Jump to content

Talk:United Nations/Archive 9

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 5←Archive 7Archive 8Archive 9Archive 10

Accusations of rape, etc.

The following discussion is an archived record of a request for comment. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.
There is no consensus in this discussion, it is evenly split. Having said that, as a side note, there are problems with the arguments against inclusion. One is we dont do that in other articles, but that is a variation of WP:OSE. The other is WP:UNDUE, which says to give the appropriate coverage and placement to viewpoints in proportion to the coverage in RS. A single sentence buried in a paragraph in the lower half of the page does not appear to be overweighted or placed in a prominent position. But those are only opinions, one based on an essay. Though if this RFC is restarted, I expect others will point them out if there is more participation. AlbinoFerret 17:00, 29 October 2015 (UTC)

“UN peacekeepers have also been accused of child rape, soliciting prostitutes, and sexual abuse”—oh, that’s nice… We have an article on physicians—should we include a line in that article stating that physicians have been accused of child rape too? After all, a quick Google search reveals that it happens quite often. Complete with references and all.

The fact that “UN peacekeepers have also been accused of child rape, soliciting prostitutes, and sexual abuse” has nothing to do with those accused having been UN peacekeepers. I propose that this sentence be removed from the article. Pfftallofthemaretaken (talk) 14:44, 20 September 2015 (UTC)

