Talk:United Nations/Archive 3

message: For older discussion, see: GDP per capita (PPP), literacy, life expectancy, and school enrollment.  However, as it is a composite index/rank, some may challenge its usefulness or applicability as information.
Thus, the following question is put to a vote:
Should any, some, or all of the following be included in the Wikipedia country infobox/template:
:(1)  Human Development Index (HDI) for applicable countries, with year;
:(2)  Rank of country’s HDI;
:(3)  Category of country’s HDI (high, medium, or low)?
YES / NO / UNDECIDED/ABSTAIN - vote here
Thanks!
E Pluribus Anthony 01:52, 20 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: IMO, giving the actual numerical value of the HDI will not be helpful for most people.  I would support giving a rank, except that there is a danger of users looking at countries that are rated one rank apart and thinking that one is better than the other or some other such nonsense.  I do support giving the category of HDI. MikeNM 17:44, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

text: Undecided/Abstain I think it is useful and should be included, however at the same time I don't really know what exactly HDI rank is. And as for MikeNM, I think for the most part people won't think that. No one is going to randomly come to this article for no reason and think a country is better than another. This is more a scholarly type article, like an encylopedia, so people will be looking at this info for real, not to judge--24.210.178.8 11:15, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Statistics poll

message: I removed the sentence:.
 
"Some voices have called presidentialism for the UN Secretary-General election (this is, direct election of the Secretary General by all the people in the world, instead of by the Governments)."
'Some voices' have recommended almost anything. If there is a specific voice, then it should be named. Besides, it was bad English.  
I also otherwise cleaned up the English in this section a little bit. wgoetsch 21:03, 18 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I would very much like to see a section on the ORIGINS of the United Nations, there is currently no mention of the League of Nations that preceeded it. (This will take a concerted effort at research and accuracy, but we can definitely do this! EditCentric 19:08, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Also, I have attempted to adjust the position of the NYC Headquarters picture, it currently obliterates some of the text in the paragraph to it's immediate left. My adjustments have not made any difference to this point, I'm going to try 250 px instead of 300, and see if that clears it up a tad... EditCentric 19:25, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

text: Okay, that did not work. There is definitely a problem with the text flow around the graphic there. Can someone with a bit more experience in these matters please look at this and fix? (I'd hate to say it, but that section may need tabled out... EditCentric 19:32, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

text: Alright, I figured it out whilst I was at my "day job". All that was needed was to simply add a line break before the word(s) that were being cut off by the graphic. Fixed, and TKO! EditCentric 06:46, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

text:  I have also been working a bit on the flow and structure. I focused a lot on keeping the UN article itself as a pretty straightfoward article. Details and such can be read in the Main Articles. Also tried to eliminate alot of the additional wikilinks, and tried to improve syntax of the sentences... Jcdams 21:45, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Cleanup  

message: There have been a number of sexual abuses by UN authorities and officials.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/4505436.stm
:Again expand on this and provide the whole picture. http://www.cato.org/pubs/pas/pa-253.html#1  07:36 January 30 2006 (UTC)
:: This last link is to a very biased opinion blog, containing close to zero information!! -Pgan002 04:33, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Also http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/4282333.stm .  But I think these issues are not worth mentioning until bigger ones are discussed, like UN's history, relations to the IMF and World Bank, etc. -Pgan002 04:49, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Criticism of UN sex ethos 

message: Why aren't the UN's atrocities in Katanga (during the early 60s) mentioned?
    that's interesting... do elaborate.--202.156.6.54 15:32, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Definitely an interesting part of UN history that should be expanded upon. Codyau 04:18, 11 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Katanga 

message: ****
I have question.  If there are six official languages used at the UN why does this article show seven languages at the top right hand corner on top of the flag?  Somehow the words "United Nations" in the hebrew language has been conveniently included smack in the middle of the list.  Any explanations??
:Isn't that just an organization/cosmetic issue? It doesn't look too much of a big deal to me. Maybe it's just me, but I think that most people can read this wiki page and still get along with understanding the gist of the whole thing. Again, it could just be me..Neil the Cellist 05:39, 17 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Six official languages

message: Кроме этих языков используется  НЕСКОЛЬКО ЯЗЫКОВ 82.200.26.94 05:57, 24 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Статус языков

message: weren't the original headquarters in Brooklyn, NY, or something? The pointer outer 04:49, 5 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  original headquarters? 

