Talk:United Nations/Archive 4

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

→

Archive 10

List of the UN Organisations?

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) FInd me on my talkpage...

Attempted resolutions on homosexuality

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)

International recognition of Homosexuality, even if it failed, seems pretty notable, I agree. Mad05963 03:16, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

Alledged Anti Israeli Bias

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)

Please cite specifics Buffadren 11:07, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

If required I will get exact foot note, but Israel is not allowed full status in Geneva. In the recent Hezbollah conflict the U.N blamed Israel. zionism equals racism resolution.Giza D 18:22, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

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)

What I am pointing out is with all the examples it is not a POV to say there is bias. I think you are being to politicaly correct.Giza D 23:19, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

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)

Then lets give it a week, if there is no objection, lets put it in.65.96.132.149 00:57, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

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

Just so I understand, you object to removing the alleged because you feel that some might argue the U.N is justified in its double standard?Giza D 10:02, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

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)

You may wish to leave it at that, but the fact is there is a bias.Giza D 02:07, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

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)

Seconded and emphasized. Ariedartin JECJY ^Talk 13:08, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

Why is Michaelbusch given final say, when the facts are not on his side?Arankar 14:44, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

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)

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)

Financing

Should a line be put in noting despite claims of not wanting to be dependent on one country for the budget. The U.S and Japan are expected to contribute over 40%.Giza D 10:41, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

yes I agree, Buffadren 11:09, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

User UW keeps deleting the entry that U.S and Japan are budgeted for 40%, that is a fact.Giza D 18:48, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

Provide an independent and verifiable source for that information, and we might consider whether that "fact" is notable enough to be included in the article. --Uwe 19:02, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

Concur with UWe. See also WP:OR and WP:NPOV. Michaelbusch 20:23, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

It is footnoted #7 22% U.S and 19% Japan equal 41%.Giza D 21:26, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

Granted, but this is not being dependent on one country for the budget (no individual contributor is over 25%). That is where your proposed addition fails under WP:OR and WP:NPOV. Michaelbusch 21:48, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

In fact, if you read the source for the footnote, the US contribution is capped at 22% to prevent overdependency. Quoting from the factsheet referenced in footnote 7:

The Assembly has established the principle that the UN should not be overly dependent on any one member to finance its operations. Thus, there is a "ceiling" rate, setting the maximum amount any member is assessed for the regular budget. In December 2000, the Assembly agreed to revise the scale of assessments to make them better reflect current global circumstances.

As part of that agreement, the regular budget ceiling was reduced from 25 to 22 percent; this is the rate at which the U.S. is assessed. The U.S. is the only member that pays this rate; all other members' assessment rates are lower. Under the scale of assessments adopted in 2000, other major contributors to the regular UN budget for 2001 are Japan (19.63%), Germany (9.82%), France (6.50%), the U.K. (5.57%), Italy (5.09%), Canada (2.57%) and Spain (2.53%).

So the UN has established the rates you quoted for the express purpose of preventing what you say they imply. Your proposed additions are definitely WP:OR: you take the position that the UN has not spread out its funding enough, when it has spread its funding out considerably. Unless you can document that this is a widespread criticism of the UN, it is original research and also violates NPOV. Note also that these rates are for assessed as oppossed to voluntary contributions. Michaelbusch 21:55, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

Oh really your percentages back up my edit. Ther are 178 countries in the U.N and the ones you listed which account for less than 10% account for over 65%. Defense rests.Giza D 02:06, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

Defense is not thinking. The appropriations are capped and set so that those countries with the highest GDP pay the largest share. In fact, on a proportionality basis, the US should pay more, but that is where the politics come in. All you have said is POV and original research. Again, unless you can provide reliable sourcing of this as common criticism of the UN, it has no place here. End this now. Michaelbusch 23:28, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

You don't run this sight, And I am right.Giza D 00:05, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

I never said I did, or that you were wrong. I merely say that your statements are POV and OR and unacceptable per Wikipedia policy. So stop now. Michaelbusch 00:16, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

