Talk:United Nations/Archive 4

message: Could we please have a section of the article or someone create an article about the various UN agencies constructd on a table or some sort of listing process whereby it displays the agency and explains to the public and wikipedians what they do?  Such as well known agencies and agencies that are kept out of the public eye, either because people don't know much or wouldn't like to know - hence why he media don't get a chance to say anything about it.  Is this some dogmatic decision made by the beaurocrats?  Please we want to know MORE ABOUT THE UN - AGENCIES INCLUDED!  LOTRrules 13:56, 7 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: List of the UN Organisations?

message: Brazil had forwarded a resolution on homosexuality a few years back. The USA, most Muslim and African countries and some eastern European countries rejected. I think that was a mentionable event within the UN.
:Someone should definitely add copy on this topic at some point; surely it is worth including. Codyau 04:16, 11 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: International recognition of Homosexuality, even if it failed, seems pretty notable, I agree. Mad05963 03:16, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Attempted resolutions on homosexuality 

message: Everything in the section confirms there is a bias, considering that terriable Human rights abusers:  Iran, Cuba, Zaire and others are not criticized, the alleged should be removed.Giza D 22:12, 17 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Please cite specifics Buffadren 11:07, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  I think you misquote with the last sentence.  That said: regardless of the true ethics of the situation, it could be, and has been, argued that the U.N.'s actions with respect to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict are reasonable and do not constitute an anti-Israeli bias.  Wikipedia should not take a position on this, which is why I put the 'alleged' back.  'Alleged' does not imply that there is no bias, but leaves that as a possibility. Michaelbusch 20:50, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

text: I must disagree.  We can give examples of possible bias, but we can't make the political judgement (see 'advocacy' in Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not, under 'Wikipedia is not a soapbox').  And again, having 'alleged' in the title does not say that there is not a bias.  It simply is Wikipedia not making political statements.  This is not political correctness.  This pragmatism: if the 'alleged' or something similar is not there, I predict a certain level of objection from people who would disagree with you. Michaelbusch 23:28, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

text: It is already there.  The question is if it should be removed. Michaelbusch 01:28, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

text: I doubt it. Nothing there is truly concrete given opposing opinions, but what is certain right now is that there is an allegation, and we shall leave it at that. Ariedartin JECJY Talk 14:06, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

text: Giza D: end this now.  There may be a bias, or there may not be a bias.  All we can say reliably is that the bias is alleged.  Accept this and move on. Michaelbusch 23:29, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Seconded and emphasized. Ariedartin JECJY Talk 13:08, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

text: I removed the section, but I'm afraid my edit summary did not do it justice -- I claimed that the biased source was the National Review, rather I meant that the source was biased because it was simply a number of editorials which stemmed from the same author, one of which was featured in the National Review, and then an article by the ADL which, if you look on wikipedia's own ADL article has all sorts of allegations of bias against it itself and is hardly any sort of objective group. If the edit truly needs to be reverted someone can do so but there were no reliable sources. Furthermore if this is an issue there is already an "Israel and the UN" article about this. SLCThunk 09:57, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree the section has to go fm this article. After all founding Israel was one of the first acts of the UN.... --BozMo talk 09:24, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Alledged Anti Israeli Bias 

message: Why is Taiwan colored in if it's not a member? ArchonMeld 19:10, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Because it's supposedly a "renegade province" of the PRC, so Taiwan is colored in by virtue of the PRC's membership. Raymond Arritt 01:38, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I disagree with that. If the People's Republic is unable to enact it's authority, it is de facto, not de jure, a separate territory.  At the very least, it should be coloured a third colour for the map and noted as a territory that is: recognized by most nations as a part of the PRC; is not presently under PRC authority; is recognized by some nations as a nation or as the legitimate government of China; has itself sought admission as a member of the UN without reattaining its former position on the security council. GBC 04:13, 7 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: UN World Map

message: The disturbing section accusing UN peacekeepers of rape needs some consideration. Should we include Allegations or only quote from place were convictions have been secured or trials are under way. Otherwise I propose to remove anything that is not legally firm. Buffadren 16:08, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Include allegations from reliable sources. While that might amount to defamation, it is still nonetheless information with a place on the article. Ariedartin JECJY Talk 12:59, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Rape accusations

message: Is it necessary to have two copies of the map of UN member nations(image:United_Nations_Members.png)?  I feel the one in the infobox should be removed, since it is too small too see in detail.  If the only point is that nearly the whole world is blue, then maybe we can remove the large image under the "Membership" heading. askewchan 21:50, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The map in the infobox is common practice for all political groupings like the European Union, ASEAN, and NATO, and for the sake of conforming with other similar articles, it is best that it is not removed. And granted that it is hard to view the map in the infobox, it is again placed under the Membership section for greater detail and clarity. Ariedartin JECJY Talk 04:03, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Two maps? 

