distributors to the United Nations

header 1	header 2	header 3
row 1, cell 1	row 1, cell 2	row 1, cell 3
row 2, cell 1	row 2, cell 2	row 2, cell 3

Just to point out...

Hi, I've been told by many people that the Western Sahara is part of the UN, though according to the map it isn't. Is there any proof that the country isn't part of the organization? Ross Rhodes (T C) ^Sign! 17:37, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

UN Meditation room

It would be interesting if we could have an entry on the UN Meditation room, which first became known to the public when it was visited by Pope Paul VI in the 1960s. [7] ADM (talk) 02:54, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

United Nations and abortion

Another topic that might deserve an article is United Nations and abortion, which would be an interesting addition to abortion in Canada, abortion in France, abortion in Italy, etc. ADM (talk) 20:43, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

Evolution map

Although the map at the top which shows all the members currently in the UN shows that Tiwan is not in the UN, which is true, the evolution map does not show that it left the UN. could someone please fix this? Thanks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.226.115.81 (talk) 01:32, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

Hello, I also replied to the comment you left on my Commons talk page. The UN subscribes to the One China policy, so it's not that the ROC left when the PRC joined, but that the membership of "China" was simply passed from Taipei to Beijing. Also, please leave new comments at the bottom of the page. Regards, --Joowwww (talk) 09:57, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

As far as I understand, the UN acknowledges the one-China policy but does not define what "China" is, i.e. what its borders are. Many countries such as Japan or the US consider Taiwan status to be undetermined. As a matter of fact, if you look at any map on un.org, you'll see a note at the bottom stating that "this map does not represent the official position of the UN". This is why we should either exclude Taiwan from the map; or remove the map from the infobox since it does not represent any official position - it only represents the position of the editor who created the map. Laurent (talk) 10:07, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

Also I question the point of this map since almost all territories on earth are either controlled by a state or claimed, so technically all the map should be blue, shouldn't it? Even Western Sahara, which is currently excluded, should be included on the ground that it's claimed by Morocco. Laurent (talk) 10:13, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

Whether or not there should be a map isn't really an issue, this is an encyclopedia and the lack of a map would severely damage the educational value of the article.

I think what needs to be addressed is the wording of the caption instead of the map itself. This map [8] shows Taiwan in blue, which the key says means "member states of the United Nations", and does not give the name "Taiwan". Although the disclaimer says the map doesn't represent the UN's views on boundaries or legality, 1) the map still shows Taiwan in blue, and 2) the UN considers Taiwan part of China, therefore falling under China's membership. The map on the article makes no claims about the borders of countries, as it clearly states "according to the UN".

"One China" usually means that mainland China and Taiwan are considered one country, but there is disagreement on where that country is governed from.

Western Sahara is considered a Non-Self-Governing Territory, the UN recognises it as a colony, not a sovereign part of Morocco. --Joowwww (talk) 10:58, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

Whether or not there should be a map isn't really an issue, this is an encyclopedia and the lack of a map would severely damage the educational value of the article. - I agree but my point was that it's absurd to have a map if all the countries are colored in blue.

the map still shows Taiwan in blue - but there's a disclaimer saying that it doesn't represent the position of the UN. In the infobox, however, we present this map as if it was official. Also the caption is probably incorrect and unsourced: "and their UN-recognized dependencies according to the UN".

the UN considers Taiwan part of China - do you have a source for this, as I honestly can't find any. Laurent (talk) 11:12, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

Taiwan is right to be coloured in as blue on the Wikipedia map, as it is considered to come under the membership of the "China" seat, to which the government of the PRC is permitted to send representatives. See United Nations General Assembly Resolution 2758 and [9]. --Joowwww (talk) 12:58, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

From the article you cite: "Some viewpoints assert that Resolution 2758 has solved the issue of China's representation in the United Nations, but left the issue of Taiwan's representation unresolved in a practical sense. The ROC government continues to hold control over Taiwan and other islands. While the PRC claims sovereignty over the whole China including Taiwan, it does not, nor ever has, exercised sovereignty over Taiwan"

The resolution itself says that China is represented by the PRC (which makes sense as the PRC controls China). It says the Chiang government is no longer allowed to represent China. The resolution says nothing about Taiwan. The China Embassy site is obviously a biased one on this issue.

Simply put though, the state controlling Taiwan is not represented at the UN. Taiwan should not be shaded blue on the map. To have Taiwan shaded blue is highly misleading at best. Readin (talk) 22:28, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

This is not about which areas are controlled by who. When the UN was founded, what it calls "China" (the mainland and Taiwan) was represented by the ROC government. That representation was switched to the PRC government in 1971. The ROC did not leave, as it never joined, and the PRC has never joined. The seat "China" has never left the UN, and according to the UN, the island of Taiwan is represented under the seat of "China". This is not open to individual interpretation, it represents the UN's view.

The resolution does not make any distinction between China and Taiwan; it uses the term "China" to mean the seat at the UN. --Joowwww (talk) 09:01, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

The UN members are never clear about the status of Taiwan. Many (most?) of them don't say that Taiwan is or isn't part of China. They just say "there is one China" but don't state what they believe its borders are. Likewise, the UN Secretariat doesn't take any position (cf. the disclaimer on all their maps). That's why we, as a neutral encyclopedia, shouldn't take any position either, and shouldn't display a map that we present as THE map of the UN members, when such map doesn't actually exist.