As I said you do not run Wikipedia and you are the one causing trouble. Please stop vandalizing other peoples edits.65.96.132.149 18:37, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

Neither do you run Wikipedia, therefore this "argument" is moot. Removing irrelevant content is not vandalism but required to keep and improve the article quality. Either provide credible sources to document that your point is a widespread criticism of the UN, or your point is on the same level as somebody claiming that the choice of blue as the color of the UN flag is discriminatory against women because blue is commonly seen as a manly color, as opposed to pink. --Uwe 19:41, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

I have reverted Giza D's edit. Please define "overly dependent" before you consider that 40% from two countries is considered "overly dependent on one country" and a "contradiction". And you will also need a citation that highlights and supports it. Otherwise, this is original research. Ariedartin JECJY ^Talk 14:27, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

No it is just stating the U.N is misleading when they say there are doing it proportionaly. As none of the oli rich countries pay their relative GDP it is perfectly all right to point out the flaw in the argument.Giza D 14:49, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

Nonetheless, you fail to define "overly dependent". Their policy is simply not to be over-dependent, but where that starts is not up to you to decide, or else that is original research. Ariedartin JECJY ^Talk 16:07, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

Since two nations contribute 40% of the budget, it seems right to be the at claim in the financing section.Arankar 14:43, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

It has nothing to do with being "overly dependent on one country", and whether it constitutes "overly dependent" must be cited. No original research. Ariedartin JECJY ^Talk 16:28, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

Gonna chime in just to say... find a reliable source to cite and I'm in total agreement it would be a great addition. However without finding one, it's original research. Wikipedia doesn't make exceptions for that. NO original research. If you can find some place reliable for it, and paraphrase it accuratly, no one can take what you put down without violating wikipedia's vandalism policies. However WITHOUT those two things, people can't LEAVE IT UP without violating the policies.

UN World Map

Why is Taiwan colored in if it's not a member? ArchonMeld 19:10, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

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)

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)

Rape accusations

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)

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)

I believe some "colonies" should be grey as well, at least until there status if fully recognized as fully part of a country or independant.

Two maps?

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)

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)

semi protection

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)

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. oobug^talk/_contrib 19:26, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

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)

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

I would also support semi protection for this page. ~Entegy 22:34, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

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)

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)

"...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).

Referencing/Links

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)

You are correct, moreover they represent POV and infer the article supports that POV. Buffadren 15:37, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

Peacekeeping POV

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)

Your proposal does not pass the English parser. Please rephrase your inquiry. Tomer^talk 02:22, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

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)

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).

Notable United Nations figures

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, Tomer^talk 02:21, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

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)

I agree and besides the article is getting very long anyway. Buffadren 14:06, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

United_Nations_Members.PNG & TAIWAN

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)

- I think this is because China claims Taiwan as its own territory 198.151.13.8 16:46, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

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)

Facts about peacekeepers contradict each other

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)

Umm... you want to re-read that and try again? 72.178.131.225 06:31, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

POV implementation on the article

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)

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)

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. [[1]]Buffadren 17:29, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

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)

Im disputing this very strong POV section which falsifying the information which is provided by the authors of this section. There are no of ether UN countries who have objected to this US rejection of granting visa for some foreign minister. There is no passage of accusing the USD of double standards. Only the Russian ambassador to Un has objected to this decision but none other. Based on the sources, this text is exaggerated, falsifying due to strong POV regarding this subject. Therefore, more neutral editors are needed to either remove this section or modify it based on my editing. Thanks. Euskera 18:01, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

The references do not match the content of the article. Only Russia is disputing this visa refusal [2], [3]

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)

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)

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)

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)

POV Statements which do not match references in Washington Post

The incident caused an international dispute.

Only Russia disputed it. See article. [4][5]

obstruction.

Nowhere was it mentioned in any reference or source that US commited

obstruction.