If you read any of the citations, you can see that these accusations are in fact tied in with the perpetrators being UN peacekeepers. To use your example, if there were notable sources specifically talking about child rape, etc. among physicians, then yes, the article on physicians could mention that. Korny O'Near (talk) 02:21, 21 September 2015 (UTC)
I've looked through the first two stories referenced, and I think what you're saying is that the sentence should stay because UN peacekeepers used their positions as UN peacekeepers to commit those crimes. I say it should go, since these people committed their crimes because they wanted to, because they were there, and because they had access to resources that those abused needed. Not because they were UN peacekeepers. If physicians were responsible for more cases of sexual abuse than other groups (I'm not saying they are, but as an example), it would be because they have an easier access to people's bodies, not because they are physicians. Pfftallofthemaretaken (talk) 09:46, 21 September 2015 (UTC)
If I can paraphrase you, I think basically what you're saying is that, in any situation with a massive imbalance of power, abuses (including sexual abuse) are inevitable, and the UN can't be faulted for it. Which may be true - and it's even possible that, if regular militaries were being sent to keep the peace instead of UN forces, there would be even more abuse. Nonetheless, there are people quoted in reliable sources who do in fact blame the UN. Given that you disagree, I think your best course of action is to find people in reliable sources who agree with you, and add in their opinions to the article as counterarguments. Korny O'Near (talk) 14:43, 21 September 2015 (UTC)
That's exactly what I mean—abuse happens in these situations, UN or no UN. The fact that somebody blames somebody isn't really an argument at all, as that's what people do. Doing what you suggest would be counterproductive to one of the aims I'm trying to achieve here—decluttering the article (not cluttering it further). And really, how much does this criticism directed at a negligibly small part of the work that the UN does have to do with the big picture? With all the countless and well-documented deficiencies of this mammoth of an organization, this part of the article goes all Trump on the UN saying—"and they're also rapists". How grown-up is that? There are many things wrong with the UN, and it would do the organization justice to describe those problems frankly and openly, keeping in mind the scope of the work that the UN does. This sentence that we're talking about, on the other hand, looks like a person biased against the organization trying to portray people working for the UN as rapists. How is that fair and balanced? Pfftallofthemaretaken (talk) 16:09, 21 September 2015 (UTC)
I don't know if "clutter" is the right word to describe this - we're talking about a single sentence in the article. And I also don't understand "negligibly small" - are you saying that on-the-ground peacekeeping is a tiny part of what the UN does? Anyway, for better or worse, there's an array of reliable sources who seem to disagree with you about the importance of these allegations. Korny O'Near (talk) 17:23, 21 September 2015 (UTC)
If we take the route you propose then there's going to be a minimum of 2 sentences—one detailing the accusations, the other disputing them, and the whole dispute would be completely irrelevant to the topic of the article, which is the UN. I haven't seen any sources at all that claimed these allegations to be important when it comes to judging the effectiveness of the work that the UN does. Important to the victims and their relatives? Sure. But that's irrelevant to the topic of the article, which is the UN. Pfftallofthemaretaken (talk) 17:38, 21 September 2015 (UTC)
You seem to be unfamiliar with how criticism is usually handled in Wikipedia articles. If, say, Pablo Picasso (to pick a random famous person) had committed murder, do you think that information should be kept out of his article, given that it's irrelevant to his work? Korny O'Near (talk) 18:18, 21 September 2015 (UTC)
I am quite familiar with Wikipedia and its articles, having been making anonymous edits for god knows how long. But about a month ago, for better or worse, I got an account to track my edits on Wiktionary. And now I find myself on Wikipedia talk pages, which I didn't expect at all.
Picasso was a person. If he'd murdered somebody, that deed would have had profoundly affected him as a person, and would have ramifications for all aspects of his life . That's just human nature. UN is an organization. UN peacekeepers are a small part of that organizations. And only a handful of people who worked for that small part were accused of the crimes mentioned in the article. To the organization, and its work, and its impact on the world, that's literally negligible. Furthermore, an organization doesn't have a conscience, as, say, Pablo Picasso did. Pfftallofthemaretaken (talk) 20:49, 21 September 2015 (UTC)
What if Picasso had gotten away with it, though? And what if, like the UN, he had no conscience? I should also note that this was more than a handful of people - reading through any of the cited articles gives the impression that this was at least hundreds of UN "peacekeepers, aid workers and teachers" (to quote the NYT article), and easily could have been more. Korny O'Near (talk) 01:47, 22 September 2015 (UTC)
Ah, yes, that could have been a very interesting conversation. I see where it could take us, though, and I don't want to go there. I'd like this thread to be specifically about the absurdly-out-of-place nature of the sentence I was talking about in my original post. We could do with more opinions, though. But alas, it seems that a third opinion in the largest edition of the largest online encyclopedia in the world is much more of a rare commodity than I'd imagined. Pfftallofthemaretaken (talk) 21:00, 22 September 2015 (UTC)
Uninvolved editor, wishing to remain uninvolved - "... it seems that a third opinion in the largest edition of the largest online encyclopedia in the world is much more of a rare commodity than I'd imagined." Yep, cos no-one really wants to touch these kinds of disputes, even to try to help mediate, since it deals with pedophilia/ephebophilia, rape, sexual abuse, etc; which nobody really wants to touch (maybe put in a notice there are this RfC?). Also, this is an RfC (Request for Comment, not a request for a 3O (third opinion, but I'm sure both of you are aware of this since the names are completely different. Just letting you know, Drcrazy102 (talk) 04:00, 26 September 2015 (UTC)
Well, if people don't want to get involved with the topic of sexual abuse, why is there so much written about it on Wikipedia? (Even in places where such content clearly doesn't belong—like in this article.) Must be something else. (Although I'll admit to not understanding Westerners' logic when it comes to issues like this.) In any case, are you suggesting that this ridiculous part is probably doomed to stay as part of the article because no one would want to remove it for the fear of being seen as having sympathy for the criminals mentioned? Pfftallofthemaretaken (talk) 11:33, 26 September 2015 (UTC)
I'm still new and in responding for the majority using my general intuition, just so you're aware. In saying that though, there seems to be dedicated groups of editors that go around and deal with these kinds of incidents. Typically if it is not well-documented and/or blatantly obvious, there is contention and controversy which most try to avoid; add to that that people don't want to discuss such things generally and you get a systematic bias of silence around the issue. I would recommend leaving a notice on the pages I linked above asking for editors to lend their opinions since they edit topics that are based on such activities and know how to best deal with such issues as these. Just my opinion though.
As for "showing sympathy", that's a tricky one since you also have UN peacekeeper advocates and opponents, and you the general public's basic views. It's a lot trickier than it may seem since an editor would be showing "endorsement" either way for removing or supporting the addition. Again, more WP:OR by me. Anyway, have a good one, drop a note to the talk pages associated with the above links and I'm going to "un-watch" this page now (sorry). Ping me if you want anything else, Drcrazy102 (talk) 11:52, 26 September 2015 (UTC)
"I would recommend leaving a notice on the pages I linked above..."—this isn't about "pedophilia/ephebophilia, rape, sexual abuse, etc.", though. This is about a Wikipedia article on the United Nations stooping to the level of Donald Trump in its argumentation. Pfftallofthemaretaken (talk) 13:09, 26 September 2015 (UTC)
  • Support Inclusion of "Accusations of Rape" ... While Pfftallofthemaretaken makes a good point that we would not include similar charges in an article about physicians, I think we could include such a charge if it was a trend that had a material impact on the operation of the medical profession. In the case of UN peacekeepers, accusations of rape have been a contributing factor to national policy decisions in some cases, specifically, the erosion of confidence in the UMIH as a result of rape charges against Uruguayan and Pakistani troops has been cited as a contributing factor to Haiti's decision to remilitarize itself. LavaBaron (talk) 00:08, 7 October 2015 (UTC)
  • Remove Undue weight for accusations only. Many armed forces have been accused of many bad things. Martin Hogbin (talk) 15:26, 7 October 2015 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Semi-protected edit request on 23 November 2015

Change: |leader_name4 = Martin Sajdik

to: |leader_name4 = Oh Joon
Mirkzwart (talk) 14:49, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

Done clpo13(talk) 17:35, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

Outdated "Leaders" box

Several of the leaders listed are no longer in position — Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.157.233.43 (talk) 20:23, 24 September 2015 (UTC)

Security Council

The Security Council members are out of date and I can't change it myself. A current list: http://www.un.org/en/sc/members/

Jensen Drew (talk) 23:01, 11 March 2016 (UTC)

League of Nations

The "ineffective" should be removed from the second sentence, since there's a huge debate on that matter regarding wheter the League (thanks to its structure, examples, procedures, experience given to diplomats, etc) laid the foundations of the UN's sucess or else. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 187.105.115.140 (talk) 03:26, 28 April 2016 (UTC)

Definition

The basic definition of the UN included here is that it is an inter-governmental organisation. However the UN largely included NGOs as well, and are even allowed to address the General Assembly. The UN does not specifically define itself as an INGO either. (unsigned post)

Correction: the UN collaborates with certain NGOs, but they are specifically not a part of it.

