Talk:United Nations

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

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.

Skip to Table of Contents

United Nations is currently a good article nominee. However, an editor has placed this article on hold and is awaiting minor changes to be made as outlined in his/her notes below. This will influence his/her decision in passing or failing the article as a good article. This tag will stay in place for a minimum of 2 days and a maximum of 7. Placement date: 11 December 2006

This article is a former featured article candidate. Please view its sub-page to see why the nomination failed. For older candidates, please check the archive.

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the United Nations article.
Please sign and date your posts using four tildes (~~~~). New discussion topics go at the bottom of the page; click here to start a new topic. New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Frequently asked questions. This is not a forum for general discussion about the article's subject.	Talk page guidelines Be polite Assume good faith No personal attacks Don't bite the newcomers!

This article is part of WikiProject United Nations, an attempt to provide information in a consistent format for articles about the United Nations, its various comittees and the resolutions it passes. If you would like to participate, you can choose to edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks.

United Nations is either included in the 2006 Wikipedia CD Selection or is a candidate for inclusion in the next version (the project page is at WPCD Selection). Please maintain high quality standards, and if possible stick to GFDL and GFDL-compatible images.

This article has been selected for Version 0.5 and the next release version of Wikipedia. This Socsci article has been rated B-Class on the assessment scale.

United Nations was the Article Creation and Improvement Drive for the week starting on Sunday, 10 September 2006. For more details, see the Article Creation and Improvement Drive history.

	To-do list for United Nations:	edit - history - watch - refresh
	(Sorted in increasing order of difficulty) Resolve conflicts with United Nations headquarters about whether or not the NYC campus is international territory, and whether or not the organization was ever headquartered in San Francisco. Add referenced information on Canadian involvement (see talk page). Expand the United Nation System section with a summary of the subarticle Globalize the viewpoint. Much of the text presently gives examples about US-UN relations without giving examples of other countries. Russia, and the UK/France/EU deserve special attention as permanent Security Council members. India, the Middle East, South America, and Africa also need some attention. The existing section on Peace-keeping should be integrated with Finance, and a section on the mechanics, policies, and history of peacekeeping written. (Comment: better to keep Peacekeeping and Finance separate, I think, as UN Finances have been a major issue in their own right Ian 12:06, 27 Jan 2005 (UTC)) Under Finance, list non-US countries that have withheld, threatened to withhold, or otherwise failed to make payments. Update the text about the United States situation; the debt of the US to the UN has been purchased by a wealthy individual. Write at least a stub articles about the various items under International conferences that point to empty articles. Answer the question: What is the relationship between the UN and other world bodies like the World Bank and IMF? Answer the question: What do the people of the world (obviously including but not limited to, the United States) think of the United Nations? Cleanup the article in order for it to be easier to read (i.e. flow), not have repeated wikilinks or other context, having good referencing, and make sense. Write companion article on history of the United Nations, and summarize that here. A number of topics either need to be covered in the history article or more likely referenced in other articles, which need to have a significant amount of information on UN involvement. History might be arranged thematically to align with sections of the main article. Topics include (add more as needed): Secretaries-General of the UN, de-colonization program, WWII reconstruction, Korean War, apartheid, the entire series of Israel-Arab conflicts, major and minor peacekeeping operations (Yugoslavia, Sri Lanka, Rwanda, Somalia, Liberia, Congo), Haiti, India-Pakistan conflict, Persian Gulf wars, East Timor, breakup of the USSR, disposition of Antarctica, disposition of outer space, monitoring of elections worldwide, relations with NGOs, terrorism, the new International Criminal Court, landmines.

An event mentioned in this article is an October 24 selected anniversary.

Contents 1 Current measures on North Korea 2 Attempted resolutions on homosexuality 3 Statistics poll 4 Archives 5 Cleanup 6 Oil for food 7 Criticism of UN sex ethos 8 Katanga 9 Six official languages 10 Six official languages 11 Статус языков 12 Personnel policies 13 original headquarters? 14 The UN Works for Small Island Nations 15 Churchill or Roosevelt? 16 'Successes and failures in security issues' bias. 17 Headquarters 18 General Assembly vs Security Council 19 UNIFEM 20 Western countries 21 Reform 22 Opening paragraphs 23 Which spelling? 24 Lacking Criticisms 25 map doesn't show up. 26 Quote Source 27 Bricker Amendment 28 Sections dealing with reform seem biased. 29 There's a map in hidden in the infobox. 30 Rwandan Genocide 31 Clean up done then? 32 Russia and soviet Union 33 Sovereignty in the UN building? 34 Contradictions 35 Dead link 36 Adulterating text 37 more power? 38 USSR Delegation 39 Vandalism 40 Formation 41 Agenda 21 42 Charter on Human Rights 43 People's Republic of China replaced the Republic of China? 44 Header 45 GA Status is on hold 46 New secretary-general

[edit] Current measures on North Korea

I think it would be important to also mention the current measures against North Korea and to maybe compare it to similar cases, when the UN either acted or did not for various reasons.