The situation has been criticised as dual standards

Not even Russia has stated that. No other UN member country has objected to that decition.

The USA stated that such airport to UNHQ visa access was not guaranteed to countries seeking international recognition, except ones that it itself recognised such as Kosovo

This statement does not make any sence and can not be found anywhere on Washington Post or Ria. Euskera 18:45, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

This NPOV version was removed:

In April 2007 the US government refused an entry visa to the Foreign Minister of the unrecognised de-facto separatist republic of Abkhazia (de jure part of Georgia). The de facto Foreign Minister Shamba was due to speak at the United Nations headquaters in New York due to upcomming UN resolution on conflict in Abkhazia. The incident was disputed by the Russian ambassedor Vitaly Churkin (Russia allegedly supports the separatist regime in Abkhazia) blaiming US of obstruction by the host country, and entitled access to the UN by the host country. The USA stated that such airport to UNHQ visa access was not guaranteed to countries seeking international recognition, except ones that it itself recognised such as Kosovo.‹The template Talkfact is being considered for merging.›  The situation has been criticised by the Russian side as dual standards. None of the Security Counsel members have objected to the decision made by US government.Georgian Separatist Spurned by U.S By ALEXANDRA OLSON

The implementation of this section is yet another attempt by certain users to push their habitual propaganda on the Abkhazia/Georgia issue. The claim that the dispute led to an international scandal is simply ridiculous and a blatant original research. Abkhaz separatist politicians have been refused the US entry visa several times before, and the fact has never led to any consequences. Either way, such a minor event doesn’t deserve to have a section in the article on such a broad subject. The entire section gives an undue weight to the issue, artificially inflating its significance in order to win a place in the article. Guys, Wikipedia is supposed to be an encyclopedia, not a daily news website.--Kober^Talk 20:49, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

Don't these statements of Russian and US UN ambassadors constitute an international scandal? Imho, yes. Alaexis 20:54, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

Such wars of words occur almost daily. Are we going to report each of them in a special section in the articles like United Nations? --Kober^Talk 21:12, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

Sure, there is always some scandal in UN. The Basque case is very famous but not available here on article while Abkhazia case which UN didn’t even announced in its news page is described as controversy. I think its suitable for some people with some political motivations, after looking at Transmistia page nobody can doubt that. Euskera 21:19, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

Euskera, feel free to add the info about the Basque case you mentioned. I'll support you if it's notable enough. Alaexis 05:09, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

Please let me deal with these new objections. You state that only Russia is in dispute. This is NOT the case, the British also are backing the Russia position (http://www.playfuls.com/news_10_23684-ROUNDUP-US-Russia-Clash-Over-Georgias-Abkhazia-Separatist-Demand.html ]]. There are many articles using the dual standards term so I'll source them for you too. No Problem I have the time, it is just I feel you are not familar with the issue and keep changing your line of arguement dramatically every time we solve something here Buffadren 08:03, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

I'm coming in as an outsider on this issue, and have two queries about the material: (1) The issue doesn't appear to be all that prominent. Yes, it's been reported in the media, but hardly a week goes by without some sort of UN controversy being reported. We can't include all of them. (2) The material appears unbalanced and without context. For example, I have read (in major media outlets, not special-interest sites) that Russia may want to annex the region in question. Such context is missing from the article. I have no stake in the issue one way or the other but hope that an outside perspective will be helpful. Raymond Arritt 12:37, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

(1) The unwillingness to listen to one side of the conflict and possible use of double standards to Kosovo and Abkhazia deserve to be put in the article imo. There is nothing near to the consensus on removing it currently so I think it should stay taking into account that it's well referenced.

(2) In my opinion it's quite clear from the text of the section that Russia supports Abkhazia. If you think something is missing add it yourself or post the specific issue on the talkpage. Stating that Russia wants to annex Abkhazia is POV.

