Talk:United Nations

Localization, official languages

The process and the reason of taking the decision regarding localization the General Assembly in New York are not described. According to the logic, the General Assembly should be placed on neutral territory, or, more conveniently and efficiently - on the Internet. Also it is not clear of how the decision was made to approve the official languages, which are much smaller than the member countries. Thus discrimination of some nations and exaltation of others are observed on organizational issues - this may be added to the criticism. --Alex-korolev (talk) 09:24, 20 September 2013 (UTC)

The United Nations Headquarters, including the General Assembly, are on international territory, though it is a bit troublesome that it is in the middle of US territory. And your mentioning the Internet - the UN was created in 1945-46! And on the topic of the official languages, the place for that subject is Official languages of the United Nations. --$\color {Blue}{\mathcal {M}}$$\color {Blue}{\vec {(e\ ,}}$$\color {Blue}t)$ 20:02, 8 October 2013 (UTC)

This territory is controlled by army and police of the single country. So it is international but is not a Neutral territory. This allows USA to control the organization single-handedly, prohibit the entry for some members, for example. Other counties may have other opinion regarding existing organization controlling. The UN was created in 1945-46 but now is 2013! The efficiently organization structure of United Nations Headquarters may looks like a virtual media with physical realization on the server placed on a truly neutral territory with equal access for all countries. The number of official languages should be equal to the number of countries. At the present day discrimination of little nations exists. --Alex-korolev (talk) 08:42, 10 October 2013 (UTC)

You are arguing how thing should be. That is not the purpose of Wikipedia - we are here to tell how thing are. If you want to argue, go do it someplace else.--$\color {Blue}{\mathcal {M}}$$\color {Blue}{\vec {(e\ ,}}$$\color {Blue}t)$ 11:59, 11 October 2013 (UTC)

I offer to add more information about the topics pointed above. The criticism is superficial in the article(only about separate events), fundamental remarks on the effectiveness of the structure and work of UN should be added. --Alex-korolev (talk) 16:41, 11 October 2013 (UTC)

Why do you have to ask? If you have some good sources, go ahead and add the info!--$\color {Blue}{\mathcal {M}}$$\color {Blue}{\vec {(e\ ,}}$$\color {Blue}t)$ 16:45, 11 October 2013 (UTC)

Unfortunately i'm not a specialist in politics or sociology and do not know good sources. But I see the way to do the article (and the UN) better. --Alex-korolev (talk) 17:03, 11 October 2013 (UTC)

Going for Good Article status

As part of an article improvement drive for WProject Human rights, I'm hoping to bring this article to GA status in the next month or two. It'll still be a few weeks before I start doing any major rewrites (if major rewrites are even needed), but I wanted to start out by asking regular editors/watchers of this article: what do you feel still needs to be improved here? Is there anything you'd like me to focus on? -- Khazar2 (talk) 14:02, 20 September 2013 (UTC)

Looking over the article in more detail today, I feel like things are in reasonably good shape and already approaching GA status. I'll try to address the citation needed tags in the next few days, and start double-checking citations where I can. More substantially, I'd like to expand some historical content and reduce the focus on the past decade a bit. (To give one example, the "Greening the Blue" initiative doesn't seem like a major enough milestone in the UN's sixty-year history to merit its own section.) If anyone disagrees with any revisions I make, of course, feel free to revert me and we can discuss here. Thanks to everyone who worked on this article before me; looking forward to working with you all, -- Khazar2 (talk) 16:29, 8 October 2013 (UTC)

I see you citing a lot of books. I've always found such citations on Wikipedia very troublesome - books are generally not so easily available on the internet, and we can't be realistic in expecting people to own giant libraries so they could check the validity of our claims. Could you try to use more urls as sources?--$\color {Blue}{\mathcal {M}}$$\color {Blue}{\vec {(e\ ,}}$$\color {Blue}t)$ 17:37, 11 October 2013 (UTC)

Hm, that's an unusual request. I understand your point, but books are often more comprehensive, stable, and authoritative than internet sources, and are extremely standard for GAs and FAs. (My experience as a GA reviewer has been that Google Books and Amazon search allow me to verify most offline citations in any case.) That said, I don't have any problem with you adding supplementary URLs if you like, and I'll avoid replacing any links to reliable internet sources with book citations alone. -- Khazar2 (talk) 17:54, 11 October 2013 (UTC)

Agreed! --$\color {Blue}{\mathcal {M}}$$\color {Blue}{\vec {(e\ ,}}$$\color {Blue}t)$ 18:11, 11 October 2013 (UTC)

Two proposed changes

Two changes I'm hoping to start implementing today:

1. To expand the "Creation" section into a more general "History" section. I don't want this section to overpower the article, but we should at least mention some notable events of the organization's history--Congo intervention, Dag Hammerskjold's plane crash, Korean War, etc.--and give an overview of how the organization has evolved over its lifetime.
2. To reframe the "Criticism" section as "Evaluations of the United Nations"; it seems to clearly violate WP:NPOV to include a section of negative material without also including positive evaluations. For example, the many Nobel Prizes parts of the organization have won appear to be largely omitted, whereas Dore Gold alone seems to get 2-3 paragraphs.