In my opinion, we should either exclude Taiwan from the map; or perhaps shade it in a different color and explain that its status, according to some states, is considered to be "undetermined". Laurent (talk) 00:06, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

You seem to be misunderstanding the concept of "One China". The PRC and the ROC both agree on what "China" is, it's the mainland and Taiwan. The only disagreement is over who controls that area, not what it looks like. The PRC claims Taiwan, and the ROC claims the mainland.

The UN has declared through the 1971 resolution that it considers the seat in the UN called "China" (referring to the area it calls China, namely the mainland and Taiwan) to be represented by the PRC government. I don't see how stating that in the article, above the caption "according to the UN", is NPOV. What individual member states' views on the PRC/ROC dispute are is irrelevant. Countries' membership in the UN isn't decided by individual member states, it is decided collectively by the GA and SC. --Joowwww (talk) 10:11, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

referring to the area it calls China, namely the mainland and Taiwan - did you read resolution 2758? The UN certainly didn't refer to China as mainland and Taiwan, it just says that the seat of China was transfered from the ROC to the PRC but without mentioning Taiwan.

For information, here is the position of the US regarding Taiwan: "We take no position on the status of Taiwan. We neither accept nor reject the claim that Taiwan is a part of China." [10].

And here is Japan's position: "Taiwan’s status is undetermined" [11].

The de facto position of the ROC when it applies for UN membership is also that Taiwan is not part of China. The states that recognize the ROC also have this de facto position.

Now here is the UN position: "The designations employed and the presentation of material on this map do not imply the expression of any opinion whatsoever on the part of the Secretariat of the United Nations concerning the legal status of any country" [12] So the opinion of the UN's members is certainly not as unambiguous as you describe. The current map of the UN amounts to original research so it needs to be removed or clarified. Do you have any suggestion on how to do that? Laurent (talk) 10:42, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

Yes I did read the resolution, and nowhere does it say Taiwan isn't in China. Please read it more closely, it refers to the PRC as the only legitimate representatives of China, China being the mainland and the island of Taiwan, as recognised by the UN and both the PRC and the ROC under the One China policy. The article's map of UN member states is according to the UN, not according to the US, Japan or anyone else. Resolution 2758 makes the UN's view quite clear. --Joowwww (talk) 11:31, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

nowhere does it say Taiwan isn't in China -- Assuming that Taiwan is part of China based on something that is not said is WP:OR. I've removed the ref to Resolution 2758 since it doesn't prove or disprove anything, and rewritten the caption so that it maches the source. You keep saying it's clear that Taiwan is part of China, but apparently it's clear only for you since you didn't bring any positive proof for your claims. Laurent (talk) 10:49, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

I'm not assuming anything, I'm merely stating the UN's opinion regarding Taiwan. I'm also not saying it's clear Taiwan is part of China, I'm saying it's clear that the UN considers Taiwan part of China. I have no opinion regarding the status of Taiwan. This discussion is starting to get hostile, so I've requested a third opinion. --Joowwww (talk) 12:45, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

Third Opinion It seems to me that the map at present implies that the government actually in control of Taiwan is a member of the UN, which it isn't. Having said, if there is a definitive statement from the UN explicitly stating that "Taiwan is a part of China", or a UN approved map that clearly states that this is the official position of the UN, then that would be sufficient evidence to include the island in blue, per the UN's own clearly stated opinion. If no such unambiguous evidence exists, I'd suggest that something along the lines of "status undetermined" or "status controversial" would more accurately reflect the real situation. The wording of UN Resolution 2758 does not seem, to me, to provide this uncontroversial evidence. Anaxial (talk) 21:18, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for your answer, overall I agree with what you say. If there is indeed a UN source stating that Taiwan is part of China then we don't have a problem and Taiwan should be on the map. However, if there isn't any source, we should try to seek a compromise. We could put Taiwan in a different color and put, as you said, "status controversial" or "undertermined" as a legend. I think that would make the map more neutral than it is now, and also more accurate. Laurent (talk) 19:56, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

Im sorry but the United Nations officially recognizes that there is only one China and that one China rules over everything until there is a declaration or resolution saying otherwise (which there certainly hasnt been and never will until China accepts it). This map appears to show Taiwan coloured as all other member states of the UN too just like we do. [13] and i note unlike for example Palestine which is described as an occupied territory there is no mention of Taiwan. BritishWatcher (talk) 20:18, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

I've open a case regarding the issue on the mediation cabal. Laurent (talk) 16:24, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

"War"

This section seems to be me to be completely OR and POV. I'm sure we could find proper sources to create a section of this nature, but they certainly aren't here. --jpgordon^{::==( o )} 01:08, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

Its great to hear people's opinions. The facts speak for itself. Whats printed there is completely factual and sourced and not opinionated in any way. On wiki, there are lists of dozens of wars with casualty amounts, thats clearly referenced with sources, on their individual pages. The statement from the UN is taken directly from their website citing its principles and policies. Its ironic that this organization attempts to make a statement such as that, and have the U.S. along with a long list of other countries donate money to it to keep it running, and have war after war occur in an endless cycle killing millions of people. I think what bothers people is the "bolton reference" which some find a little vague to this particular piece. He is clearly referring to aggression and conflict and the UN's failure with keeping in check its member countries in dealing with those issues. Cherri65