Being an Organization of sovereign states, its resources are allocated only to programmes which have been officially approved by its members.

However, there are several ways Non-Governmental Organizations (NGOs) can collaborate with the UN on its activities.[1]

Bataaf van Oranje (Prinsgezinde) (talk) 17:38, 4 June 2016 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ FAQ

Semi-protected edit request on 29 May 2016

Bibliographie: Please add:

Maurel Chloé, Histoire des idées des Nations unies. L'ONU en 20 notions, [History of United Nations ideas] Paris, L'Harmattan, 2015.

Maurel Chloé, Histoire de l'Unesco. Les trente premières années, [History of Unesco] Paris, L'Harmattan, 2010. Chmaurel (talk) 07:04, 29 May 2016 (UTC)

 Not done I am reluctant to make that change because it looks like you are trying to promote your own book. Using Wikipedia for advertising or promotion are strictly prohibited. WaggersTALK 12:48, 8 June 2016 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 8 July 2016

The United Nations page in Wikipedia is good ... BUT ... there is no mention of the United Nations Development Programme (UNDP). For many years during the 1980s and 1990s I did consulting work for the United Nations coordinated mainly by UNDP. If my memory is correct, it is the UNDP Resident Representative in a country that represents the UN system in most countries and coordinates all of the UN activities in the country. In most countries the UNDP presence is very much bigger than agencies like WHO, UNESCO, UNICEF, FAO etc. To be honest, I am amazed at this oversight within the Wikipedia initiative. I would love to see this corrected.

From Wikipedia United Nations Development Programme: ... The status of UNDP is that of an executive board within the United Nations General Assembly. The UNDP Administrator is the third highest-ranking official of the United Nations after the United Nations Secretary-General and Deputy Secretary-General.[2]

This is my first attempt to give feedback to this wonderful resource ... not really sure of what I am doing, but the underlying fact and need for some update is, I believe, in order!

T Peter Burgess peterbnyc@gmail.com T Peter Burgess (talk) 17:35, 8 July 2016 (UTC)

@T Peter Burgess: 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. There is content about UNDP under the "Economic development and humanitarian assistance" section. Are you asking specifically for mention in the lede? If you provide some citations we might be able to develop more specific content. But as you can see, we already have an article about UNDP and it's linked here. Per WP:UNDUE, I don't think it would be appropriate to expand further here. Chris Troutman (talk) 14:21, 9 July 2016 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on United Nations. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 23:34, 20 July 2016 (UTC)

Founding date

On the surrender documents signed by Jodl for the surrender of Germany on May 7 1945 Germany surrenders to the United Nations. This is interesting because the United Nations did not exist for another 5 months. "United Nations" is capitalized indicating a proper noun and talks about it being capable of "imposing." — Preceding unsigned comment added by 63.117.114.4 (talk) 10:32, 11 May 2016 (UTC)

A little late, but here goes.... You're confusing the "United Nations" as the official name of the alliance of countries at war with the Axis powers during WWII with the "United Nations" as the international forum that developed after WWII. Admittedly, the second did develop in large part out of the first. --Khajidha (talk) 02:11, 26 August 2016 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 6 September 2016


It must change Hamadoun Touré (head of ITU) with Houlin Zhao, because from 1.1.2015 Houlin Zhao is new head of ITU. http://www.itu.int/en/osg/Pages/default.aspx

Romanaaa (talk) 11:21, 6 September 2016 (UTC)

 Done. @Romanaaa: Many thanks for pointing out the error. GabeIglesia (talk) 12:57, 6 September 2016 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 26 July 2016 - Factual Update

Hello, This request pertains to "Specialized agencies" section. Please be advised that the "Head" of the International Civil Aviation Organization is "Fang Liu", as indicated on the organization's Wikipedia entry to which this page links. Please correct as necessary. Thank you WikiMTL1982 (talk) 15:25, 26 July 2016 (UTC)

 Done. @WikiMTL1982: Many thanks for the heads up. GabeIglesia (talk) 13:02, 6 September 2016 (UTC)

UN entities - naming needs attention

I just moved Department of Peacekeeping Operations to United Nations Department of Peacekeeping Operations (as it was the only UN's secretariat department not having UN name in front of it). Someone who cares about UN more should review entries in Template:ECOSOC and related entries in Category:United Nations templates . Several are lacking United Nations title preceding their names (ex United Nations Commission on the Status of Women vs Commission for Social Development). Standardization would be nice. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 08:54, 29 November 2016 (UTC)

Misleading map

@Rob984: The map File:United Nations Members (green–grey scheme).svg is misleading. It implies Taiwan and Kosovo are members because that's how most maps on Wikipedia are colored and interpreted. Although there is a footnote, it would be much less misleading if there is another color for disputed territories. Szqecs (talk) 13:42, 14 April 2017 (UTC)