message: The page is getting vandalsied a lot and while we have enough editors to revert I suggest semi protection for registered users only, Is there agreement for this/ Buffadren 14:11, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: To be honest, when I logged onto this page (for research purposes) I was rather shocked that the page hadn't been semi-protected! The United Nations seems to me like a controversial subject. I mean, though nothing specific about the UN makes it controversial, the whole concept of a supranational organization designed for the purposes of government and regulation whose members include nearly all the nations in the world seems a bit on the controversial side. And, controversy leads to slander; slander equals vandalising Wikipedia, and this article has suffered from it. I agree with Buffadren, semi-protection should be used on this article. oobugtalk/contrib 19:26, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

text: I would support that move. This diff covers 31 edits over a period of four days with zero substantial content added, but almost exclusively vandalism, POV pushing and reverts. That's simply silly and blowing up the revision history for nothing. --Uwe 19:28, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

text: I agree. Michaelbusch 22:41, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

text: I would also support semi protection for this page. ~Entegy 22:34, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The previous semiprotection applied here had expired; in view of the above discussion I have reinstated it.--cjllw | TALK 00:08, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

text:  Yes , I think that is a good call, let's see how the page progresses over the next period of time and perhaps unprotect it then.  Buffadren 15:34, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  "...when I logged onto this page (for research purposes)..." I would highly recommend if you want to actually do real research on the U.N. you go find a reliable outside source such as a real encyclopedia and NOT use what's up on Wikipedia. Especially for this topic as I agree the page should be protected. However that would only help lesson the errors and PoV/weasel wording and the like, not remove them. I couldn't imagine any respected academic organization considering wikipedia to be truly credible source on something like this. Even if you lock it and protect it, it isn't like registered users are immune from lacking credability, not citing sources, inserting personal opinion, and the like. However that isn't just the U.N. page, that's any serious but contreversial entry here. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 75.132.156.26 (talk) 12:00, 9 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: semi protection

message: In the 'Languages' section of the article, there are two instances of odd misuse of reference style (or seems to me, anyway).  The first and third references are the references of concern.
:1) "There is a strenuous resistance against downgrading the status of the French language in the organization (see for instance );"
:2) "...every Secretary General of the United Nations thus far has spoken French and the apparent difficulty of Ban Ki-Moon to do so fluently in his first press conference  was considered by some a faux pas (e.g. )
Shouldn't these be normal superscript references - not in parentheses with 'e.g.' or 'for instance' slapped in front.  If they are 'e.g.' or 'for instance' links, they should simply be hyperlinks, but they appear to be actual references - that is, backing up the statement, not parenthetical material.  Just checking before I make a change.  I've never seen references formatted like this. - Slow Graffiti 07:31, 10 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Referencing/Links

message: I consider this POV.
:'But the breakup of the Soviet Union also left the U.S. in a unique position of global dominance', 
I suggest a rephase to say
:But the breakup of the Soviet Union also left the U.S. in a strenghtened global position 
Buffadren 10:45, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Your proposal does not pass the English parser.  Please rephrase your inquiry.  Tomertalk 02:22, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  The breakup did not leave the US in a position of Global dominance. All countries are interdependent on each other. I will remove the sentence rather than rephrase it. Buffadren 10:40, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  I think your initial rephrasing ("But the breakup of the Soviet Union also left the U.S. in a strenghtened global position") was better in principal then simply taking it out, certainly more accurate for an encyclopedia and less politically correct. Though I might recommend adding China along with the United States as well (and possibly France, the U.K., and a few other of the worlds key players). "All countries are interdependent on each other." sounds nice, but doesn't neccisarily correspond with reality. On a global and international field, the reality is some nations matter more then others. Especially in terms of the U.N. and getting a resolution to actually mean anything. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 75.132.156.26 (talk) 11:53, 9 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Peacekeeping POV