message: Do we need an article on The UN Works for Small Island Nations? — Instantnood 15:24, 8 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  The UN Works for Small Island Nations

message: On the United Nations' own history page it says that the term "United Nations" was coined by Franklin Delano Roosevelt.  Yet this page claims it was coined by Winston Churchill.  I changed it, but it was reverted.  Shouldn't it be Roosevelt?  --VashiDonsk 19:20, 15 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Sorry VashiDonsk, I changed it in line with the History of United Nations page, feel free to make appropriate amendments based on the correct sources. (If I recall there was also discussion about this earlier if you can find it) --Zleitzen 18:23, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Churchill or Roosevelt? 

message: 'Successes and failures in security issues' demonstrates a clear lack of objectivity. The two examples of countries which have broken Security council resolutions are Israel and the US which i believe shows a clear bias as there are many other countries that have broken resolutions (which the US hasn't in the context given). A compromise of Iraq and Israel being listed as countries which have broken UN resolution would be more acceptable.
:You're totally right. However, Israel and the US are, by any standard, the most notorious examples. Lixy 12:58, 14 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Please refrain from personal political opinions here, please, especially when they do not contribute anything that can improve the article. Thank you. If you wish to say that, please provide some citations. Ariedartin JECJY Talk 10:14, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  'Successes and failures in security issues' bias. 

message: I believe the "Headquarters" section needs some work. Although New York City is the undisputed main headquarters of the UN, Geneva, Vienna, and possibly Nairobi, officially lay claims to be headquarters as well , and are often called such in official UN press releases       . The "UN Offices" at Vienna and Geneva are only part of these so-called headquarters, as shown here for Vienna. (e.g. UN Office Vienna is only one of the UN organizations in Vienna)
It's all really confusing, but I guess Geneva, Vienna, (and by some sources) Nairobi are a level above other smaller office locations, such as Bonn, Brussels, Paris, etc. Plus, someone needs to check the statement that Geneva is the European Headquarters of the UN, as I could not find that statement on any official UN site. I'll do some more research when I get the time, but I just wanted to throw this out there. -newkai | talk | contribs 15:42, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Headquarters 

message: Hello?  There is nothing in the article describing the basic organizational structure and voting methods.  Hello?  SchmuckyTheCat 01:00, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: General Assembly vs Security Council

message: Who here thinks that the UN has outlived it's purposes and needs to be disbanded?? LordRevan 05:04 Febuary 2 2006 (UTC)
:A recent worldwide survey shows that people with a positive view of the UN far outnumber those with a negative view almost anywhere in the world. Since the UN fulfills a vast array of badly needed roles in dozens of locations around the world, I'm curious as to what/who, in your view, should fulfill those roles instead?--Dorond 22:40, 4 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I concur. I think that suggestion is quite extreme. I can't imagine what chaos would erupt if the UN is disbanded. Without it, countries wouldn't have to answer to a council to account for their actions...--202.156.6.54 15:35, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

text: It's really rather pointless, not to mention inappropriate,  to register personal views on the validity or otherwise of the UN here- this is not what the talk page (or wikipedia) is for. Unless you've some substantive comment to make on the actual text of the article itself, whether or not you personally happen to care for the institution, is completely irrelevant and rather uninteresting. See WP:NOT if in any doubt. There's any number of other spaces, blogs, etc where you can opine ad nauseam about this or any other topic; kindly use these and not wikipedia.--cjllw | TALK 02:18, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: UN's effectiveness

message: could we,by chance, mention the fact that the 5 permanent members of the Security-council who are meant to maintain "security and peace" are the 5 main countries distibuting illegal arms to the poorer countries--- woohoo...the un has saved us all!!!
:Well, we should hardly add content by chance ;-). If you think you can make an informative NPOV subsection out of this, please do -- just don't forget to cite sources and present their content with impartiality (you will want to leave out the woos and the hoos). --Swift 19:01, 13 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Security Council Permanent Members criticism