I just copied the original map File:United Nations Members.svg, which was on the article from 2012 to July 2016. Problem is there are other territories:
I mean if we are being explicit about the territory controlled by member states, wouldn't you have to include all these territories? Else it could suggest they are UN member states.
But you have a point. Kosovo is hardly different from Western Sahara. In both cases the majority of UN member states do not recognise the UN member's claim. So I think a better solution would be to show uncontrolled territory as part of a UN member state only if the majority of member states recognise the claim. This would mean Taiwan would remain green (recognised by only 20 UN member states), but Kosovo should be changed to grey (recognised by 111 or 57.5% UN member states). This justifies ignoring other largely unrecognised state's claims such as the Republic of South Ossetia, as we can assume the majority of the UN support the UN member's claim.
Rob984 (talk) 20:01, 14 April 2017 (UTC)
I will add, I realise Taiwan is a fully functioning state unlike most other largely unrecognised states. But then, so is the Republic of Somaliland. Rob984 (talk) 20:07, 14 April 2017 (UTC)
I think you should leave recognition and claims out of the picture. Most maps on Wikipedia treat Taiwan and Kosovo as independent (i.e. most maps only take into account control). I assume this is also the case for the states you mentioned. If you must factor in claims, just make them a different color and have a legend. Szqecs (talk) 04:13, 15 April 2017 (UTC)
As far as Taiwan-China issue is concerned, the UN's "official" positon is that Taiwan is Chinese territory and its disputed status is therefore an internal matter of China. Other than humanitarian action where necessary, it is not the policy of the UN to involve itself in the internal matters of member states. I suspect the UN position is similar with Kosovo. Mediatech492 (talk) 14:45, 15 April 2017 (UTC)
I know that. But Wikipedia is not run by the UN, so there is no reason take its position and mislead people. Szqecs (talk) 15:09, 15 April 2017 (UTC)
It is not misleading, the article is about the United Nations, and the map reflects the official position of the UN. There are literally thousands of disputed territories of various sizes around the world, but the UN officially holds no positon on any of them; because that is not their job. Mediatech492 (talk) 15:21, 15 April 2017 (UTC)

It is misleading because I was mislead. I saw the map and thought Taiwan is a UN member, went to Taiwan and the first paragraph says it isn't. If you don't think it is misleading, show me another countries map on Wikipedia where Taiwan is not treated as independent. Szqecs (talk) 15:44, 15 April 2017 (UTC)

If you're adamant about having a "UN position" map where a second color is not allowed, I propose there be another "de facto" map. Szqecs (talk) 15:48, 15 April 2017 (UTC)
Sure we can have dozens of maps if you like, as long as they are consistent with the article. Mediatech492 (talk) 18:13, 15 April 2017 (UTC)

No source and/or falsification of information regarding the "Name" section

I believe that the material presented in the History, "Name" section of the article that the information presented is false. Regardless of whether or not it is,the Name section does not have any source material to prove it's relevance. It specifically states:

"The UN was named after the Supreme Leader of the Democratic People's Republic of Korea, Kim Jong Un, despite the fact that he wasn't born yet. Many scholars see this naming of the UN after Kim Jong Un to be an important part of world history as it was the first time an international body fully recognized the dominance of the Democratic People's Republic of Korea."

A new source # [9] would have to be added to justify this section, however I couldn't find any in my immediate search attempt.

The origin of the term "United Nations" can however be found here at Dag Hammarskjold Library[1].

104.193.239.70 (talk) 03:50, 18 April 2017 (UTC)

I've removed this dubious claim. TDL (talk) 04:11, 18 April 2017 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 15 external links on United Nations. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 21:01, 12 June 2017 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on United Nations. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 20:03, 26 July 2017 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on United Nations. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 13:16, 2 August 2017 (UTC)

Budget contributions

I personally think we should expand the biggest budget contributors bar-chart from the top 17 to the top 20, or maybe even 25. --2A02:2149:8830:9E00:791B:34A4:44C5:4ABF (talk) 18:50, 1 September 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 13 September 2017

Add to chapter criticism:

Since 1971, the Republic of China (Taiwan) has been excluded from the UN and since then has always been rejected in new applications. Citizens of this country are also not allowed to enter the buildings of the United Nations with the passport of the Republic of China (Taiwan). In this way, the UN is failing its own development goals / guidelines and is obviously also under pressure from the PRC (People's Republic of China), which regards the territories administered by the Republic of China (Taiwan) as their own territory.

http://nationalinterest.org/feature/the-united-nations-needs-treat-taiwan-fairly-22256 http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2017/07/14/un-tours-open-to-terror-and-thug-states-but-not-taiwan.html Peterpens (talk) 06:28, 13 September 2017 (UTC)

Done I've made as many copyedits as I could to this paragraph to get it into the article. Any editor can make changes where necessary. jd22292 (Jalen D. Folf) (talk) 03:03, 14 September 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 9 October 2017

it has goals 87.242.253.42 (talk) 11:14, 9 October 2017 (UTC)

Not done: Goals as in aims and efforts? This is already implied. –72 (talk) 14:00, 9 October 2017 (UTC)

Czech

please change ((Czech)) to ((Czech language|Czech)) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:541:4304:E6B0:218:8BFF:FE74:FE4F (talk • contribs)

Done DRAGON BOOSTER ★ 17:19, 13 October 2017 (UTC)

Request: Add to the lead paragraph

The lead paragraph should mention the current sexual abuse controversy within the United Nations per the Wikipedia manual. Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Lead section

 Not done Please gain consensus for your additions. - FlightTime (open channel) 21:54, 10 November 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 29 November 2017

The Page was obviously vandalized by someone. 193.170.165.4 (talk) 10:58, 29 November 2017 (UTC)

Different lists of agencies and organizations

There are three articles of similar type: United Nations System, List of United Nations organizations, and List of specialized agencies of the United Nations. -2601:644:4200:DC60:9027:9AA7:604A:7DFA (talk) 20:27, 24 January 2018 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 6 February 2018

In the section called: 1942 "Declaration of United Nations" by the Allies of World War II

There is the content: 

It incorporated Soviet suggestions, but left no role for France. "Four Policemen" was coined to refer to four major Allied countries, United States, United Kingdom, Soviet Union, and China, which emerged in the Declaration by United Nations.