[edit] 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)

[edit] Statistics poll

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)

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)

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)

[edit] Archives

United Nations has had a peer review by Wikipedia editors which is now archived. It may contain ideas you can use to improve this article.

• Talk:United Nations/opinions - Political discussion which is not appropriate for this talk page

[edit] Cleanup

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

[edit] Oil for food

I thought the situation with the son of Annan was now settled?

You guys really need to expand on this topic. I find it appalling that you guys did not mention that Saddam Hussein bribed many countries and even some United Nations officials. Some of the major countries bribed are France, Russia, and China. Again, you editors need to provide the whole picture, not just tidbits. 07:35 January 30 (UTC)

Here is a link for you guys to digest. [1] [2] 07:39 January 30 2006 (UTC)

This link is to a very biased blog. -Pgan002 04:37, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

It isn't biased, they are only willing to tell the truth for what it is, not what they choose to omit out, unlike the liberal media CNN and ABC do. The only unbiased News that I have seen is Fox News. I hate the strangle hold the liberals have on Europe and how they are seeping into the United States. Remember this, a democracy is based on the majority vote, and the loudest voice is usually the minority , and the loudest voice within our society today are the liberals. 05:00 Febuary 2 2006

"The only unbiased News that I have seen is Fox News". you clearly don't understand the definition of unbiased, and that claptrap about loudest voices is spurious.Tschroeder 00:06, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

"HAHA, FOX News being the ONLY unbiased news? Boy you made me laugh. CNN being liberal? Unbiased is meant to be objective, sticking to the facts, presenting both sides of the story...Fox news, im sorry to say, does not endeavour to that description Jcdams 21:47, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

Kofi Annan and his staff have been cleared, except for the investigation they began: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/4391031.stm -Pgan002 04:41, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

Annan and his staff also are currently blocking a US Senatorial Investigation from recieveing documents and keeping the Subcommittee from interviewing UN officials. Plus, Annan is only accontable to himself, he answers to no nation and he has the power to completely cover this up, and he already has covered this up. The UN "investigation" will uncover nothing because they serve Annan and they would make sure that none of this will appear. LordRevan 04:10 Febuary 2 2006 (UTC)

There is already too much on the oil for food scandal as it is, just another mindless attempt to smear the U.N by American Conservatives.

The Prime Minister (John Howard), Deputy Prime Minister (Mark Vaile), and Foreign Minister of Australia (Alexander Downer) have denied knowing about such bribes as they were called to the inquiry to give an account under oath about what they knew of AWB. However, a recent poll shows that a majority of the Australian public believe that they knew exactly what was taking place. A) What poll? B) How big a majority? C) How is the poll relevant to this wikipedia article? AH 202.7.166.163 12:15, 20 August 2006 (UTC) Can someone make a reason why the last sentance However...taking place should stay in? It seems very unfitting for an encyclopedia article. I will give it a week and then check back (AH) 202.7.166.166 I have now removed the sentance (AH) 202.7.166.166 04:32, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Criticism of UN sex ethos

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 [3] 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)

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)

[edit] Katanga

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)

Definitely an interesting part of UN history that should be expanded upon. Codyau 04:18, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Six official languages

All six official languages used by the United Nations (with the possible exception of the Russian language) have significant dialects with more or less official status. I know that the UN uses a version of International English based on the Oxford English Dictionary (with slight variations from both Commonwealth English and American English), but what about the other 5 languages?

Which dialect of Spanish is used -- continental Castilian, or the more populous Latin American varieties?

Is the French they use the same as is dictated by the Académie française, or is it an international amalgamation?

I know that written Chinese is very similar across dialects, but that pronunciation can vary widely. Do they use Mandarin Chinese, or another version?

What about Arabic? It also has a number of dialects.

Any ideas on this? --ESP 18:50, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

Chinese is the same when written across dialects. This is due to Imperial standardization many thousands of years back. However, since then there are two versions of written Chinese, an older (繁體字) and a newer (简体字) version. The newer version was developed from the older version and is now in mainstream use for all roles, although the older version is still sometimes used for poetry or calligraphy. Mandarin is the standard in the world now, and other dialects are usually simply a result of millenia of rival factions within ancient China.