message: This statement is somewhat unclear and/or misleading
:Many famous humanitarians and celebrities have been involved with the United Nations including; Audrey Hepburn, Danny Kaye, Peter Ustinov, Bono, Jeffrey Sachs, Clint Borgen, Angelina Jolie, Mother Teresa and Nicole Kidman for UNIFEM.
Are all these figures involved in the UN with UNIFEM and UNIFEM only? I don't believe so (Bono is one noteable figure who is involved with the UN more generally). Perhaps the author was primarily intending to refer to Nicole Kidman in which case perhaps we should be consistent and either specify when the person in question is primarily or solely involved in one division of UN rather then just for Nicole Kidman or alternatively just remove any reference to any specific division of UN. Nil Einne 01:47, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  UNIFEM 

message: :Inclusion on the United Nations Commission on Human Rights of nations, such as Sudan and Libya, whose current leaderships have demonstrably abysmal records on human rights, and also Libya's chairmanship of this Commission, has been an issue. These countries, however, argue that Western countries, with their history of colonialist aggression and brutality, have no right to argue about membership of the Commission.
While I don't have a cite, the issue isn't just about the history of colonialist aggression and brutality but also
*their (especially the US's) perceived continual aggression throughout the world
*their human rights record internationally (which is arguable far worse then their domestic record)
*their defense and support of countries and dictators (which many feel have terrible human rights records) when said countries are supportive of them or otherwise fit in with their policies (notable examples include Israel, Saddam (historically but in recent history), the Shah of Iran (again recent history), the apartheid South African government (recent history), the Somali warlords, Pedro Carmona and the Venezuelan coup supporters and many others)
*the issue of bias. Countries such as China etc also have bad human rights records but don't tend to get quite as much attention as countries like Syria and Libya
*the argument on whether the Western domestic human rights record is really that great, with frequently cited issues including the state of the poor especially in the US (hurricane Katrina being a prime example) and the treatement of immigrants, especially Muslims recently.
I'm not saying we should go in to this much detail but there is clearly a a lot more then what we talk about and I think we need to go into more detail then what we mention at the moment, preferbaly with a reference (although it's not as if any the above is referenced).
Nil Einne 02:06, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Western countries 

message: The reform section is a bit spotty. It mostly talks about the attempted actions of the US Congress and the perceived failure of the 2005 World Summit. It doesn't talk about or even link to the proposals to reform the US Security Council, the recent change to the Human Rights Commission or any of that Nil Einne 02:08, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Reform 

message: The opening paragraphs had too much detail about membership and exceptions (vatican, montenegro, palestine, taiwan).  This is all valid information but better situated in the body of the article, not the opening paragraphs.  I created a separate section on membership.  Pgr94 08:42, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Opening paragraphs 

message: Do we use American or British? as I just saw someone reverted to a British spelling whilst the American one is also in use. Skinnyweed 16:58, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Probably Oxford spelling because that's what the UN uses.Cameron Nedland 04:05, 30 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Which spelling? 

message: There are some very important accusations against the UN that should be mentioned in this article.  The widespread accusations of rape by UN "aid workers," the accusations of forced sterilization of women.  Also, the criticisms of UN support for abortion, of UNICEFs shift under Carroll Bellamy to support feminist ideals even over overall goodwill.  I don't suggest mentioning these as facts, but there is quite a bit of controversy over the UN, not just Oil for Food, and it should be mentioned.  MikeNM 18:15, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Lacking Criticisms 

message: If you look there's code for a map in the infobox that doesn't show up.... Pure inuyasha 21:30, 22 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  map doesn't show up. 