However the link to China is the wrong China. Please link to https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Republic_of_China_(1912-1949) Aceman626 (talk) 04:57, 6 February 2018 (UTC)

Already done. Anon126 (notify me of responses! / talk / contribs) 06:34, 6 February 2018 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 18 February 2018

Please add this 

 " Motto: It's your world! " reference link- http://www.un.org/en/development/desa/population/events/expert-group/13.5/index.shtml

Motto is written in top left corner right after "Welcome to United Nations". Rtrjcn (talk) 15:27, 18 February 2018 (UTC)

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 15:44, 18 February 2018 (UTC)

History section needs huge improvement

The history section is so poorly written and with minimal citations. I have just edited it to replace “England” to “the United Kingdom”, which is an incredibly lazy and factually incorrect term to use. It then talks about the UK and France not wanting peace (which is not true at all) and they wanted harsh terms on “their former enemy” Germany. No citation is given and I’m not sure that is correct, since I believe it is slightly more nuanced than that and was more about paying them back for war damage etc, which of course the Americans did not suffer as much due to only joining for the last quarter of the war.

It then goes on how it is sent to the US senate for ratification, without saying it failed to get ratified there, which was extremely significant in leading to the ineffectiveness, and ultimate failure, of the League of Nations and ultimitely to the beginning of world war two.

Then it says, extremely lazily, to say “However, at some point the League became ineffective...” it had many points where it was failing, not just the invasion of Manchuria!

It seems to ignore vital historical points that led to the collapse of the league and ultimately the set up of the UN, including the lack of membership of the United States (who never joined) and then the Japanese, Soviets, Germans and Italians (who left when the league told them off)!

It seems to blame the British and French for failing to be kind to Germany after World War One and not managing to prevent Hitler invading Czechoslovakia, while ignoring the above, in particular the lack of American participation.

Please can somebody rewrite it so it doesn’t appear to be written by a patriotic American child.

TTFTAKM (talk) 17:47, 14 March 2019 (UTC)

Taiwan

Why is Taiwan colored in green in the picture? It is not part of the UN. --Roastedturkey (talk) 00:33, 25 April 2019 (UTC)

It is considered part of China by the UN. CMD (talk) 16:17, 26 April 2019 (UTC)

Security council member list is wrong

I cannot edit it. Can someone do this please?— Preceding unsigned comment added by 2602:304:b1f0:4d80:9962:6dc2:81e7:3089 (talk • contribs) 00:43, 5 August 2018 (UTC)

Done. Pilaz (talk) 14:36, 11 May 2019 (UTC)

New Map

Ythlev recently included a map with many internationally unrecognized states on the UN wiki page. In my opinion, this is inappropriate as this is not the right place for such information as said states are not recognized by the UN. It completely contradicts the purpose and policies of the UN. I have removed it for said reason. Wadaad (talk) 11:14, 26 August 2019 (UTC)

Let's start by pointing out that the map this user insists on using, with what it's trying to show, is not sourced. The source is a dead link and I see no proof that the UN considers Taiwan part of China or Kosovo part of Serbia.
Then there is the question of what the map is even for. Wikipedia is not a means of promotion. It is for informing the reader of some knowledge. A map with all land coloured conveys close to no information. Most info-graphic world maps use de facto borders, so doing the contrary violates WP:UNDUE. From the section above, we can see that this 'UN perspective map' is utterly misleading. Ythlev (talk) 11:39, 26 August 2019 (UTC)
Ythlev Taiwan and Kosovo only have limited recognition. Hence, why they are not included in the previous map. As for the dead link that can easily be fixed. Meanwhile your latest map includes Somaliland which is not recognized by any country whatsoever. It makes zero sense to include it on the UN wikipedia page of which it is not a member nor is it recognized by any UN member-state. Wadaad (talk) 12:34, 26 August 2019 (UTC)
As for the dead link that can easily be fixed. Then fix it. Before you do, it is original research and violates WP:OR. It makes zero sense. Content on Wikipedia is based on policies, not on what makes sense to you. Ythlev (talk) 13:26, 26 August 2019 (UTC)
The one that you are proposing is not sourced either. The long standing one is sourced http://archive.is/OYTRc and original research is allowed in commons it's not a wikipedia Project. Maps can be created from original research if there is no map presented. I think the long standing map is appropriate since this is about UN member States.--SharabSalam (talk) 14:46, 26 August 2019 (UTC)
Where in that sourced link is there any mention of what territories belong to which countries? WP:OR: Wikipedia articles must not contain original research. WP:OI: Original images created by a Wikipedian are not considered original research, so long as they do not illustrate or introduce unpublished ideas or arguments. Colouring non-members that are de facto independent such as Taiwan and Kosovo violates WP:NOTPROMO and WP:UNDUE. Ythlev (talk) 15:39, 26 August 2019 (UTC)
The one that you are proposing is not sourced either. It is. The members are in the sub-article. As for the borders, the map is derived from File:BlankMap-World.svg, which is based on CIA's 2005 political world map. Ythlev (talk) 16:02, 26 August 2019 (UTC)
YthlevI see. Okay. I have an idea. Why don't you upload the map over the old one. Click on "upload new version" then upload your map, that way it will change in all Wikipedia projects. It should be clear that there are nations that are not members of the UN. Your map show these states while the current one doesn't.--SharabSalam (talk) 19:46, 26 August 2019 (UTC)
Ythlev & SharabSalam I have fixed the dead url.[1] As for Ythlev, please refrain from including unrecognized states on that map as this is not the appropriate page for it. Here is an example map of recognized UN states from a UN source.[2] Wadaad (talk) 20:21, 26 August 2019 (UTC)