I agree that the section should be removed. I've tried to find some sources and couldn't find any that would directly discuss the impact of the UN on world peace. The correlation numbers of wars / failure of the UN is incorrect because one could argue that there would have been twice as much wars if the UN hadn't been there. There may be something to write on the topic though, but as it stands the section is clearly original research. Also the quote by John R. Bolton seems to be unrelated (at least it's no said why he mades these criticisms, so it may or may not be about the war). Laurent (talk) 08:34, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

The entire criticism section should be merged into the relevant sections, as per WP:STRUCTURE. Right now the article just reads as a pros and cons debate. --Joowwww (talk) 10:21, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

I took out what some people thought was irrelevant and also what some people might consider as opinionated wording towards the bottom of the piece. Whats there now, is now entirely factual and relevantly sourced on their individual pages as far as the war pages go. This piece just needs to be expanded. Not deleted. And by the way, to say that there would have been double the amount of wars if the UN were not around is completely opinionated. Who says that would be the case? Cherri65

The unsaid conclusion of this section is that the UN failed at maintaining world peace, however, this opinion is currently not supported by any source. Presenting the facts the way you did it, whether you write down the conclusion or not, is original researh. See in particular the intro of the policy which states: "you must cite reliable sources that are directly related to the topic of the article, and that directly support the information as it is presented". So basically you (or someone else) need to provide sources which present the facts exactly the way you did it. If there's no such source, the section should go IMO. Laurent (talk) 13:18, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

I agree, the section should be removed - it's both original research and synthesis - combining various pieces of information to make a point that none of the original sources do. Korny O'Near (talk) 13:49, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

Well, I read what you've wrote and some of it appears to ignore whats on the rest of the entire page. But first, let me say this; it states on the pages you brought forth not to bind together a bunch of pages with the intent of putting forth an "opinion". I didn't bring those references and then say the UN sucks. I didn't do that. I brought a worded statement directly from the UN and then I displayed factual history which has occured since that point to compare it and have wiki users read them and formulate their own position on the subject. As far as: "combining various pieces of information to make a point that none of the original sources do" is not true. There are actually alot of "personal statements" made throughout this entire page that have personal connotations because they were written by wiki users who are human and not robotic. So if thats the route you wish to take, you have alot more nitpicking to do. When I originally put forth my source with Mr. Bolton; many would agree he was referring to the frustration of conflict and basically that the UN is a pointless organization, when for instance countries which the US deems to be engulfed in terrorism have a say in UN matters. So for you to disagree and say its vague is really just opinionated. Your guilty for being opinionated. But I took it out anyhow to satisfy you. This piece needs to be expanded. I will try and do research in the meantime to bring up additional sources. Cherri65

I just removed the section. If there are other sections in the article that you think are guilty of original research/synthesis, feel free to remove those as well. Korny O'Near (talk) 14:42, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

Also, please read Words to avoid about the use of "however" and "clearly" which are non-neutral. Laurent (talk) 16:26, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

I have moved the Oil-for-Food and Peacekeeper rape controversies to their relevant sections. The bit about the Kosovan activist wasn't notable enough for this summary article. I'm not sure what to do about the Israel section, most of it is criticism is the GA as opposed to the entire UN. Perhaps it would be better suited on the GA article, and mentioned on the GA section here? --Joowwww (talk) 11:18, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

Not Even a Mention of Poor Ole Jan Smuts?

South Africa's Jan Smuts greatly helped the establishment of the League of Nations, the exact design and implementation of which relied upon him, and he later urged the formation of a new international organization for peace: the United Nations. Smuts wrote the preamble to the United Nations Charter and he was the only person to sign the charters of both the League of Nations and the UN.

Perhaps an honorary mention of him in the article's History section is the utmost least we could do. Invmog (talk) 20:57, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

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)

Criticisms of the United Nations

The criticisms section is extremely bloated and very unencylopedic. I propose we create a Criticisms of the United Nations article, reduce the section of the section and link it to the new article. There is so much information available that I'm surprised an article hasn't been started yet. Comments? Wikifan12345 (talk) 00:10, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

I fail to see how a separate Criticism article would improve the situation. Much of what was in the criticism section has been merged into the rest of the page, and I suggest that most of the Israel/bias info should be moved to the Israel and the United Nations article, with mentions in the United Nations General Assembly and United Nations Security Council articles as appropriate. The US's criticism of the UN should be moved to the United States and the United Nations article. --Joowwww (talk) 15:06, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

Yet another section has been added under criticism. I feel that this is fast becoming a POV magnet for everyone who has every had an unkind word to say about the United Nations. Any thoughts? Wperdue (talk) 23:50, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

Accusations of support for terrorism

This section was removed because its conclusions were not backed by the sources. Firstly, no one in either of those sources claims that the United Nations supports terrorism. Secondly, it is stated that the UN has "invited terrorists" to speak and then points to a source stating that Yasser Arafat spoke at the United Nations. One line from a single source states that "Israel says Arafat is tainted by terrorism". This doesn't mean that the United States supports terrorism or even that is accused of supporting terrorism. This is classic WP:SYN and hardly WP:NPOV. Wperdue (talk) 16:50, 23 July 2009 (UTC)wperdue

I've restored the section and added the relevant line from the Gold source: "The UN's new position could only be understood by those who regarded themselves as members of 'national liberation movements' as a license to commit murder in the name of the cause of self-determination. The UN ... had taken the first step toward legitimizing global terror" (37). Your second point is addressed by Gold on page 38. I've cited the sources. Thanks. --GHcool (talk) 17:07, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