message: For some time I have been working on revisions to the Bricker Amendment article.  I finally posted it and have a PR at Wikipedia:Peer review/Bricker Amendment/archive1.  I'd welcome comments.  I know all those references may seem extravagant, but I'm hoping to get it as an FA and those voters want lots of footnotes.  PedanticallySpeaking 16:24, 1 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Bricker Amendment

message: Why is the Rwandan Genocide not in here?  The article (Rwanda Genocide) very clearly states near the beginning how it the massacre notably showed failures to act by the U.S. (with Democrat Party President Bill Clinton) and the U.N..
I know this was previously e=in the article, so why has it been removed?  It is a strong point for the "get U.S. out of U.N."  Though, the entirety of that line of criticism seems to be wholly located in the "The future of the U.S. in the U.N." (and greatly diminished) section in the United States and the United Nations article.
I am thinking of the quote from some guy about "All the Devil needs is for a good man to sit down."
--68.176.139.189 04:21, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Then bring it back, if you think the page will be more encyclopedic that way. I'm not saying you're wrong, but I'm editing a lot of other pages right now so if you want to change it and you can justify it, then go right ahead. Neil the Cellist 00:46, 25 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Rwandan Genocide 

message: Any plans? Greroja 18:57, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Clean up done then?

message: I believe that the Soviet Union or the "USSR" came before Russia not vice versa as stated in the article.
--JBOB 05:38, 19 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: it was russia up until about 1917 when the bolshevik revolution happened, after which point it became part of the soviet union, then back to russia after glasnost/perestroika in the early 90s.Tschroeder 05:58, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Russia and soviet Union 

message: I was wondering some issues with regards to matters of Sovereignty within the UN building.
* One point is cleared up wthin the article: the building in New York city stands on "UN soil". I presume this means the US have no jurisdiction there.
* A second (obvious) point is also mentioned: member staff carries diplomatic imunity.  But then I wondered: what about for instance cleaning staff?  Does every nation hire its own cleaning staff, or do the embassy staff themselves do the cleaning?
* Are all crimes and misdemeanors covered by Diplmatic immunity, or is for instance murder excluded?  (Hmm, that might be more an issue for an article on diplomatic imunity/a general article about embassies/consulates)
The scenario I was contemplating was, that for instance a nation A cleaner picks the pocket of nation B cleaner, and nations A and B have a longstanding hatred for eachother, and hance no diplomatic relations, but they play by the rules.  What if it's not theft, but murder, does any entity have any jurisdiction on that? --Lokimaros 11:46, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The Wikipedia section on Diplomatic Immunity may help answer some of your questions.  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Diplomatic_immunity  --Lorraine LeBeau 19:41, 15 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It all speaks to how diplomatic immunity interplays with international terrritory. While the UNHQ in New York sits in international territory, the organisation has agreements with the government of the hosting nation (ie the US Government) to not act as a place of refuge, or intentionally harbour jurisdictional fugitives. Codyau 05:00, 11 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Sovereignty in the UN building? 

message: :The UN buildings are not considered separate political jurisdictions
This seems to contradict United_Nations_headquarters#International_character. -- Beland 00:13, 20 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Prior to 1949, the United Nations was based in San Francisco.
Ditto for United_Nations_headquarters#Proposed_alternatives. -- Beland 00:15, 20 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Contradictions 

message: I couldn't repair this dead link: p. 9 which is currently numbered 16. The 2005 Human Security Report link works, but I don't know if there is a way to link directly to page 9, as this link seems intended to do. Art LaPella 04:54, 21 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Dead link

message: should the united nations be given more power
:As the text at the top of the page says:
:*WIKIPEDIA IS NOT A POLITICAL DISCUSSION FORUM. THIS PAGE IS TO SUGGEST AND DISCUSS CHANGES TO THE ENCYCLOPEDIA ARTICLE, NOT TO DISCUSS THE MERITS OR ACTIONS OF THE UNITED NATIONS.
:There are many forums and usenet groups where your question would be germane, but not here. -Will Beback 20:12, 15 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  more power? 