message: What relevant rôle is played by these "famous" people in the UN?  Their fame, to a [wo]man, has nothing to do with their involvement with the UN, and their activities have not done anything to bring the UN itself to prominence.  This appears, in fact, to be nothing more than celebritycruft.  Barring relevant protest, it will be removed within 1 week hence.  Cheers, Tomertalk 02:21, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Stuff like this obviously has no place in a serious article.  Really -- Shakira?  No need to wait. Nuked. Raymond Arritt 02:45, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  I agree and besides the article is getting very long anyway. Buffadren 14:06, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Notable United Nations figures 

message: The article says "Among the notable absences are the Republic of China (Taiwan), whose seat in the United Nations was transferred to the People's Republic of China in 1971; ..."
On the map named "United_Nations_Members.PNG" Taiwan is colored blue however, while it should be grey. Have I just found out a little mistake or is this supposed to be so?
Wiki1609 21:44, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: True, but Taiwan also claims mainland China as its own territory. The picture is wrong so someone should change it.Wiki1609 18:18, 27 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  United_Nations_Members.PNG & TAIWAN 

message: The Peacekeeping section states that Canada and Portugal are the only nations to have engagaed in all peacekeeping situations.
Under the rape/abuse allegations section, however, the allegations were said to have been made against Pakistani, South African, and other nations UN peacekeepers, implying that Canada and Portugal aren't the only ones to have provided peacekeeping forces! —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 
198.151.13.8 16:45, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Umm... you want to re-read that and try again?  72.178.131.225 06:31, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Facts about peacekeepers contradict each other 

message: This Abkhazia issue has no relevance to the article and the text is taken from the propagandist web site. As I read the United Nations news archive, this information was not available and nobody from the serious sources (BBC, CNN, etc) mentioned about it. The whole paragraph is anti-American from reading that Tiraspol Times/ I am also doubting the sincerity of this user who implements strong POV sentences into the Tiraspol article and also here on United Nations. Dear Editors, please monitor this issue and also take into consideration the nature of this text. It has overwhelming negative POV and should be removed from the article. Euskera 14:25, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I've added a link to the article by Associated Press which is a serious source without any doubt. I've also added a link to RIA Novosti article about the same subject because Abkhaz and Russian position is described there more clearly. Alaexis 17:20, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The issue has been reported by every major news organisation in the world including The Washington Post, Forbes, The Guardian, Reuters, International Hearld Tribune, to name but a few. The UNPO also fetures it despite you saying it does not. There are 87 news articles about it here.Tiraspol Times  is just one newspaper. There are 86 other international news organisations. I am a long standing editor on this page  and your attack on my sincerity should be taken into context of your own edits here. Here is a link to the above mentioned newspapers etc. []Buffadren 17:29, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Please do not falsify the issue. Only Russia has disputed this and none other countries in the UN. Non eof the countries mentioned "double standards" and so on. I have reviewed all of your links. I want the involvement of other editors who are more neutral to this issue. Do you know how many Basque political parties were refused visa to UN and also ability to present their view? Batisuna for example which is supported by many in Basque Land. Euskera 17:33, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Buffadren Thanks for that Georgian separatist article, based on the info there, only Russian side objected to this move by not only US but all members of SC. Euskera 17:34, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: My Friend, your debate here is over. Your original objection to the insertion on the main page was because it was not sourced by 'serious sources' or the UN. When these were given to you above you then decided you don't like the Russian Federation having an opinion on UN matters. Thankfully that is not how things work here on Wiki or the UN for that matter. Buffadren 17:45, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  After i reviewed your own sources, you are falsifying the information and exaggerating it. Maybe you decided to like Russian Federation and i can say the same to you regarding the Wikipedia NPOV policy. Euskera 17:48, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

text: You are not fully briefed on this matter. You are now claiming it is only the Russians that are complaining. This is not so the British are also backing the Russian position. Buffadren 07:48, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

text:  At first you objected to the content only because of you wanted it sourced from world class news agencies, However, when these were provided for you sourcing from the best news organisations in the world you refused to accept them. That's not acceptable for Wiki  Buffadren 18:22, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Don’t mislead the people here. i actually reviewed your referenced and THE DO NOT MATCH THE CONTENT IN THAT SECTION, NONE OF IT MATCHES YOUR REFERENCES. Thus making your edits false and way off from those references which you provided. But instead of fixing it, you are provocative here. If you do not revise your version which with false statements which do not match your own references to Washington Times, i will remove all POV data from United Nations article. Euskera 18:33, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