What is this "Gold" source. I see a name and what I assume to be a page number. Wperdue (talk) 17:12, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

The full citation is under "Further reading." Its Dore Gold's book. --GHcool (talk) 17:14, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

My issue with this is that it is a book written by a former Israeli diplomat who, I assume (and please correct me if I'm wrong) is writing about the evils of a Palestinian group or leader of said group and calling them terrorists, murderers, etc. Then those claims are used to say that the UN supports terrorism on the basis of this leader speaking at the UN. I realize that individuals on both sides of this contentious issue have been accusing each other of horrible acts for a very long time. What makes Dore Gold's assertions more or less valid than a book by someone on the other side who makes the same claims about some Israeli leader and then accuses the UN of supporting terrorism because that leader speaks at the UN? I think WP:WEIGHT comes into play here. In my opinion, this opens up a slippery slope in this entry and has the distinct possibility of dragging the whole Middle East debate mess here. I would like to see a consensus on this section made before a section l ike this is added. Wperdue (talk) 17:32, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

The section is still very small, so let's wait before accusing of WP:WEIGHT violations (pardon the pun). In principle, I have no problems with verified information from reliable sources on the other side provided that they are cited correctly. --GHcool (talk) 18:30, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

I'm not meaning in any way to be accusatory. My "weight" comments were more directed to the source than the actual section of the entry. I'm not removing the material. I would just like to see more discussion to gain consensus. I don't have any kind of agenda except for maintaining NPOV. I appreciate the fact that you are willing to discuss the matter. Wperdue (talk) 18:34, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

It is no myth that terrorists and dictators who promote violence have been given an open forum at the UN on many occasions. Even senior officials like Kofi Annan and Kurt Waldheim have expressed solidarity with the Palestinian Liberation Organization and encouraged "discussion." There are several popular rationalizations for these POVs by various diplomats but this is a criticism section, so it should be consistent with similar articles. GHcool knows a lot more than I do and from what I understand has a sizable collection of books on the subject. I'd recommend giving the section some time and if it becomes clear that there is no way consensus will be achieved than I would endorse a move or delete. Wikifan12345 (talk) 23:41, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

I do not consider this suitable for the article. The UN is not an organisation of democratic nations, it is an organisation of ALL nations, and the leaders of those nations have a right to speak at the GA. Having criticism for that here only reflects the author's POV that the UN shouldn't host people that some consider terrorists or dictators, and Wikipedia should not present anyone's POV. One man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter. Someone who writes a book suggesting that the UN supports dictatorships just because it allows dictators to speak at the GA is pure synthesis on the author's part. It is not a neutral source and is not permitted on Wikipedia.

If you would like to read the discussions above you will see that we are trying to get rid of the criticism section as it goes against Wikipedia's NPOV policy. Most of the criticism there should be moved to relevant sections or articles. This article is not meant to be a list of everything anyone has ever said against the UN. --Joowwww (talk) 09:51, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

That was a nice rant but can you please be more explicit? I do agree the United Nations is more a less a euphemism - it is a collection of theocracies, democracies, monarchies, republics, communist states, etc... that all happen to sit in the same room every now and then. Nothing more, nothing less. But if you actually read the UN's charter it stipulates a series of rules that effectively bar the UN from empowering terrorists or violent movements. No doubt every nation is entitled to a voice, though it would be unfair not to say discrimination has become a increasingly institutionalized. However, inviting known terrorists to speak and condoning their actions goes beyond the basic rights afforded to member-states. This isn't a matter of "another man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter." UN bi-laws does not differentiate, that's for journalists and pundits to determine. Wikifan12345 (talk) 11:49, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

My point was that the UN allowing dictatorial state leaders to speak at the GA does not mean the UN supports dictators. Any reference that tries to state that is pure synthesis. --Joowwww (talk) 14:05, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

The UN is not a collective effort and does not offer "support." Clans within the organizations tend to support each other which typically compromises rights-based agencies, such as the United Nations Human Rights Council...but that is another argument to be made. To say the UN has not done the bidding of some of the most oppressive leaders in modern history would be a gross understatement. The section should and can be expanded, so there is little reason to delete outside of clinging to a fairy-tale image that is not the United Nations. Wikifan12345 (talk) 14:18, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

All I can see in that comment of yours was your point of view. What you mean by "clan" is anyone's guess, and how that links to the UNHRC is also unclear. If you have reliable and neutral references that indicate notable criticism of certain UN organs or agencies, then it should be placed on that organ or agency's article, not on this summary article. --Joowwww (talk) 14:45, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

The section is titled "Accusations of support for terrorism" but instead of talking about accusations, the section makes the accusations. I wasn't sure how to find that "Gold" source, so I won't comment on its reliability or notability. But if it is a notable accusation and we decide to keep it, then the article needs to be re-worded so that it makes clear who is doing the accusing rather than making it look like Wikipedia is doing the accusing. Readin (talk) 14:19, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

"In the late 1970s, Iraq built a nuclear facility capable of threatening Israel with nuclear war. When Israel destroyed the facility in 1981 in self defense, the United Nations Security Council condemned Israel. Commentators have since realized that Israel was within its moral and legal rights to destroy the facility and history has proven that it was the correct course of action.[66]" - This should be removed, that is a matter of opinion, not fact. It should be "In the late 1970s, Iraq built a nuclear facility, Israel destroyed the facility in 1981." —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.44.27.42 (talk) 15:42, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

