Talk:Russia and the United Nations

message: Idle curiosity. Which one didn't? Russia itself, or one of the others? Ah. Georgia, right? –Hajor 00:21, 23 May 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Eleven of the twelve members of the CIS signed a declaration... 

message: If Northern Ireland were to break away from the United Kingdom, so that it changed from the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland to the United Kingdom of Great Britain, would that create the same kind of legal dispute over the UK's seat? Nik42 22:31, 31 August 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Probably not, because a mere name change or change in a member's territory does not terminate the entity. The difference is that the Soviet Union was formally dissolved. 24.54.208.177 16:08, 20 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Northern Ireland is only one of 4 major divisions in the United Kingdom, so there likely wouldn't be a dispute.  Even a change that would have taken the country from the USSR's size to Russia's size would likely be resolved without much dispute - as the above comment noted, it was the dissolution of the government that caused the trouble.  Without a dissolution, the only "split" that I think would cause such a dispute would be a division on the scale of the (temporary) one that was apparent during the American Civil War.  (See Border states (Civil War) for a map demonstrating the division.)  --Tim4christ17 17:08, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  The UK 

message: if some should be questioned than its these both countries, or they should give up their seat for a EU one--Karesu12340 (talk) 18:35, 8 July 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  France and UK should leave 

message: I've removed an old neutrality tag from this page that appears to have no active discussion per the instructions at Template:POV:
::This template is not meant to be a permanent resident on any article. Remove this template whenever:
::#There is consensus on the talkpage or the NPOV Noticeboard that the issue has been resolved
::#It is not clear what the neutrality issue is, and no satisfactory explanation has been given
::#In the absence of any discussion, or if the discussion has become dormant.
Since there's no evidence of ongoing discussion, I'm removing the tag for now. If discussion is continuing and I've failed to see it, however, please feel free to restore the template and continue to address the issues. Thanks to everybody working on this one! -- Khazar2 (talk) 00:07, 21 June 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  removing POV tag with no active discussion per [[Template:POV]] 

message: In search to improve it or discuss these issues on the talk page.--J. D. Redding 21:44, 4 August 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: Most of the article is about succession, but there should be a broader treatment of the topic. Kaihsu (talk) 18:07, 13 March 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  This article has multiple issues. 

message: Experts? Any around?--J. D. Redding 21:44, 4 August 2013 (UTC)
thread_title: attention from an expert

message: Please bullet list points of original research.--J. D. Redding 21:44, 4 August 2013 (UTC)
thread_title: original research

message: Please list what is non-encyclopedic description of the subject. --J. D. Redding 21:44, 4 August 2013 (UTC)
thread_title: personal reflection or opinion essay

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to  on Russia and the United Nations. 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/20050509082013/http://www.un.org:80/aboutun/charter/ to http://www.un.org/aboutun/charter/
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/20050312051908/http://www.ejil.org:80/journal/Vol3/No2/art8-02.html to http://www.ejil.org/journal/Vol3/No2/art8-02.html#TopOfPage
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/20050319080815/http://www.turkishpilots.org:80/documents/Nihan_UNLU.htm to http://www.turkishpilots.org/DOCUMENTS/Nihan_UNLU.htm
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 06:32, 11 January 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: I'm not an expert on wiki etiquette so I haven't made any changes yet but I'm sceptical that Andrew McLeod should be used as a source. If you look at his website it's pretty clear the man is a grifter and a chancer who massively oversells his own expertise, he's only a visiting professor at kings with no specialist knowledge of constitutional or international law, and he's controversial for making up nonsense facts. 2001:4646:4DE6:0:4C09:DA34:B645:F3DE (talk) 12:42, 2 February 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  Andrew McLeod