Thanks for an outsider opinion. If you're interested in this issue check the article about Abkhazia. Alaexis 14:28, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

Dear Raymon, i completely agree with your perspective and this is what i have been trying to say. I too have no stake in this (if it was a Basque question, then its another thing) but this section and so called controversy has no place on the general article of the United nations. And if you visit UN News on their web site, there is no single mention of this so called controversy. Yes, Russia is trying to annex this territory and it ha snot be mentioned anywhere. Well, in the end, this whole section should be removed as it is completely irrelevant to the UN article on Wikipedia. Euskera 14:20, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

Thank you both for your contributions. Let me answer Raymond's questions. 1- The issue is big enough for just about every news carrier in the world to give it major space which is more than enough reason. 2-as for balance it was written by three editors , one openly in favour of Anhazia independence, one openly opposed to it, and one Euskera who claims to be completely independent and more interested in Basque issues. The last editor may be in question because most of their edits are about Georgia issues and despite claiming to have 'no stake in this' they clearly have. However, Euskera has edited the section and added plenty of additions to balance this. The second editor Alaexis and I often do battle on other pages and often disagree but on this issue on which we both have a vast knowledge we both agree thats it's a major international issue for the UN a view supported by practically every news organisation in the world. In Switzerland UNHQ the Abkhazia Government is allowed to speak but in the US they are not. The inference is the host country is abusing its position of hosting the HQ on its land. That why we agree on insert this important issue here. Buffadren 14:48, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

Judging from your comments here, you and Alaexis seem to have decided to protest against what you deem to be the US injustice and double standards by creating this section, but please note that such an approach is exactly what POV and tendentious editing is called on Wikipedia. It is obvious that the issue is given an undue weight. It might be of some relevance to the Georgian-Abkhaz conflict article, but definitely does not deserve to have a special section in this particular article.--Kober^Talk 15:57, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

Well no more US, whole Security Council adopted a resolution which is a great victory for peace in that region and condemnation of ethnic-cleansing.[6] This is pointless discussion and anti-UN propaganda which is unacceptable for any serious publication. Regards. Ldingley 17:34, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

If you look at what other topics are listed under the "Criticism and controversies" heading, it's obvious in comparison that this small issue has been totally blown out of proportion. It has no place in the United Nations article which should concentrate on issues with broad relevance and significant impact on the work of the UN. This is still Wikipedia, a project trying to create an encyclopedia with articles containing general and relevant knowledge, not a day-to-day News service like Wikinews. --Uwe 22:39, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

Not quite, this issue goes to the very heart of what the UN is meant to represent. Ir is more important than all the other sections put together. It's not about Abkhazia per-se it's about the UN and the right of having the Freedom to Speak at the UN and equality of peoples. Buffadren 08:27, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

No. That is what was made out of the topic by those who are involved. For anybody outside of this so-called "controversy", it's a non-issue and hardly relevant. As said before, totally blown out of proportion. --Uwe 11:27, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

The right to speak is at the very foundation of the UN. The Abhazian Foreign Minister was scheduled to speak to the Aseembly. The only reason he did not get to speak was because the host nation USA abused its position and thereby humiliated the other members of the UN that were waiting. The fallout from this may change the map of the world and that is no non-issue Buffadren 17:25, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

So what exactly is the basis for your statement that "The right to speak is at the very foundation of the UN"? And how exactly is this going to change the map of the world? --Uwe 18:05, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

The most important thing (imho) in this issue is the example of double standards when one representative of an unrecognised state is allowed to speak while another one isn't. Alaexis 18:31, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

The most important thing here is that the statements like "double standards", "abuse of position", "humiliation of the other UN members", etc. are obvious manifestations of POV of a couple of users. Please note that neutral Wikipedians also find this section out of place here. I wonder why you have not started something similar in the Foreign policy of the George W. Bush administration article as an example of double standards in the US foreign politics? Again, if you find this incident important, you can move the section into the Politics of Abkhazia article. I'm afraid, however, that it is hardly survivable in this article. --Kober^Talk 19:10, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

I'm not the only one who considers this an example of double standards [7] Alaexis 19:18, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