No its not. It is verified to a reliable source. Thanks. --GHcool (talk) 16:41, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

No, the fact that it was bombed is fact. But that "it was capable of destroying Israel", "Self defense" and "Israel had the right to do so", are just opinion. I'm capable of killing people, but I have no intention to do so, by your logic, killing me is self defense. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.44.45.30 (talk) 14:39, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

Don't be silly. Please study the history and read the source it is cited to. Thanks. --GHcool (talk) 18:42, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

It doesn't matter if it's sourced, because it's still opinion. I'm assuming you're Zionist. Please don't use wikipedia to extend your political ideology. It's plain and simple, bias! How about I say that all bombings in Israel are self defense. It's true in my opinion, but it's opinion, so I don't add it to wikipedia. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.44.36.92 (talk) 14:00, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

Unfortunately for your argument, it relies on a false premise. The entire quote above is a statement of fact, not a statement of opinion.

1. "In the late 1970s, Iraq built a nuclear facility capable of threatening Israel with nuclear war." - statement of fact verified by a reliable source.
2. "When Israel destroyed the facility in 1981 in self defense, the United Nations Security Council condemned Israel." - statement of fact verified by a reliable source.
3. "Commentators have since realized that Israel was within its moral and legal rights to destroy the facility and history has proven that it was the correct course of action" (emphasis added) - statement of fact verified by a reliable source. Note that it does not say that Israel was within its rights (which, arguably, would have been an opinion). Rather it says that commentators have since realized that Israel was within its rights. That is a statement of fact. Commentators really have realized this and it is cited properly. --GHcool (talk) 16:32, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

The word "realized" implies that they were wrong before and right now, which is a statement of opinion, and is thus not allowed. Korny O'Near (talk) 17:14, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

I suppose that's a fair point. I'll change it. --GHcool (talk) 19:01, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

You changed "realized" to "noticed", which is just as bad. Korny O'Near (talk) 19:35, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

Whatever. I just changed it to "decided." --GHcool (talk) 20:33, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

Whatever you changed it to was just the same thing using other words. The problem is that it is sourced to someone's book and his own opinion but presented as a fact, a fact that is by common sense not even possible as not all commentators would agree on this. That would be more than one in a million of a chance. Are there any RS's that could be used? In any case, rephrasing of the sentence I removed is needed.--The Magnificent Clean-keeper (talk) 21:22, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

I just restored and attributed the quote. There can be no doubt that at least according to Dershowitz, commentators have given a 2nd look at the Osirak incident. --GHcool (talk) 22:01, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

Way better. I just added some minor context [attribution to Dershowitz] and will leave it as is.--The Magnificent Clean-keeper (talk) 23:23, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

BTW, is there a way to cite the page of the book online so editors and readers can see and confirm it? I just couldn't find any.--The Magnificent Clean-keeper (talk) 23:29, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

I don't know if there is either, but anybody who wants to see and confirm it can do it the old fashioned way at their local library. --GHcool (talk) 00:08, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

(ec)It is still quite problematic. There may be reason for putting it in Osirak, but not here - what do Dershowitz's views have to do with the UN? He mentions the UN security council resolution, but does not really directly criticize the UN. It is OR to have it here as currently written. (See also the google books preview showing page 180 etc, but not p 179.) It also states as fact several disputed points: that the Israeli attack was self-defense, that the facility was capable of threatening Israel with nuclear war. Finally, it, along with several other recent contributions is undue weight IMHO. The UN is a very big thing. We should try to select the most standard views on it, pro and con, not find minor, obscure and unclear criticisms, even if they may right great wrongs.John Z (talk) 00:39, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

Correct choice

Correct choice?... How biased!

In the late 1970s, Iraq built a nuclear facility capable of threatening Israel with nuclear war. When Israel destroyed the facility in 1981 in self defense, the United Nations Security Council condemned Israel. Commentators have since realized that Israel was within its moral and legal rights to destroy the facility and history has proven that it was the correct course of action.[66]

— Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.97.78.245 (talk) 22:13, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

YES! It is biased, why are people not getting this? I have no political mandate with this, but this is a black and white example of bias. In fact, it's a textbook example of the difference between fact and propaganda! Look, how hard is it to change it into "In the late 1970's Iraq built a nuclear facility, Israel felt it was threatened by it, Israel destroyed it in 1981 claiming it was in self defense." Saying they had the right to do it is not fact, it is opinion. Wikipedia has become a tool of the Apartheid Israeli state. Brilliant. Just brilliant. Right lads, time to flame me. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.44.19.104 (talk) 16:08, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

See above. --GHcool (talk) 18:43, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

I saw above. Again... OPINION! NOT FACT! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.44.36.92 (talk) 14:05, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

Support of violent regimes

Someone deleted this section on the grounds that the sources do not support the criticism of the UN. Maybe we need to rewrite this section in order to be more explicit in its criticism, but there is no doubt that the sources directly attack the role of the UN in this event. There is no OR or SYNTH use in the sources. The sources are explicit in calling UN as an assistant in genocide and holding a shameful act of "NO" choice (act of free choice). Please read and watch the sources online. The source for the documentary has the full hour video. Maziotis (talk) 20:29, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

I am going to try to include more sources. It seems the expression "act of no choice" is somewhat popular in criticizing the way the UN dealt with this issue. Former under-secretary-general Narasimhan Chakravarty called the act of free choice a "whitewash". Just use google news for past entries: http://news.google.com/archivesearch?q=%22act+of+no+choice%22&btnG=Search+Archives&hl=en&ned=us&scoring=a

I also found an article with some great references, here: http://intercontinentalcry.org/supporting-genocide-in-west-papua/ The article itself does't seem to be reliable, but it points to many sources that are themselves reliable and very much relevant for use in this article. Maziotis (talk) 21:52, 9 August 2009 (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?

