Talk:United Nations System

message: Seriously, what's difference between United Nations and United Nations System? I mean is UNS a some kind of organization, mere concept or something else? -- Taku 01:33 May 3, 2003 (UTC)
:Yes, the United Nations refers just to the UN, but the United Nations System refers to the whole network of international organizations, treaties and conventions that were created by the United Nations. If you go to the UN the people who work there are always referring to the UN System, it is definitely distinct from the United Nations proper. Alex756 01:39 May 3, 2003 (UTC)
:I know this is an old post but maybe I can revive the discussion. I think Alex756's argument is not very sound. To say that "the United Nations refers just to the UN" is a circular reference, like saying "a bird is a bird is a bird". I think what Alex756 means instead is the United Nations Organization, which is composed of the six Principal Organs. I think that is much clearer than "UN" alone. If employed in this way, the term "UN System" would likewise convey a clearer meaning, namely, the "UN Principal Organs plus all subsidiary and related entities and agreements". I therefore suggest to change the terminology accordingly.Karl Magnus (talk) 14:24, 29 August 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  United Nations and United Nations System? 

message: Where does the International Narcotics Control Board fit into this? Rad Racer 05:29, 21 Mar 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Put it beside the Commission for Narcotic Drugs. Alinor (talk) 04:54, 23 August 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: INCB

message: Whoever is responsible for the construction and the upkeep of this page did an OUSTANDING JOB in the description of THE UN SYSTEM. REVO2 17:55, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  REVIEWS 

message: I can't find any source linking WTO with the UN. Unlike the other "Related organizations" that are clearly linked to the UN - the WTO seems to be a completely separate organization (yes, multiple UN agencies are WTO observers and WTO is observer/participant in multiple UN agencies/organizations, but this is different that WTO to be "part of" the UN System). Alinor (talk) 16:23, 3 December 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: The WTO is not a member of the United Nations System, though its executive head is a member of the United Nations Chief Executives Board (CEB). The WTO's predecessor, the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade (GATT), was a de factor part of both the United Nations and the common system of salaries and benefits.新選組 (talk) 03:09, 30 October 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  WTO UN link 

message: As far as I am aware the relationship between the IAEA and the UN is defined not by a UN General Assembly Resolution but by the a formal agreement published by the IAEA as INFCIRC/11. NPguy (talk) 01:54, 28 January 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  IAEA 

message: I propose that we remove unnecessary details from the lede since those are already elaborated on in the respective article sections, namely the complex status of one of the affiliated organizations, the WTO. Also, the current lede wrongly states that all executives are CEB members, but there are some exceptions (see source below). (item1 is current, item2 is proposed text)
#The United Nations System consists of the United Nations, its subsidiary organs (including the separately-administered funds and programmes), the specialized agencies, and affiliated organizations. The executive heads of the United Nations System organizations and the World Trade Organization, which is not formally part of the United Nations System, have seats on the United Nations System Chief Executives' Board for Coordination (CEB).
#The United Nations System consists of the United Nations, its subsidiary organs (including the separately-administered funds and programmes), the specialized agencies, and affiliated organizations. Their executive heads are members of the United Nations System Chief Executives' Board for Coordination (CEB), with some exceptions.United Nations System of Organizations: "Entries listed in bold are members of the United Nations System's Chief Executives Board".
;References
Japinderum (talk) 11:05, 29 January 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: So let's change the sentence to "The executive heads of some of the United Nations System organizations and the World Trade Organization, which is not formally part of the United Nations System...".  The fact that the CEB contains a member which is not part of the UN system is important to note.  TDL (talk) 18:10, 29 January 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: WTO and CEB have their own sections, there's no need to duplicate such detail in the lead. Japinderum (talk) 13:47, 30 January 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: "The lead serves as an introduction to the article and a summary of its most important aspects."  TDL (talk) 18:13, 30 January 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: So, the WTO relationship is the most important aspect of the UNSystem? Japinderum (talk) 08:52, 1 February 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: Nope, read the sentence again.  TDL (talk) 10:47, 1 February 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: If it's not, then why do you insist on duplicating the details about the WTO status in the lede? Japinderum (talk) 10:00, 5 February 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: "The lead serves as an introduction to the article and a summary of its most important aspects." TDL (talk) 21:02, 5 February 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Lede - remove unnecessary details and a correction 