message: For the duration of the Soviet Union, its UN delegation included about 15 states such as Armenia, Belarus, Estonia, Georgia, Latvia, Ukraine, etc. that voted "independently" of Russia.  The history section might address that situation: how it came about and was approved.  Billy Oct 2006
:As I recall, the USSR's demand was supposedly in reaction to the U.K. having many seats for the Commonwealth and colonies (India, etc). But yes, it should be included. It might already be somewhere in a related article (:Category:United Nations). -Will Beback 00:37, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: USSR Delegation

message: Dear Wikimasters, It would appear that this article has attrackted some little vandalism.
(purile insertions of sexual references). I have removed them. 
Seanbert 18:46, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Vandalism 

message: I got rid of the wartime alliance bit regarding the formation. The article itself states the UN was created in 1945. The wartime alliance was not the UN. Yossiea 18:22, 25 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I thought the UN didnt officially come into existence until oct the 24th in 1945(United Nations Day).  1941(or was it 1942) was when the nations formed an alliance against the Germans, but it wasnt until the year 1945 when they actually decided to call themselves the United Nations and help each other when needed.mikeal 02:02, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Formation 

message: What binds UN countries to implement Agenda 21?
is it because UN countries ratified it? 
Kane 1 NI 15:03, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: According to the entry for Agenda 21, "Implementation by member states remains essentially voluntary." I guess that it was ratified by so many member countries, after a prolonged period of drafting and consideration, that the contents would be most agreable to member countries and therefore it would be a binding of choice.Codyau 15:12, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Agenda 21 

message: Whatever this translation header is in the top of the page, doesn't it mess up the article content?
I think someone should remove or fix it...
:This header is for the infobox on the right-hand side, which gives the name of the UN in all of its official languages.  It doesn't mess up the article. Michaelbusch 18:41, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Header

message: This article needs many more citations, and the introduction could be reworded a little. I will be back in a week to see how things go. If it goes well, I will pass it. If not, then you get the picture. Diez2 21:50, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I polished up the intro a bit. Raymond Arritt 05:35, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  GA Status is on hold 

message: There is soon to be an new secretary-general. A Korean citizen, Ban Ki-moon, was recently endorsed. I don't know if it would be necissary to mention this in the article now, or wait until the change in office takes place. Thespian946 02:09, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  New secretary-general 

message: I am failing this article as a good article for 2 reasons. First, since I put this article on hold, the stability of it has deteriorated. There is confilct over a picture, and the article has had to be protected from vandals. Second, no new citations have been added since I put the article on hold, so I am failing this article as a good article. Diez2 17:43, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  GA Failure 

message: There has been previous discussion on this page concerning the location of the headquarters of the United Nations.  (here and here)  The article says that the UN headquarters are in New York City.  Technically, the UN is located on international territory.    I have changed the article accordingly.  Please make any comments regarding this here.  Thanks. --Think Fast 23:44, 1 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It should probably read something like "Located on international territory in New York City" ... or "surrounded by New York City" Just saying it's on international territory doesn't give its location. -newkai t-c 00:00, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Location of Headquarters 

message: the United Nation's webite has not worked for some time, meaning its' members and goals are hard to find.
:Dated.  Site works now. Michaelbusch 00:04, 19 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: www.un.org links to the UN, as it always has.  Michaelbusch 18:52, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  UN's website not working 

message: Which countries are not part of the UN? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Cornwoman (talk • contribs) 01:19, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: This is addressed in the article: the Holy See, the Palestinian State, Taiwan, and several regions that have proclaimed self-government (Western Sahara is the largest by area). Michaelbusch 19:11, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: And then we'll run into the debate of whether they should be considered countries in the first place, and so on... Ariedartin JECJY Talk 12:04, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

text:  It is is not for the United Nations to decide and declare what is and is not a country. In fact there is not a single country in the world that is recognised by every single other country. Yet there are breakway de-facto countries like Abkhazia and Transnistria  that are fully functional countries albeit withour diplomatic recognition. So there is no debate , a country is a country regardless of diplomatic recognition. Buffadren 13:37, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  I would say something, but nevermind. Ariedartin JECJY Talk 15:19, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: UN

message: I have some images of the council meetings rooms at the UN New York building, would they be wanted in this article or anything UN related one? Or are they illegal to put up for some reason? Or are there already enough images? They were legally obtained on the tour, but I havent come across any such images so far, maybe they are on another article, but leave me a message if anyone thinks they are useful. I'm not sure which chambers i have photographed, but certainkly a few of them. SGGH 13:35, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Images