Ah, sorry. How could I forget about Mr. Vitaly Churkin? :) I'm sorry but this is not very convincing. Both of you represent a Russian position, the difference being in that he is not a Wikipedian, and you're the one who insists on keeping this dubious section in the article. I would again ask you to adopt more cooperative stance. This incident DOES NOT deserve to have a special section in the article on such a broad subject as the United Nations. --Kober^Talk 19:35, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

I don't see why Russian position is any worse than the American (ergo, Georgian) one. Let's wait and see whether there is clear consensus on removing this. So far there has been only one neutral editor who supported your position. Alaexis 20:16, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

Not only one. Remember, UN does not recognize any similarities between Kosovo and Abkhazia, only the Russian side does (which is actually more dangerous for Russia). Therefore, there can be no talk of double standards. Russia should not be one talking about double standards in terms of rigid separatist support (Abkhazia) and anti-separatist sentiments (Kosovo). Anyway, this section has no place here and only serves the purpose of provocative manner. Ldingley 20:22, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

Even if UN does not recognise similarities between Abkhazia and Kosovo (which are strikingly similar in my opinion) there certainly could be talk of double standards. You are not quite right when you accuse Russia of applying double standards as well. Russia currently recognises territorial integrity of Georgia, ergo, Kosovo cannot be given independence without Serbia's consent. If somehow Kosovo is recognised by any other country then there are no obstacles to recognising Abkhazia, Karabakh etc. I find it quite logical.

That's probably offtopic... Alaexis 20:41, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

Alaexis, I think you are distracting the discussion. Did I ever say that the US' or Georgia’s position is better than that of Russia? Consensus is not likely to be achieved until you are not ready to compromise. Note that the defenders of this section have already been outnumbered, but you still insist on keeping it in the article.

there was one neutral editor who supported your position. Not enough to be outnumbered imho:) Alaexis 20:54, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

Not one, but two "neutrals" + three "non-neutrals" vs. two "non-neutrals". Nice definitions, indeed! --Kober^Talk 20:57, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

I guess you've counted Raymond Arritt on "your side". Maybe you're right (and maybe you aren't)... Alaexis 21:08, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

Also, you have not answered my compromise proposal on moving the disputed section into the Politics of Abkhazia article under the section “Relations with the UN” or something like that.--Kober^Talk 20:44, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

No, the issue is about the right of unobstructed diplomatic access to the UNHQ in New York, not Abkhazian politics.Buffadren 08:49, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

I've answered you. Let's wait and see whether there is clear consensus on removing this. It wasn't me who posted this in the first place, after all. Alaexis 20:54, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

No, you actually have not. There is no clear consenus on keeping this either. --Kober^Talk 20:57, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

It's important to keep, it is well referenced and sourced. The question is, is it fair and balanced. Buffadren 08:45, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

It could be added when it has changed the map of the world, as you predicted above. But as of now, there is absolutely no indication that this might happen any time soon (or any time later, for that matter). So this section should be removed until the relevance of this so-called "controversy" for the history and development of the UN has been clearly established beyond "It's important because I say so" claims. And the burden of proof regarding the relevance is up to those who want to keep it. --Uwe 10:38, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

The issue of a host country using or abusing its noble postion to block a diplomat's entry to UNHQ is unprecedented. This does not happen at the UN. It is completely taboo. In normal cicumstances a 'black sheep' diplomat is collected at the airport and driven (non stop) to headquaters. The car won't even stop for a toilet, its door to door, period. BUT, it is a massive affair to block a diplomat speaking, for the political gain and games of the host country. This incident really annoyed everyone that believes in and has worked for the UN. The right to speak and the right to seek to be understood at the UN is paramount to all at the UN. To silence this man was wrong and your efforts to silence the issue here are equally wrong. Buffadren 14:20, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