I still don't see what information from these two links support this map. The first link is just a list of members and makes no reference to territories. The example map in the second link has all land with the same colour, including Western Sahara and Antarctica, which contradicts the current map. Also the current map has the label "Taiwan", but not Kosovo. What exactly is implied here? Ythlev (talk) 00:08, 27 August 2019 (UTC)

There are many UN related pages with world maps that all stick the UN member-state system. For example see the page on Treaty on the Prohibition of Nuclear Weapons. It would be inconsistent with what is already in place in UN related pages. Wadaad (talk) 10:04, 27 August 2019 (UTC)
You mean this? It has Kosovo and Taiwan, so how is it consistent? Ythlev (talk) 00:09, 28 August 2019 (UTC)
Ythlev I think your map is problematic as well. In Political status of Taiwan it says "the position of PRC is that UN General Assembly Resolution 2758, which states "Recognizing that the representatives of the Government of the People's Republic of China are the only lawful representatives of China to the United Nations", means that the PRC is recognized as having the sovereignty of all of China, including Taiwan." If we put your map in the infobox we would give undue weight to one point of view.--SharabSalam (talk) 10:43, 27 August 2019 (UTC)
I can't speak for all non-members, but for Taiwan in particular, most maps consider Taiwan separate from China.[2] Colouring it the same as China is giving undue weight. Giving undue weight doesn't mean picking one side or the other. Ythlev (talk) 00:01, 28 August 2019 (UTC)
  • I am thinking we remove the map from the infobox. It doesn't seem as a representative image. We can start a request for comment and make three options, 1-Wadaad map 2-Ythlev map 3-no map in the infobox we already have their flag and it is enough representation.--SharabSalam (talk) 10:15, 27 August 2019 (UTC)
I don't mind the map being removed, although this may be contentious in the future and may be re-added by users who miss it or think it is necessary. Most IGO pages like the AU, EU, NATO etc all have maps. However, one may argue that the UN is quite different from these IGOs. Wadaad (talk) 11:54, 27 August 2019 (UTC)
Map of the current UN member states by their dates of admission[3]
  1945 (original members)
  1946–1959
  1960–1989
  1990–present
  non-member observer states
It's okay. My main objection is that any map on this page, especially the introduction, should not contain unrecognized non-member-states. Wadaad (talk) 16:58, 27 August 2019 (UTC)
What exactly do you mean by "not contain"? You mean not show the territory they control or not show the label or having or not having separate colours from claiming countries? The map is inconsistent on this. Ythlev (talk) 01:00, 28 August 2019 (UTC)
  • Personally, I think the best solution is to list Palestine in its own color as a United Nations Observer State, list Taiwan as a former UN member, and list the remaining eight states with limited recognition separately. I've seen some comments that suggest that doing this would be confusing, but as a reader I have to admit that I've always been much more confused by the fact that Western Sahara is so often displayed as an empty, seemingly unclaimed swath of land. At the talk page for states with limited recognition, consensuses have consistently resulted in unambiguous guidelines for when it is and is not appropriate to list an entity as a state with limited recognition, so it has long been the case that exactly ten states are in this category: Abkhazia, Artsakh, Kosovo, Northern Cyprus, Palestine, Somaliland, South Ossetia, Taiwan, Transnistria, and Western Sahara. If the alternative is to display Western Sahara as an uninhabited gray zone, I think it's much better to display it in a unique color on the legend so the reader can learn about why exactly it is that it's displayed separately. In short: I suggest a color for official UN Observers (which already seems to exist), a color for UN former members, and one for the other 8 non-member de-facto independent sates. This would provide the reader with as much relevant information as possible, without being too cluttered or being too off topic from the original purpose of the map. 🙂  Vanilla  Wizard  💙 21:41, 30 August 2019 (UTC)
Vanilla Wizard Taiwan is a UN member via China (PRC),[4] Somaliland is a UN member via Somalia (Federal Republic),[4] most of the Western Sahara is controlled by Morocco except for a small segment of the interior, and many of those unrecognized micro-states are incredibly small and irrelevant to warrent a massive revamp of the UN map. This is a good world map source according to the UN.[3] Wadaad (talk) 08:22, 1 September 2019 (UTC)
You've just repeated yourself without an explanation as to what information from these two links support this map. The first link is just a list of members and makes no reference to territories. Where is there any mention of Taiwan? The example map in the second link has all land with the same colour, including Western Sahara and Antarctica, which contradicts the current map. Also the current map has the label "Taiwan", but not Kosovo. What exactly is implied here? Ythlev (talk) 00:08, 27 August 2019 (UTC)
I second Ythlev's confusion regarding what Wadaad is trying to convey by simply linking to a list of member states of the UN. Being "too small" and "irrelevant" is most certainly not a factor that we take into consideration when deciding whether or not to include information on a map whose sole purpose is to inform readers about the current status of various polities with regard to their membership or lack thereof in the United Nations.  Vanilla  Wizard  💙 21:39, 1 September 2019 (UTC)
WP:ADVOCACY states:

Advocacy is the use of Wikipedia to promote personal beliefs or agendas at the expense of Wikipedia's goals and core content policies, including verifiability and neutral point of view. Despite the popularity of Wikipedia, it is not a soapbox to use for editors' activism, recruitment, promotion, advertising, announcements, or other forms of advocacy.

This page is about the United Nations and its member-states. It is not the place to have your personal biases be reflected in an article. Wadaad (talk) 10:02, 3 September 2019 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ http://ask.un.org/faq/14629
  2. ^ "r/MapPorn". reddit. Retrieved 27 August 2019.
  3. ^ "Growth in United Nations membership, 1945–present". United Nations. 6 August 2015. Archived from the original on 25 June 2017. Retrieved 5 July 2017. {{cite web}}: Unknown parameter |dead-url= ignored (|url-status= suggested) (help)
  4. ^ a b https://www.un.org/en/member-states/

Removed map of growth of UN membership

The source given is a UN listing of member states with dates of admission. The list has many footnotes explaining complicated cases. For example, the two countries into which Germany was divided after WWII were admitted in 1973, and after reunification they merged into a single member state in 1990. There's a similar explanation concerning Yemen, which was admitted in 1947, then a different Yemen was admitted in 1967, and then they later merged into a single member state. The map over-simplifies and distorts the information in the source. Germany is shown as it exists today, color-coded to show that it joined the UN between 1960-1989. The UN would presumably not publish such a map because it might cause readers to have diminished confidence in the factual accuracy and reliability of UN documents. For the same reason Wikipedia should not publish it. NightHeron (talk) 12:31, 8 September 2019 (UTC)

NightHeron, But Germany is a member and East/West Germany don't exist. How would you propose this could be improved? ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 17:51, 8 September 2019 (UTC)
Koavf, A color-coded map is not an appropriate way to present information that spans several decades during which boundaries and even the identities of countries changed in complicated ways. Modern Germany is colored with the color label of 1960-1989, when it did not exist in the form shown. Such an over-simplified inaccurate visual representation might be OK for schoolchildren, but as far as I'm aware the UN would not express the data is such a way. Wikipedia policies such as RS and SYNTH require us to be faithful to the source and not distort or over-simplify it. NightHeron (talk) 18:25, 8 September 2019 (UTC)

Question about map edits

Koavf and I have been having a parallel discussion on Talk:Member states of the United Nations which we have agreed to move here in the hope of getting more input from other editors. On the page Member states of the United Nations I made two map edits (explained on the article's talk page): (1) making the map of current UN members look like the corresponding map on the page United Nations (in particular, removing editorial commentary in a footnote that dealt with UN policy on Taiwan) and (2) removing the historical map of admission to the UN. Those edits were reverted, although an edit similar to (2) on United Nations has not (yet) been reverted.

What I see as the main question is: When inserting a map in an article, how much can an editor simplify a source and/or write a caption that deviates from the source? This question is of particular concern when editorial simplification or deviation from the source has implications for sensitive and controversial issues. Both this talk page and the NPOV noticeboard have contentious discussions going on concerning the way maps deal with Taiwan, Palestine, etc. My hope is that we could avoid accusations of editor bias if maps stick more closely to their source. Input from other editors would be helpful. Thanks. NightHeron (talk) 12:16, 11 September 2019 (UTC)

So far I have not seen any good arguments for the inclusions of the de facto blue scheme map. This is the wikipedia page of an official organization with specific member states who claim specific territories.[4] It is not the place to play around with de facto maps like elsewhere on wikipedia. I would like to hear from others. Wadaad (talk) 11:43, 22 October 2019 (UTC)
It is a "club" with an official membership list. Thus unless they are officially recognized as members they should be (even indirectly on a map) listed as members.Slatersteven (talk) 12:31, 22 October 2019 (UTC)

Discussion regarding map on Neutral Point Of View Noticeboard

A new discussion on the map has been opened on the NPOV noticeboard.[5] Wadaad (talk) 12:33, 22 October 2019 (UTC)

"It's your world!" listed at Redirects for discussion

A discussion is taking place to address the redirect It's your world!. The discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2020 October 30#It's your world! until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion. –Deacon Vorbis (carbon • videos) 14:29, 30 October 2020 (UTC)

"UN/" listed at Redirects for discussion

A discussion is taking place to address the redirect UN/. The discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2020 November 20#UN/ until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion. TheAwesomeHwyh 16:29, 20 November 2020 (UTC)

Make a separate section for "criticism"?

