Talk:United Nations/Archive 6

Archive 1

←

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

Archive 8

→

Archive 10

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 [1].

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)

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. [2] 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 [3] 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 [4]. --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." [5].

And here is Japan's position: "Taiwan’s status is undetermined" [6].

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" [7] 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. [8] 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)

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)

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 [9] 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 [10] 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[11] 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)