I'm not trying to silence anything or anybody here. I just fail to see enough relevance to mention this incident in an general encyclopedia article about the United Nations. Until now, you haven't brought any convincing argument to change my opinion. You continue to make unsubstantiated claims like "The right to speak is at the very foundation of the UN" or "The fallout from this may change the map of the world" or "This incident really annoyed everyone that believes in and has worked for the UN." which might sound impressive to you. But without any facts to back them up they are simply without any merits. You might have had a point if Abkhazia would be an independent and recognized state. But as it is not, while it might have been an option for the US to follow established customs of diplomacy, but there was absolutely no need whatever to do so. --Uwe 15:30, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

The relevance is that the host country abused its position to obstruct the workings of the UN. This was a major United Nations incident reported worldwide which is more than can be said about the other criticisms listed in that section. It has more right to be there on that basis alone. The real significance is that if the USA were to continue the practice of barring diplomats it could eventually result in a lobby to remove the UNHQ from its USA base and site in elsewhere where there would be freedom of speech and opinion. That's significant. Also as for world mapping the OSCE General Secretary issued a statement declaring Russia's right to recognise Abkhazia if Kosovo 'onesideily' declares its independence first. This came in the week after the USA acted in such an ill-considered way. Connected ? Of course!. This is all of major consequence for International law as we currently know it. One does not have to be a recognised country. Oliver Tambo addressed the UN when the ANC was deemed a terrorist organisation by some countries, but the UN still provided the ANC a platform to present their position so everyone could hear both sides. This goes to the core of what the UN stands for. I understand you fail to understand or appreciate the importance of all this but it is a very serious matter that ultimately concerns every one of us, Its not an Abkhazia issue it's a UN issue and one I hope I have convinced you on. Buffadren 15:55, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

No, you still haven't. But that's the end of discussion for me. You fail to see that only diplomats from recognized countries are ENTITLED to receive a certain treatment to which the US is obliged in its role as UN host country. As an example, even the arch-enemy of the US, Iran's president Mahmud Ahmadinedschad, was granted entry earlier this year to speak at the UN although the US and the Iran don't have any official diplomatic contacts. But representatives of unrecognized territories, liberation movements or similar groups or organizations are simply not entitled to the same treatment. If they receive such treatment, it's merely a privilege granted to them from the US. If not, it's bad luck but in no way the international diplomatic affair which you try to present. There is not a single country or international organization in the world which grants diplomatic recognition to Abkhazia. In other words, the US did not refuse entry to a diplomat but to a representative of Abkhazia. But as said, EOD from me. --Uwe 16:22, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

U.N. vs. UN

I noticed that this article uses both. The United Nations uses UN[8][9]. I think that we should also use UN instead of U.N. Any thoughts? Yaanch^Speak! 01:06, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

UN is the norm. U.N. is seldom used. Buffadren 17:31, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

This whole discussion

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)

Not quite. The question is whether this matter as a whole is worthy to be included here. Alaexis 18:46, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

Is there any other article that could contain the info? --PaxEquilibrium 21:28, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

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)

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)

Reorganized pics

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)

Gold for Guns

I came across this article on BBC regarding corruption in the organization. [10] Significant enough, or wait for the dust to settle? Jumping cheese ^Cont@ct 07:51, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

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)

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)

Update. [11] Jumping cheese ^Cont@ct 22:48, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

Veto power on any UN resolution?

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? Yaanch^Speak! 02:43, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

Failures

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)

I think this too would be appropriate, why doesn't anyone put something in? I propose we get another article or somebody could create one entitled "Failures of the UN" as many times the UN has failed to counter-react to something - it is a part of this article and part of this organisation so the information is valid! You have to put this in! SOMEBODY PLEASE CREATE AN ARTICLE ABOUT THE FAILURES OF THE UN! LOTRrules 13:49, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

West Sahara

the grey chunk in the NW of africa i explained in the membership area, as it is a claimed area of morocco but was reconised in the International Court of Justice (ICJ), which declared that the Western Sahara possessed the right of self-determination in 1975.