Let me know if anyone has any thoughts or objections, and, of course, feel free to revert and we can discuss further. -- Khazar2 (talk) 12:39, 5 November 2013 (UTC)

Getting close

I feel like we're getting close to where this will be ready for a GA nomination. So far I've focused on sourcing what's already there, winnowing parts that suffer from WP:RECENTISM or excessive detail, and adding a history section and a broader range of evaluations. I'm now pretty confident about what's there--but is there anything left that's missing? Let me know your thoughts. -- Khazar2 (talk) 12:20, 18 November 2013 (UTC)

As a note to self, something about the UN panels on climate change should presumably be added. -- Khazar2 (talk) 12:25, 18 November 2013 (UTC)

Still needs sourced material on disaster relief and food aid. -- Khazar2 (talk) 14:38, 21 November 2013 (UTC)

Sri Lankan Civil War

I've again removed a second paragraph describing the UN's failure in Sri Lanka's Civil War that seems undue weight to me. I do agree it belongs in the article, and I in no way mean to trivialize the magnitude of that failure. It's simply that in an article of this scope, adding an extra paragraph on any of the UN's interventions or noninterventions unbalances things. For example, the failure in Rwanda gets one sentence, as does Bosnia. The Korean War and First Gulf War get a sentence apiece. The UN mediation failures in the Six-Day War get a third of a sentence. Somalia gets half a sentence. The Congo intervention gets two sentences, but only because it's necessary to mention that the Secretary-General died in it. The Suez crisis gets only half a sentence. In nonmilitary terms, Dag Hammarskjöld gets only one sentence and Kofi Annan gets only a sentence or two, and Kurt Waldheim isn't even mentioned in the prose yet. I don't mean to say that any of these things aren't important; it's just that there's a tremendous amount of ground to cover, and this is written in summary style.

Perhaps more can be added on some of these when I expand "Peacekeeping" later today, though; certainly the material could be added in the expanded form to the UN Peacekeepers article. -- Khazar2 (talk) 11:01, 18 November 2013 (UTC)

I haven't noticed the discussion here when I was adding the content back. But if you could allow once sentence on Bosnia why you haven't allow at least on for Sri Lanka. I am adding one sentence on Sri Lanka.HudsonBreeze (talk) 11:36, 21 November 2013 (UTC)

There is one sentence on Sri Lanka already that I added to the history section: "In 2013, an internal review of UN actions in the final battles of the Sri Lankan Civil War in 2009 concluded that the organization had suffered "systemic failure". WP:LAYOUT recommends avoiding one-sentence standalone paragraphs, so it was combined with other, similar events in the logical section. Does this cover your concerns? I think it's undue weight to talk about this twice in the article. -- Khazar2 (talk) 12:47, 21 November 2013 (UTC)

I haven't noticed that; that is fine.HudsonBreeze (talk) 12:54, 21 November 2013 (UTC)

Great, thanks! -- Khazar2 (talk) 13:02, 21 November 2013 (UTC)

B-class review

Passed by --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 05:08, 29 November 2013 (UTC)

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:United Nations/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Chris troutman (talk · contribs) 01:03, 30 December 2013 (UTC) GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

1. Is it reasonably well written?

   A. Prose is "clear and concise", without copyvios, or spelling and grammar errors:

   In the Peacekeeping section I would reword the sentence Disagreements in the Security Council about military action and intervention are seen as having failed to prevent the 1971 Bangladesh genocide,[94] the 1970s Cambodian genocide,[95] and the 1994 Rwandan Genocide,[96] failed to stop the 1995 Srebrenica massacre and protect a refugee haven there by authorising peacekeepers to use force,[96] and failed to complete the 1992–93 peacekeeping operations during the Somali Civil War to something clearer, like "disagreements...are seen as having failed to prevent the 1971 genocide, the 1970s genocide, and the 1994 genocide as well as having failed to either stop the 1995 massacre or complete the 1992-93 peacekeeping operations." I find Sentence diagramming is useful in these cases. Chris Troutman (talk) 22:14, 5 January 2014 (UTC)

   Quite right. When one tries to pack too many ideas into one sentence, it's easy to get lost. After trying different structures out, I decided to split the sentence like this: "Disagreements ... are seen as having failed to prevent the [x1], the [x2], and the [x3]. Similarly, UN inaction is sometimes blamed for allowing the [x4] without protecting [x5] by authorising [x6], and for failing to complete the [x7]." Does this resolve the issue? – Quadell ^(talk) 16:47, 6 January 2014 (UTC)