Accusations of antisemitism

I removed the following sentences:

A UN sponsored conference was held in 2001 in Durban, South Africa. The conference was meant to combat racism, but ended up being a forum for spewing anti-Semitic vitriol. Cartoons were handed out at the conference equating the Nazi swastika with the Jewish Star of David. The scene outside of the conference was even worse with people shouting "Kill the Jews" and carrying placards that read, "Hitler Should Have Finished the Job." Tom Lantos, Colin Powell, Charles Schumer, Elie Wiesel, Irwin Cotler, and Alan Dershowitz are all on record condemning the entire conference as hateful, racist, and anti-Semitic.

The first section is sourced by an op-ed piece in the Telegraph. This is no better than a blog. The rest of the section talks about what happened outside the conference. How is the UN responsible for who shows up to protest or make a nuisance of themselves outside? This would be the equivalent of an article on abortion clinics that accuses them of supporting anti-abortion views because anti-abortion protesters march outside of them. The UN did not invite these people or go on record in any way supporting their views. We must go by what the stated purpose of the conference was and not the unintended consequences. Wperdue (talk) 01:18, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

Whether the UN intended for these things to happen is not important. It allowed the events to unfold and made no attempts to stop it. No major UN official condemned the acts either. UN has multiple vehicles for "going on record" and many leadership bureaucrats have openly confirmed opinions consistent with Durban I and Durban II. Also, the DailyT and Salon are reliable sources. by virtue of being an editorial does not make the information less reliable. Wikifan12345 (talk) 01:41, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

This section is about criticisms of the United Nations and not criticisms of demonstrators at UN sponsored events. They are not responsible for who shows up outside the event unless they are transporting these people there and telling them what to say. A lack of condemnation does not equal support. Further, if you have reliable sources which can backup the claims that "many leadership bureaucrats" have these opinions and can show that they directly effect UN policies vis a vis antisemitism, feel free to add them.

I disagree that the stated opinion piece is a reliable source. It is in the "comment section" and reads like a personal rant. I'm sure better sources can be found to backup these claims if they are indeed worthy of inclusion. As I have stated throughout this talk page, the criticism section is becoming a POV magnet for everyone who has ever had a problem with the UN. It has ballooned considerably in the past few weeks. Wperdue (talk) 02:42, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

Assuming we accept your false analogy between the editorial page of the Telegraph and a random blog, that would not make the section irrelevant since Lantos, Powell, Schumer, etc say exactly the same thing: that the UN is sponsoring an anti-Semitic hate conference. However, I accept your argument about the protesters outside of the conference. --GHcool (talk) 05:05, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

"Human Rights in United Nations Missions" table

I've removed the "Human Rights in United Nations Missions" table since it was built from multiple unrelated sources, and so consitute a synthesis. Actually, most of the "criticism" section seriously needs some clean up as it's clear there's a lot of WP:OR going on there. Laurent (talk) 12:33, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

There was a similar table inside the criticism section which I also removed due to the same issue.--Nosfartu (talk) 13:19, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

the UNGA and UNSC resolutions relative to the Arab-Israeli conflict was sourced directly from the pertinent UN agencies. The UN does not keep a record of human rights abuses for peacekeepers, but the numbers were supported by reports from HRW, analysis from BBC investigations, and other 3rd party reliable-media. I'm restoring the UNGA and UNSC resolutions and the less-pertinent United Nations Mission human rights section can be discussed because the sourcing was less organized. Wikifan12345 (talk) 19:17, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

According to your footnotes, the "comparison of major conflicts" table has been compiled by yourself and so is still original research. I think this kind of controversial table should be based on only one reliable source or author (who would already have compiled the data). If more than one source is needed, it means it's a synthesis. We should also consider whether or not the table is necessary. In general, I think the criticism section is growing bigger than the rest of the article and so is being given undue weight. Laurent (talk) 20:01, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

No, it's been compiled by an editor who retrieved the information from the pertinent United Nations-based agency. So no, I don't make up UN statistics so it would not qualify as original research or SYNTH. Similar sentiments have been made in word-form across the UN-sphere as demonstrated in the article, but is much more easier and accurate to demonstrate these facts through a table than mountains of paragraphs. If If anything I'd advocate replacing the numbers from other areas of the article and use tables/illustrations instead. Using the median from the casualties listing at the specific wikipedia article is not OR. If desired, I would be happy to carry over the casualties references for each war but I do not think it is necessary. There is nothing controversial about this table, it is purely informational. Wikifan12345 (talk) 20:22, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

Also, I do agree the criticism section is bloated and could use some chopping. Wikifan12345 (talk) 20:23, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

I've cut the tables as original research, and extraordinary undue weight. This is a synthesis compiled by editors. And such tables in this article gives undue weight to an argument that in the article has very little textual backing. The tables might have a place as separate lists though - but not without a secondary source providing reference to it. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 20:27, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

The tables are sourced directly from the United Nations. The argument is backed by the lengthy criticism section and affirmation of disproportionate attention from NGOs and academic scholars. Wikifan12345 (talk) 21:27, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

The data itself is from the UN, but it is wholly an original creation of editors here that has put it together in this manner. WP:OR and WP:SYNTH. And as you well know, wikifan, you are topic-banned from this area for the rest of 2009, so there's really not much of a leg to stand on here, on any front. Tarc (talk) 12:46, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

Suggested trims for Controversy section

I agree with some of the comments about how the controversy section is getting a little long. I suggest the following may be trimmed:

1. "Since then, it ... the Palestinian People."
2. The paragraph on the Negroponte doctrine.
3. The paragraph beginning with "Since 1961, Israel ..."
4. "Because, according to ... such an attack."