I think this section: "Evaluations, awards, and criticism" should be split into two as criticism deserves its own section (with a link to the sub-article). Perhaps not call it criticism as per WP:CRIT? Not sure. EMsmile (talk) 13:43, 7 January 2021 (UTC)

Which countries called Netherlands, Denmark and New Zealand are members?

E.g., is Greenland represented in the UN through Denmark, or is it an unrepresented state? (That is, which "Denmark" is the UN member, the kingdom/realm or the metropolitan country?) Please see question at Talk:Member states of the United Nations. — kwami (talk) 21:41, 11 September 2021 (UTC)

Arrears redirect

I started a discussion about the redirect United Nations arrears, which may have been more suited for this page, at Chapter IV of the United Nations Charter. Anyway I'm just dropping the link for those interested. 176.247.251.200 (talk) 17:02, 12 September 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 22 September 2021

In the section Specialized agencies, Fang Lui is still listed as the Secretary General of the International Civil Aviation Organization (ICAO). According to the ICAO-website [1] her term ended in 2021 and Juan Carlos Salazar was appointed new Secretary General [2]. LaraKeks (talk) 15:05, 22 September 2021 (UTC)

 Done ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 15:14, 22 September 2021 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ https://www.icao.int/secretariat/SecretaryGeneral/Pages/former-secretaries-general-all.aspx
  2. ^ https://www.icao.int/secretariat/SecretaryGeneral/Pages/default.aspx

For the interested. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 21:11, 9 December 2021 (UTC)

unido director need upgrade

please remplace Gerd Müller as director of United Nations Industrial Development Organization Ryouta71 (talk) 20:57, 19 January 2022 (UTC)

 Done. M.Bitton (talk) 21:51, 19 January 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 21 January 2022

In the Section under the title of Model United Nations, it should have a Template:Main to the Model United Nations page.
--A MicroWikipedian Wikipedian (talk) 17:53, 21 January 2022 (UTC)

 Done ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 17:59, 21 January 2022 (UTC)


Ivewor (talk) 18:01, 26 February 2022 (UTC)

 Done Happy Editing--IAmChaos 23:36, 26 February 2022 (UTC)

Balochistan

I hope United Nation will respond on my this topic. There's 5000+ Baloch's are missing. I hope the United Nations will help to release all those innocent persons. If anyone of them had involved in any crime then bring them into court we all are agree but this type of disappearance is never been acceptable. Help Balochistan to save Baloch Peoples. Balochistan, Pakistan 111.119.183.46 (talk) 19:36, 1 May 2022 (UTC)

Member Map

The map that shows the UN member states is incorrect - it shows Antarctica as a member, when it is not even a country but rather an internationally-administered region, and the Republic of China as a member, when it was expelled almost 50 years ago. I propose that we replace it with the following map:

Member states of the United Nations as of March 2022.

PtolemyXV (talk) 18:54, 22 March 2022 (UTC)

The ROC reflects the UN position. As for Antarctica, that's an odd visual rendering bug. The file itself does not show Antarctica. CMD (talk) 05:26, 23 March 2022 (UTC)
Your map has a weird shade of blue and doesn't consider all border conflicts in the world either. Why is Kosovo, a territory that has sevenfold the recognition of the ROC, singled out on your map but still coloured blue when it doesn't have its own seat in the UN? Also, could you please tell me why Afghanistan is blue on your map? The Taliban government currently don't hold Afghanistan's seat in the UN. --2001:9E8:A42E:6D00:E942:320E:9ABA:8C0E (talk) 01:33, 8 May 2022 (UTC)

Please UN council talk about the problem between Nigerians and Pakistanis in Cyprus pournara camp South Cyprus

Yesterday Saturday 7 May, it was not easy at all at the pournara camp south Cyprus Nigerians vs Pakistanis serious fighting, only ten police came instead for them to help stop the fight they instead took all the Pakistanis to a saved zone and started fighting all the Africans with tear gas, but the fight was between Nigerians and Pakistanis not all Africans in the refegee camp! We really suffered yesterday in the hands of those ten police for a fight we didn't fight that's very wrong i believe the police are supposed to protect us not to harm us, Do to the fighting yesterday two Pakistanis were death ☠️ instantly and eighteen are presently in the hospital bed 🛏️. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.207.159.150 (talk) 16:49, 8 May 2022 (UTC)

Un

Un 2409:4050:D82:CCA:6969:CD54:26A2:4C09 (talk) 06:24, 1 June 2022 (UTC)

 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. SamWilson989 (talk) 08:38, 1 June 2022 (UTC)

Is United Nation A Organization or A Agency

Is United Nation A Organization or A Agency 2409:4053:605:96C9:ADF2:E4FF:4057:2773 (talk) 16:01, 9 June 2022 (UTC)

The UN is an organisation with agencies that work under its auspices. SamWilson989 (talk) 08:43, 10 June 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 25 June 2022

In the first sentence, please change "purpose is" to "purposes are", because several purposes are mentioned in the rest of the sentence. 49.198.51.54 (talk) 09:42, 25 June 2022 (UTC)

 Done ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 11:03, 28 June 2022 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:United_Nations/Archive_9&oldid=1251448660"