text:  I feel like I am trool feeding here. First you say it is badly sourced and we solve this for you by providing world class sources, then you return saying I love Russia, and when you checked my contributions to this page you dropped that, then you changed to a non arguement that it was only Russia that complained about the treatment of the Abhazian F Minister, Now that is not the case as the British ammbassador has aloo supported the Russians and made statements saying that the council memebers ( of which he is President) wanted to here both sides of the argument. So now that you are fully armed by this information are you happy enough to leave the section in peace or do you have some new reason to demand it be removed or changed. Buffadren 07:55, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  POV implementation on the article 

message: I noticed that this article uses both. The United Nations uses UN. I think that we should also use UN instead of U.N. Any thoughts? YaanchSpeak! 01:06, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: UN is the norm. U.N. is seldom used. Buffadren 17:31, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  U.N. vs. UN 

message: I read through it, saw through the history of this article and still can't really find out what in precise are you people arguing about.
Is it just that tiny part of the sentence whether only Russia or someone else too finds this scandalous or...? --PaxEquilibrium 18:22, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Not quite. The question is whether this matter as a whole is worthy to be included here. Alaexis 18:46, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Is there any other article that could contain the info? --PaxEquilibrium 21:28, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  There are articles where this info could be moved to (like United Nations resolutions on Abkhazia, Politics of Abkhazia etc.; in case it's moved the link to it should remain here). The question is whether it should be moved. Alaexis 05:01, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  The pages mentioned above are not the proper reference placing, it is a UN/USA issue not an Abkazian issue even though Abkhazia is a party to the issue. I will seek out alternative UN pages and see if I can find something more suitable but the main page does seem the obvious choice given the section for such issues exists there. Buffadren 12:24, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  This whole discussion 

message: I have reogranized a few of the pictures to allow a more 'fluid' article and added some small details. Now there does not seem to be any unsightly gaps. Tell me what you think. --Eiyuu Kou 17:28, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Reorganized pics 

message: I came across this article on BBC regarding corruption in the organization.  Significant enough, or wait for the dust to settle? Jumping cheese Cont@ct 07:51, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I suppose that, if and when it's inlcuded, it'd go under "Failures in security issues" along with other peacekeeper scandals. It seems minor comparared to others, but it might be worth a line.  ·:·Will Beback  ·:· 10:16, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

text: And it should definitely be included with greater detail in UN peacekeeping missions involving Pakistan, which would not be NPOV without it.  ·:·Will Beback  ·:· 10:19, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Update.  Jumping cheese Cont@ct 22:48, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Gold for Guns 

message: The article reads,
"The five permanent members of the UN Security Council, each of which has veto power on any UN resolution, are..."
This statement states that the 5 permanent members have veto power over any UN resolution. In reality they do not. They only have veto power in the security council when voting on resolutions. In any other council they do not have veto power. This statement should be changed to read,
"The five permanent members of the UN Security Council, each of which had veto power in Security Council resolutions, are..."
Thoughts?
YaanchSpeak! 02:43, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Veto power on <i>any</i> UN resolution? 

message: I think it would be helpful to have a grouped section of the failures of the UN including taiwan, homesexuality and genicides
--Casenj 11:36, 23 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Failures 

message: The section on smokers claims that there is a smoking ban in the UN headquarters. However, this is not completely true: in the Viennese cafe on the first basement floor everyone is smoking, and there are ashtrays on the tables. I edited the section, but someone reverted it back to the original text. Can s/he explain the rationale for this?
3gpabko 14:16, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: As the one who did the revert: First, the wording "Smokers can indulge their habit ..." is hardly of encyclopedic style. Second, the information that smoking is allowed in one specific place within the building is hardly of encyclopedic relevance as it is only a very small exception from an otherwise correct statement. Third, the information that this is "probably the only indoor location in New York where this is allowed" hardly reaches an encyclopedic degree of reliability as nobody can know for sure whether this is really true (not to mention that this point is also hardly relevant in an encyclopedic context). --Uwe 17:55, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  I agree with your first and third point, but beg to differ with the second one. If the issue of smoking is itself of encyclopedic relevance, then the exception to the general rule should also be noted. Moreover, given that the title of the section is 'smokers', I woulde guess that this population would find the exception quite important. --3gpabko 19:17, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Smokers