Unless there is significant disagreement, I will trim the above within the next few days. --GHcool (talk) 00:14, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

The whole palestinian/israeli section is suffering from undue weight, when you read the controversy section one should almost believe that this is just about the only thing the UN is about... --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 20:30, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

Agreed needs major cuts to that section. BritishWatcher (talk) 20:32, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

It's not undue, all of it is cited by the United Nations, and is confirmed by "textual backing." See paragraph four in controversies and "claims of disproportionate attention." What is most absent is the complete omission of UN-peace keeping allegations, and the raping/murder/etc...in Darfur, Congo, and Bosnia. Wikifan12345 (talk) 21:29, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

Agreed, the entire "Controversies" section reads like an essay, with more than two-thirds of the content addressing Israeli issues. Could this section be cut entirely, with some of the content moved into the rest of the article? Wiki policy favors this approach over extended "criticism" sections. Failing that the section could be trimmed back to a paragraph or two with controversies and criticisms concisely presented. There is a serious undue weight issue if pro-Israeli commentator Alan Dershowitz is cited here seven times. Note that many recent additions here were made by Wikifan12345, who has since been banned from I-P articles and talk pages. RomaC (talk) 08:48, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

Have made some deletions that were, frankly, over the top violations of Wiki policies. (Unattributed) language such as "spewing vitriol" don't belong. Hope others can help restore this section to a NPOV status. RomaC (talk) 08:02, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

My edits were reverted, can we discuss in "Dershowitz" below please, don't want to edit-war even though much of this controversial material was added by a single-purpose account that has since been banned for combative editing. Thanks RomaC (talk) 09:17, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

I may be a bit slow today, but claims of "disproportionate attention" aren't in my opinion claims of "bias". If the UN chooses to concentrate on an issue, it's the UN's prerogative. Bias would be something in the content, not the number of resolutions. --Dailycare (talk) 15:58, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

Your recent addition of opinions by Richard Wilson represents undue weight. This is one man's opinion and, after reading his page [14] from the physics department at Harvard's website, it is clear he is biased. I will remove them per WP:BRD so that we may discuss it here. Wperdue (talk) 16:31, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

Hello Wperdue, seems Wilson was brought in to balance one of the opinions here of Dershowitz. Interested if you also regard Dershowitz as "biased."? I inquire because this man's political opinions have taken tremendous weight in an article on the United Nations. He is mentioned more than Ban Ki-moon. How to address this POV-pushing? RomaC (talk) 13:04, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

Have edited part of the "Controversies" section, renamed this subsection "Accusations of excessive attention given to the Arab-Israeli conflict" to better reflect the content (previous title said "bias"). I believe the gist of the message remains. RomaC (talk) 02:17, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

correction of diagram

hi all,

my comment is about the diagram in the section "Peace Keeping Functions". the diagram says that deep blue color represents current activity. there is a link at the beginning of topic called "List of peace keeping missions". there, several tables are given. in two of the tables. one can find the entry about India.

the years mentioned were, 1949 & 1965-66. now, can any one please explain the meaning of the English word "Current". those who make mistakes such as these make others to hate them. they also reveal their level of intelligence.

thanks Waterboyad (talk) 11:20, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

Dershowitz

Believe this single commentator has taken undue weight in the article, he is cited seven times in the "Controversy and criticism" section. This is not a platform for his uniformly pro-Israeli views. Phrasing such as "history has proven that (an Israeli airstrike) was the correct course of action", although attributed, are not balanced. Can I suggest that if an editor wants to add to the article they should try to do so in a way that is not card-stacking in favor of one opinion? RomaC (talk) 09:13, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

Wilson's view on the Osirak reactor (Dershowitz vs. physics professor)

Hi guys, someone made this revert: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=United_Nations&diff=311495183&oldid=311489200 I'd like to invite views on whether this is undue weight, taking into account that now the section mentions Dershiwitz' views, in my opinion they could be balanced, or even replaced, by Wilson's view on the reactor. --Dailycare (talk) 17:56, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

It was me, and I explained my reasoning directly below your statement in the section above. It seems you would like to create a new discussion, so I will repost my comments here.

Your recent addition of opinions by Richard Wilson represents undue weight. This is one man's opinion and, after reading his page [15] from the physics department at Harvard's website, it is clear he is biased. I will remove them per WP:BRD so that we may discuss it here.