The UN website uses simplified Chinese, but General Assembly Resolutions until 1971 and Security Council Resolutions until 1970 use traditional Chinese in PDFs. Chinese UN name would also be traditional in earlier UN postage stamps. Newer UN stamps use simplified Chinese. For those who do not understand English well, they may buy tour tickets to go with uniformed tour guides speaking other languages, including Mandarin and Cantonese but not Taiwanese based on Southern Min.

In early 1970s, more than 50 countries once wished to have both Chinas, i.e., the Republic of China and the People's Republic of China, co-exist in the UN, but once the best chance has been gone, it is gone indefinitely. I am unsure which version of Chinese would be used if both Chinas were to co-exist in the UN.--Jusjih 00:28, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

The Arabic used at the UN is the Classical Arabic, which is common to all arabic-speaking countries, and is usually the official language. Dialects are never used at the UN, in official documents, governments' documents or the news, it's more for daily life or any other TV, Radios' programmes (other than the news) in one given country.--Angelikmeg 03:27, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

Is Chinese actually a language: Mandarin, Cantonese, and hundreds of thousands of dialects. Has the word evolved to become a generic term for all of those languages spoken in China? Mkdw 03:06, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

Chinese usually refers specifically to Mandarin which is the official language of mainland China and the Republic of China. Standardized Mandarin is what the zh Wikipedia is written in. Gdo01 03:12, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Six official languages

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)

[edit] Статус языков

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

This is an english language site, please speak english. Pure inuyasha 01:08, 30 June 2006 (UTC) _____________________________________________________________ Rough translation of what was posted above:

Status of the languages

SEVERAL LANGUAGES are used besides these languages ______________________________________________________________ Pure inuyasha 01:11, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Personnel policies

Source for these?

Also, the "abortion on demand," should be changed to more nuetral language. Not a pro-life talking point. Jlee562 23:17, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

The section itself is bizarre. Although the issues of same sex marriages and abortion have peculiar prominence in the United States they are not relevant issues to the majority of international readers, certainly not relevant to a general summary of the United Nations. Hence their prominence gives the article a parochial bias and reads poorly. The abortion line is particularly meaningless, carrying no justification for it's inclusion. How does the UN "support abortion"? In what capacity? And why?

A solution would be to remove the individual categories and have a general paragraph discussing how UN personnel adhere to regional law. Beyond that I see no reason for discussing parochial concerns in this general piece. Zleitzen 9 March 2006

On further inspection have removed the line on abortion from the piece entirely. It was inappropriate to the Personnel Policies section. If an editor wants to open a new stub concerning the UN's overall responses to abortion then they should feel free, but it has no place within this section. Zleitzen 9 March 2006

[edit] original headquarters?

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

The United Nations met in The Bronx, at what's now Lehman College of the City University of New York. Then they moved to Long Island, before moving back to New York City to the current headquarters building on 42nd Street and First Avenue. User:Ireyes 5 June 2006

[edit] The UN Works for Small Island Nations

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

Canada has been in the UN since the beginning, and if I'm not mistaken sorta liberated Holland in WWII...why isn't it even MENTIONED here?

-Agent Tachyon

Nobody liberate Holland. They had to wait until The third Reich capitulated, and once they had done they whatever Nazi troops were left in Holland were simply disbanded. So saying that Canada, which was pretty much a minority in a much larger force, liberated holland is quite erroneous. Secondly there are a lot of countries that contribute massively, for example the Nordic countries. But this article has to be kept short, not all small countries can be mentioned... Create an article called Canada and the UN if you think theres some valid pointsJcdams 10:59, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Churchill or Roosevelt?

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)

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)

[edit] 'Successes and failures in security issues' bias.

'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.

[edit] Headquarters

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 [4], and are often called such in official UN press releases [5] [6] [7] [8] [9] [10] . 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)

I changed the phrase "JDR Jr. then donated the land to the UN, claiming a charitable deduction on his income tax." I removed the part about income tax because it lacks the relevence to the rest of the article. Than_02

[edit] General Assembly vs Security Council

Hello? There is nothing in the article describing the basic organizational structure and voting methods. Hello? SchmuckyTheCat 01:00, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] UNIFEM

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)

[edit] Western countries

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)

[edit] Reform

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)

[edit] Opening paragraphs

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)

[edit] Which spelling?

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)

Probably Oxford spelling because that's what the UN uses.Cameron Nedland 04:05, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Lacking Criticisms

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)

[edit] map doesn't show up.