The membership in the UN only concerns independent sovereign states. As long as an entity is not, it can't be qualified as a notable absent, especially in the case of Western Sahara, where there the political settlement will most brobably not be independence.--A Jalil 20:41, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

ROC The ROC is not recognized as a state by the UN, but you didn't omit that. It's notable that the ROC, State of Palestine, and Sahrawi Arab Democratic Republic - states that are recognized by several governments - are not members. If nothing else, just look at the gray blobs on the map; that's notable (barring Antarctica, of course.) -Justin (koavf)·T·C·M 15:22, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

Technically the whole list of non self governing states could be on but those are the three countrys activly seeking independance and in turn membership--Casenj 16:51, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

The ROC is already independent and has been actually a UN member. Palestine is already inside the UN as an observer member. Western Sahara is a disputed territory mostly under Moroccan administration. If we insert WS, why not Kosovo, the Republic of Northern Cyprus, Chechnya, Abkhazia, Kurdistan, and all the unrecognized states and entities and governments-in-exile that long for independence and thus membership in the UN?--A Jalil 20:33, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

UN POV The UN doesn't recognize the ROC as a state, that makes it noteworthy. Palestine is not mentioned in this entire article, but that having been said, it is still notable that it is is not a member. You answered your own question about those other territories: they are unrecognized, which is not the case with the ROC, SADR, and State of Palestine. The UN recognizes the administration of every territory in the world except Antarctica (which is administered by international law), the Palestinian territories, and Western Sahara; that is notable. -Justin (koavf)·T·C·M 14:36, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

The Republic of China (Taiwan) clearly exists as a sovereign state, even if recognized by hardly any other state.

The case can be made that since the UN comprises 99.99% of all nations, any non-membership is notable. Str1977 ^{(smile back)} 13:41, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

I agree with Str1977. An absent is that which is not present, and if we want to have a section for the "notable absences", this would be a source of tension as every entity, government-in-exile, disputed territory, state recognized by one country, or by 10, or ... and generally every "thing" aspiring for independence can argue to be a notable absence because it is not present actually in the UN. Moreover, Palestine and the Holy See are in the UN as observer members. So, all the section about absences is unnecessary.--A Jalil 08:10, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

Introduction Error

The second half of the introduction currently states: "The organization's structure still reflects in some ways the circumstances of its founding. The five permanent members of the UN Security Council, each of which has veto power on any UN resolution, are the main victors of World War II..."

This is misleading as the five permanent members of the UN Security Council can only veto UN Security Council resolutions, but not General Assembly resolutions which require a simple majority (otherwise the US would have vetoed each of the general assembly resolutions on Israel).

For simplicity's sake, I recommend changing "each of which has veto power on any UN resolution" to "each of which has veto power on any Security Council resolution".

Korea

I added this section because it was on the to do list. Not perfect but i think it is important because it demonstrates the first and most major conflicts the UN has been involved with--Casenj 16:38, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

Both the Korea section here, as well as the article about the Korean War mention a debate about the legitimacy or the legality respectively of the resolution because of the Soviet boycott. However, there is no attribution as to who disputes the resolution or a reference about such a debate at all. Quite apart from the faulty reasoning employed in it. Str1977 ^{(smile back)} 07:08, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

Actually, I don' think this should be covered to this extent, at least not in the current place. It would be more suitable in something about the History of the UN - currently it is locked between the founding and the Membership - or as an example of "peace enforcement.

Issues remaining from the section that cannot be included there would be

• The involvement of the UN in the developments leading up to the war, viting supvervision etc.
• The issue over the powers of a permanent member - the Korean War resolution set the precedent that a mere boycott was not enough to prevent a resolution.

The war itself has its own article and should be covered there. Str1977 ^{(smile back)} 13:36, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

Smokers

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)

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)

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)

Criticism

Why it there no section that deals with alleged claims against the UN , And we all know there are many ,

anti israel bias (just look at thier resolution statistics) not dealing with many different situations in africa supporting many authoritarian regimes etc etc