I agree that Dershowitz's comments should be removed as well. His opinions on this matter are no more valid than Wilson's. This whole section is one big POV fork. Wperdue (talk) 18:24, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

I feel the Osirak reactor incident doesn't need to be mentioned in the article. I don't agree that Wilson would be as biased in the matter as Dershowitz, if in fact at all, however in terms of content I'm OK with having both Dershowitz and Wilson removed. --Dailycare (talk) 18:40, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

Agree with Daily above, for the pruning of Dershowitz who is patently biased yet has recently become perhaps the most-cited individual in the entire article. Does Dershowitz have expertise on reactors? RomaC (talk) 12:47, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

Dershowitz has expertise on international law. He is not talking about the reactors, but the response to the reactors' destruction. --GHcool (talk) 17:19, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

By reading this criticism section, one might surmise that he is the only expert on international law. This section is still a POV magnet. Wperdue (talk) 18:58, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

Is there consensus to simply remove mention of the reactor bombing incident? Since there is only Mr. D to say anything even hinting that condemining the attack would reflect bias on the UN's side, there's a good argument that the claim isn't well sourced. Removing it would be simpler than providing other quotes to "balance" D in "he said, she said" style which we see too much anyway --Dailycare (talk) 12:05, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

I must protest as Dershowitz is an expert on international law (as discussed above). If consensus is against this move, I will not stand in the way, but I am surprised that anyone can view the guidelines of wikipedia and say that this sentence does not belong here. --GHcool (talk) 20:27, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

Support removal. Dershowitz may be an expert but he is also acutely biased and has taken undue weight here. RomaC (talk) 22:43, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

Of course he's biased! This is the criticism and controversy section. The whole section is filled with criticisms of the UN. Bias isn't the point. The point is that he is a reliable and noteworthy critic of the UN. --GHcool (talk) 00:46, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

Understood. But he has undue weight here. This is an article on the United Nations. UN Secretary General Ban is mentioned five times, Dershowitz is mentioned seven times. Even if his expert opinions are really important, enough is enough. Re: the criticism and controversy section (you wrote "The whole section is filled with criticisms of the UN"); actually it is filled with Dershowitz and criticism of the UN on Israeli-related issues, this content takes up more than half of the section. It's ridiculous. RomaC (talk) 01:46, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

Have edited the "Israel Bias/Attention" part of the Criticism section, we didn't need 481 words to say "some critics think Israel receives a disproportionate amount of attention and criticism at the UN." The gist is still there and it's still too long (just under 300 words) in my opinion, but propose this for now. RomaC (talk) 02:23, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

[undent] I support removing Dershowitz's claims, per WP:UNDUE. Frankly, the criticism section as it currently stands[16] is a perfect example of why we don't generally like criticism sections in Wikipedia articles, and I think GHcool's comments above ("Of course he's biased! This is the criticism and controversy section. The whole section is filled with criticisms of the UN. Bias isn't the point.") help explain why this section is such a disaster. The UN has had some fairly spectacular successes and failures in the last six decades, and there are plenty of reliable, published sources that discuss those failures from a mainstream POV, but editors here seem to feel free to add fringe views. The section reads like a commentary you'd hear on Fox News, with no attempt to balance fringe points of view.

For example, the article uncritically quotes George W Bush in February 2003 suggesting that the UN's refusal to approve the invasion of Iraq was a failure. For those too young to remember, Bush's argument at the UN was that Iraq's WMD program represented an immediate threat and an invasion was the best solution. Several Security Council members (and the Secretary-General) argued that the UN's weapons inspectors should be allowed to complete their mission first. Six years later, there are still some commentators who think Bush was right but I think it's safe to say that they are in the minority, and Bush's opinion should not be presented uncritically.

The article also mentions that offensive cartoons were handed out at a UN-organised conference. I don't really know what the point of this information is, because it seems to suggest that the UN is responsible for material handed out by a third party at a conference, which anyone who's ever attended a large conference I think would agree is unfair. But in any case, I think it's dishonest to present this fact without at least noting that the UN strongly condemned the cartoons.

Am I the only one who thinks it's funny that the article criticises the UN for its "obsession" with Israel, while the same article's criticism section is almost entirely devoted to Israel? Like I said, the UN has had some terrible failures (*cough* Rwanda *cough* Srebrenica *cough*) and, in the big scheme of things, not preventing some nasty flyers from being handed out at a conference probably doesn't warrant a mention. Maybe we can even dig up some critics who don't represent Israel or conservative America.

I suggest we start by limiting Gold and Dershowitz to a maximum of one citation each — preferably a short quote that summarises their criticisms. Readers who want to know more can always go to Allegations of antisemitism in the United Nations, Israel, Palestine, and the United Nations, World Conference against Racism 2001, etc., where this stuff is discussed in detail. Polemarchus (talk) 05:18, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

Despite my reservations, the trims that have been made since my last post are acceptable to me as a compromise. I humbly request that no further trims are made. Thank you. --GHcool (talk) 18:47, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

GHCool, sorry I don't understand your request. We have a suggestion from Polemarchus above that Dershowitz be limited to one citation, but he still has seven. The reasoning is that because this is not an article about Dershowitz, this focus gives the man undue weight. In the spirit of cooperation I was hoping you would do some of the trims yourself. Would you, please? Respectfully. RomaC (talk) 02:26, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

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 Wikipedia: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

{{Editsemiprotected}}, 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)

Atlantic Chart, Declaration by United Nations

{{editsemiprotected}} 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

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. I am unsure of what needs to be changed. --The New Mikemoral ♪♫ 21:24, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

{{editsemiprotected}} 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 (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)

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. AzureFury (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. AzureFury (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 Wikipedia: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. AzureFury (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). AzureFury (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. AzureFury (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. AzureFury (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. AzureFury (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. AzureFury (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. AzureFury (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)

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)