message: Per the above I restored the status quo, so that we can discuss here what to do with this section and sandbox. Japinderum (talk) 10:16, 1 February 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, they show them as "related organizations" or "affiliated organizations" because they have a relationship agreement with the UN.  But your conclusion that this makes them a "UN System organizations" is OR.  You can't be related to yourself.  In spite of my repeated requests, you've not provided a single source to back this up.  If no sources say "The WTO is part of the UN System", then it's very misleading to say "sometimes the WTO is not considered part of the UN System".  All the sources say they aren't.  It's simply a WP:WEASEL way to twist the facts.  TDL (talk) 10:44, 1 February 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: The WTO is one of the organizations in the UN System. It's also a regular full member of the UN System governing body, the CEB. That's quite contrasting with "WTO is not part of the UN system" (per other sources) - clearly, it's "status is complex" (as stated in one of the official sources). Sometimes it's considered to be part (e.g. UN System governing body member), sometimes it's not (e.g. relationship arrangement formalities). Depending on the context and meaning put in "part of". No weasel here. Japinderum (talk) 10:13, 5 February 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: Except that you haven't actually provided a single reliable source to back up your claim that " Sometimes it's considered to be part" of the UN Syytem.  Yes it has a seat at the CEB.  But does that make it part of the UN system?  You are doing OR and claiming that it does.  However, you've not provided a single reliable WP:SECONDARY source to back up your assertions.  Until you have, such OR doesn't belong in the article.  TDL (talk) 21:02, 5 February 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Related organizations 

message: About TDL comment: misleading text about "sometimes the WTO is not considered ...". It presents the sources about "WTO not considered to be formally part of the UN System". Those are in contrast to the sources elsewhere in the section showing the WTO as one of the UN System organizations ("related organizations", "affiliated organizations", etc.) such as United Nations System of Organizations and others. I don't see what's misleading in that, but we can reword it if needed. Japinderum (talk) 10:16, 1 February 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, they show them as "related organizations" or "affiliated organizations" because they have a relationship agreement with the UN.  But your conclusion that this makes them a "UN System organizations" is OR.  You can't be related to yourself.  In spite of my repeated requests, you've not provided a single source to back this up.  If no sources say "The WTO is part of the UN System", then it's very misleading to say "sometimes the WTO is not considered part of the UN System".  All the sources say they aren't.  It's simply a WP:WEASEL way to twist the facts.  TDL (talk) 10:44, 1 February 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: The WTO is one of the organizations in the UN System. It's also a regular full member of the UN System governing body, the CEB. That's quite contrasting with "WTO is not part of the UN system" (per other sources) - clearly, it's "status is complex" (as stated in one of the official sources). Sometimes it's considered to be part (e.g. UN System governing body member), sometimes it's not (e.g. relationship arrangement formalities). Depending on the context and meaning put in "part of". No weasel here. Japinderum (talk) 10:13, 5 February 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: Except that you haven't actually provided a single reliable source to back up your claim that " Sometimes it's considered to be part" of the UN Syytem.  Yes it has a seat at the CEB.  But does that make it part of the UN system?  You are doing OR and claiming that it does.  However, you've not provided a single reliable WP:SECONDARY source to back up your assertions.  Until you have, such OR doesn't belong in the article.  TDL (talk) 21:02, 5 February 2013 (UTC)
thread_title: Discussion

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to  on United Nations System. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add  after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add  to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/20071115065418/http://www.un.org/sg/management.shtml to http://www.un.org/sg/management.shtml
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.
Cheers. —cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 09:32, 17 October 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: The current diagram drawing File:UN_Institutions2.svg misrepresents the functions of the organisation's organs.
The "Secretary General" does NOT implement decisions, he does not wear a blue-helmet or carry a gun, he does not dispense medicine or money, it is not his job to implement policies or agreements made by organs of the UN. He is not an organ of the UN, he is the chief of the secretariat organ of the UN. The reason all nations secretly fear him is because his first job is to prepare the AGENDA of every other UN organ, he can slow or delay or prioritise any issue in any organ like the Security Council, or ICJ; and he can illegally omit issues from the agendas - especially if he uses his other prerogative powers to obscure those issues from the organs involved. His official duties (and reason he is responsible for the agendas) is to prepare all records and documents required by the Charter of the organisation. 
The "PeaceKeeping Forces" can be controlled either by the Security Council (via Charter chapters 6,7,8,12) or by the General Assembly (via Charter chapter 12 article 85 part 1).
Daeron (talk) 22:27, 3 February 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Fictional organisation diagram