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)

[edit] Quote Source

In the article, it uses the quote "global association of governments facilitating co-operation in international law, international security, economic development and social equity." What or who exactly is the source of this quotation?

[edit] Bricker Amendment

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. 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)

[edit] Sections dealing with reform seem biased.

The section on Reform states that the US House of Representatives passed a bill that would cut funding to the UN if the UN does not meet certain criteria. Since I see no link to H.R. 2745 or 4818 in this section, I think it would be helpful to state exactly what these bills are asking the UN to change. I read a good portion of H.R. 2745 and I believe there is at least one controversial point within it that should be stated when someone is looking at the call for "U.N. reform". Particularly:

“It shall be the policy of the United States to actively pursue weighted voting with respect to all budgetary and financial matters in the Administrative and Budgetary Committee and in the General Assembly in accordance with the level of the financial contribution of a Member State to the regular assessed budget of the United Nations.”

Oil-For-Food "Scandal"

Also, and I will note the same on the Oil-For-Food Programme page, but you do not emphasize the way the UN works with the Security Council having veto power. You use the phrasing of "UN auspices" which does not make clear that nearly all the deals in the Oil-for-Food program were done with the knowledge of the Security Council who decided not to place holds on those exchanges. In general, for the power the Security Council holds, it would seem to me that the United Nations is the Security Council (which could be listed as one of its criticisms in another section).

A reliable source would be Fair and Accuracy In Reporting (FAIR.org) and provides citations as well (http://www.fair.org/index.php?page=1186). Without this context, the sections seems to accuse the figurehead, Kofi Annon, implicitly due to the lack of background and inner-workings of the organization, as being the culprit of the oil-for-food program.

[edit] There's a map in hidden in the infobox.

Why can't anyone see the map? it's clearly there if you look.

[edit] Rwandan Genocide

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)

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)

[edit] Clean up done then?

Any plans? Greroja 18:57, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Russia and soviet Union

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)

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)

What happened before 1948 is irrelevant with regards to the UN, and in the current text it is clearly stated, that current member Russia replaced the former member USSR, so I don't see JBOBs error. --Lokimaros 14:50, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Sovereignty in the UN building?

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)

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)

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)

[edit] Contradictions

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)

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)

[edit] Dead link

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)

[edit] Adulterating text

Can someone adjust the first part of the entry which has been changed by a wit of some description and now has the following text:

It was founded in 1945 at the signing of the United Nations Charter by 51 countries, replacing the League of Nations founded in 1919. Instead, the UN discuss how horrible the United States is. It is an organization that glorifies and welcomes terrorists.

[edit] more power?

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)

[edit] USSR Delegation

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)

[edit] Vandalism

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)

[edit] Formation

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)

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)

[edit] Agenda 21

What binds UN countries to implement Agenda 21? is it because UN countries ratified it? Kane 1 NI 15:03, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

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)

[edit] Charter on Human Rights

I cannot find any mention on the Charter on Human Rights, which is the basis for all Human Rights oversight in the United Nations, something definitely should be added about it.

[edit] People's Republic of China replaced the Republic of China?

Can someone verify this? It says in the very first paragraph, "The five permanent members of the UN Security Council... are the main victors of World War II or their successor states: People's Republic of China (which replaced the Republic of China)..."

Republic of China is basically Taiwan. Since when was Taiwan ever in the United Nations? Neil the Cellist 05:36, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

The statement is correct, as is easily verifiable. You can look it up. Raymond Arritt 13:47, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

But... Ok, maybe I just don't find it feasible that a potentially powerful nation of Asian originality would cede so much power for the sake of a communist nation following the end of World War II. Neil the Cellist 23:07, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

When the UN was established in 1945, Republic of China was not Taiwan but the chinese mainland. - Unsigned user

I beg to differ. "By Resolution 2758 (XXVI) of 25 October 1971, the General Assembly decided 'to restore all its rights to the People's Republic of China and to recognize the representatives of its Government as the only legitimate representatives of China to the United Nations and to expel forthwith the representatives of Chiang Kai-shek from the place which they unlawfully occupy at the United Nations and in all the organizations related to it." cited from Everyone's United Nations, 10th edition

Yes, I know the year reads 1971, but nevertheless, China wasn't called the Republic of China then. It was called the People's Republic of China, as it still is, unless someone can anti-verify this... Anyone here in an MUN program? Neil the Cellist 18:02, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Header

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)

[edit] GA Status is on hold

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)

I polished up the intro a bit. Raymond Arritt 05:35, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] New secretary-general

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)