   That second sentence is still tricky. Why not say "Similarly, UN inaction is sometimes blamed for failing to either prevent the 1995 Srebrenica massacre or complete the 1992–93 peacekeeping operations during the Somali Civil War." The timeline of not allowing peacekeepers to use force, thereby failing to protect the refugee haven, culminating in the massacre is explained in the article about the massacre. Of course, I don't think there's any sometimes about it. I think anybody blames the UN for both of those failures. Chris Troutman (talk) 01:53, 12 January 2014 (UTC)

   Yeah, I want to be as NPOV as possible on controversial periods of UN history, but you're right, no one could reasonably claim that UN action did not allow these things to happen. I went with your wording. – Quadell ^(talk) 15:15, 12 January 2014 (UTC)

   B. MoS compliance for lead, layout, words to watch, fiction, and lists:

2. Is it factually accurate and verifiable?

   A. Has an appropriate reference section:

   In the Security Council section, the section in citation 60 (from Fasulo) establishes that the P5 has veto power, but it does not specify between types of resolutions. Chris Troutman (talk) 20:17, 4 January 2014 (UTC)

   You're right, I can see those pages of Fasulo in Google Books, and it isn't there. It's also unsourced in the United Nations Security Council veto power article. When I research the concept, I find some sources (e.g. Bardo Fassbender's "UN Security Council Reform and the Right of Veto: A Constitutional Perspective") that indicate there is no difference in practice between procedural and substantive resolutions it terms of veto power. So I've removed that claim. – Quadell ^(talk) 17:18, 6 January 2014 (UTC)

   In the Post Cold War section, the citation makes no mention that either Britain or Singapore joined the US in withdrawing from UNESCO. Chris Troutman (talk) 22:14, 5 January 2014 (UTC)

   Happily, I found a source that does support the claim, and I added it. – Quadell ^(talk) 17:28, 6 January 2014 (UTC)

   Many thanks. Chris Troutman (talk) 01:53, 12 January 2014 (UTC)

   B. Citation to reliable sources where necessary:

   C. No original research:

3. Is it broad in its coverage?

   A. Major aspects:

   B. Focused:

4. Is it neutral?

   Fair representation without bias:

5. Is it stable?

   No edit wars, etc:

6. Does it contain images to illustrate the topic?

   A. Images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid fair use rationales are provided for non-free content:

   B. Images are provided if possible and are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions:

7. Overall:

   Pass or Fail:

Thanks for taking this on, Chris. As you've probably gathered, I haven't edited this article much myself; Khazar did all the hard work, and retired shortly after nominating it. I'm certainly will to help resolve any issues you find, though I may not be able to do the sort of major rewriting or source checking that Khazar could have done. (Hopefully it won't need that - the article appears to me to be a strong contender.) Anyway, I look forward to your comments. – Quadell ^(talk) 12:31, 30 December 2013 (UTC)

With that in mind I've been tweaking page numbers in citations as I find necessary. In some cases entire chapters were cited, which is unhelpful. I'm trying to stick to making only minor changes like that in light of your statement without overstepping my role as GA reviewer. Chris Troutman (talk) 22:14, 5 January 2014 (UTC)

Thank you very much! I believe I have addressed all the issues you raised. Please let me know if there's more I should do. All the best, – Quadell ^(talk) 17:28, 6 January 2014 (UTC)

Thanks, I'm still checking other citations as I have time. It'll be a little while longer before I can properly respond. I'll let you know if there's anything else. Chris Troutman (talk) 01:58, 9 January 2014 (UTC)

I'm sorry to have kept you waiting so long. I'm busy during the week and there were so many citations to go through. This is on hold only for that one sentence. Chris Troutman (talk) 01:53, 12 January 2014 (UTC)

I'm glad that such an important article received a thorough review! – Quadell ^(talk) 15:15, 12 January 2014 (UTC)

Of course. I also had to go back and correct that Bush quote. The sentence in the article was accurate to the source material in Yang. The problem was that Yang among others was quoting Glennon and Glennon misquoted Bush. I felt it made sense to reinsert the sentence as a criticism, but providing the correct quote for context. I'll likely go back and insert a note to explain all this. I consider this job done. Chris Troutman (talk) 19:20, 12 January 2014 (UTC)

UN Motto

The citation that supposedly supports the UN's motto as "It's your world!" (in the infobox) doesn't really work at this point. It points to UN.org, and indeed when you go there and hover over the English language website link "It's your world!" does pop up. However the only other place this appears is at the top of the UN front page (along with other stuff). A couple of quick Google searches and I can't find anything that supports that this actually is the UN's motto, as opposed to simply a nice statement to put on a website.

Decided to flag on the talk page that at the moment this seems to be Original Research masquerading as sourced material. Whoever added this has made the jump from "It appears when you first go to UN.org and is then among the stuff at the top of the front page" to "therefore it must be the UN's motto". Do we actually have any reliable source that has stated this is the UN's motto (officially or unofficially)? Because otherwise it might just be the motto of UN web design...--31.185.216.157 (talk) 14:58, 4 February 2014 (UTC)