This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
The Demoocratic Republic of the Congo joined in 1960. President Mobuto changed the name of the country to Zaire in the 1970's. The country reverted to the previous name after the overthrow of Mobuto.
"Republic of Macedonia" is not in the UN, if you go to www.un.org you will see the country listed under "t" as "The Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia." -Kosta
At the main page was written:
Answer: The problem is that the same country sometimes goes by different names. In particular (not counting obvious cases):
on the mentioned list on our list
Burma Myanmar Korea, North Democratic People's Republic of Korea Korea, South Republic of Korea Moldova Republic of Moldova
The only one we really missed was the Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia.
Quite right. I had been counting the two Congos as well, but on looking again I see that they are already there; I just missed them. Thanks. --KQ
Sure that 'Serbia and Montenegro' is one member of UN? I thought that independent membership in UN is part of their new treaty!
I listed the United States as the United States of America, since that is how the U.N. lists it. Please, no wars over this. If I am violating some Wikipedia policy, just revert. My source: http://www.un.org/Overview/unmember.html
The member states of this list are supposed to transcend regimes. For example, according to the list, Afghanistan joined in 1946. However, the current Transitional Islamic State of Afghanistan was only formed in 2002. The date for "China's" membership is in 1945. Therefore, it would be inappropriate to use the title "People's Republic of China" as done in the last edit. The PRC joined in 1971, not 1945. In the eyes of the UN, the PRC replaced the ROC as the governing authority of China. It was a regime change, not a change of country.
Also, the statement that "all but one (Republic of China) are still members today" is inaccurate. Countries have changed their names. According to the list, the Democratic Republic of the Congo joined in 1960. But wasn't this regime and country established only in 1997? What about Zaire? Yugoslavia? Those countries have disappeared. Jiang 06:50 14 Jun 2003 (UTC)
Concerning the SAR,s I didnt realise it was talking about the period before 1971. Sorry for that. -- Huaiwei 14:29, 12 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Is the section "The Seat of China" on the bottom in fear of accusations of Sinocentrism? It was placed above the "Observers" section because of logical transition. "The Seat of China" is directly related to the topics, namely, Member States. Whereas as the Vatican City city is not a member. It is an observer. It is not even listed on the webpage of the official UN member states list.-- Menchi 06:42 20 Jun 2003 (UTC)
The reason I reverse the edit is that The list is of UN member states and the UN lists :Macedonia as the Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia.
What about a list of NON-members of the UN?
Switzerland for one...
I am going to redirect the China link pointing to China to People's Republic of China since in a UN context this is what it refers to 80.5.115.14 17:34, 9 Jul 2004 (UTC)
I am not sure if the reason China is linked to is because it represents 'the seat of China' but I still believe with the note of explanation at the bottom being sufficient, the link ought to link to People's Republic of China - feel free to change it if you disagree
Since virtually all countries are members of the UN, why not make a map of non-members instead which would easily identify them? The Current map is visually useless except for Antarctica as a non-member being visible at a glance. -- Kvasir 07:07, 9 October 2006 (UTC)
I also agree. If you look closely at the map, you can see that Vatican City, Western Sahara, and Palestine aren't members of the UN, but if you didn't know that beforehand you wouldn't know where to look.
Also, you have Taiwan marked in green as a member state - which is problematic. And it's not clear from the smaller version of the map what's going on with the Philippines - whether they are members or not, or one country or not.
The reason I came here was to find out if Greenland was a member of the UN. You have it in green, but is that because they are a Danish dependency or because they are a member in their own right? You might consider different colors for member states and for their dependent territories.
I removed:
I'm not entirely informed on the situation in Western Sahara (has there been any formal attempts at membership or has Morrocco claimed responsibility?), but the phrase "Taiwanese of the Republic of China" is already by itself silly. Saying that there's "no member state of the United Nations" to represent the Taiwanese is POV. The People's Republic of China claims to represent them, the ROC claims the PRC does not. This paragraph makes two POV contradictory statements (i.e., the Taiwanese are not represented v. the PRC represents them). It further asserts that the ROC is not "free". Western Sahara may need some mention here, but the rest is crap. -- Jia ng 02:55, 6 Oct 2004 (UTC)
While it is necessary to keep former members separate, I think notes pertaining to current members should be placed next to the listing rather than in a separate section-- Ji ang 14:14, 12 Mar 2005 (UTC)
===>Response: I appreciate your input, Jiang. I wondered about whether or not I should have the notes at the bottom or the top. Two things made me go with bottom:
The only way to rectify the first reservation would be to cut out information, but I think said information is valuable (or else I wouldn't have included it in the first place!) If you can think of a reasonable way to circumvent these issues, I'll be on board, but barring that, the list as it's presented seems most readable and best to me. Some users will come here just wanting to have the names of the countries, and that's the first thing they see - explanatory notes will simply bog them down. Do you think we should have separate headings for "Naming Conventions", "Former Members", and "Notes"? Justin (koavf) 20:49, Mar 12, 2005 (UTC)
===>Fixed? I've changed things around a bit. "Former Members" has been consolidated, and is more manageable. I've made anchors for all "Former Members" and "Naming Conventions and Notes" issues in the main list (really the only "notes" are for Cyprus and Indonesia - all others are name changes or obscure naming convetions). Is this better? Justin (koavf) 22:40, Mar 13, 2005 (UTC)
Some honest feedback: It's extremely frustrating for the reader to keep on go between the Notes section and the main body back and forth, back and forth. This separation of information is very annoying when reading. It'd be much better to just stick the relevant notes next to the country names or somewhere very very close (like the next line, using a "sub-bullet"). -- Menchi 01:03, 14 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Hey. I was not sure if yall noticed, but the Holy See was placed in the members category. Can I remove it, since it is a Pernament Observer? Zscout370 (Sound Off) 23:54, 21 May 2005 (UTC)
Why is East Timor alphabetised under Timor? The article specifically says that countries are alphabetised under the English name, and the English name for East Timor is East Timor. Timor (without the East part) is an island, containing both East Timor and a non-sovereign part of Indonesia. — JIP | Talk 11:41, 8 September 2005 (UTC)
The Human Development Index ( HDI) is a standard UN measure/ rank of how developed a country is or is not. It is a composite index based on 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:
YES / NO / UNDECIDED/ABSTAIN - vote here
Thanks!
E Pluribus Anthony 01:52, 20 September 2005 (UTC)
To label Taiwan as a region not represented in the UN is POV. According to the UN, Taiwan is represented through the People's Republic of China since it is part of China and China's sole representative at the UN is the PRC (per resolution 2758). Official UN publications label Taiwan as "Taiwan Province of China" [2] [3] and has gone as far as telling NGOs to do the same [4]. During the SARS epidemic, WHA officials were only allowed to set foot in Taiwan after gaining the permission of the PRC, and the ROC govt was effectively denied access to the WHA. While Resolution 2758 made no statement regarding the status of the Republic of China, the actions of the UN, such as denying the ROC membership or observership, are in effect treating it as illegitimate.
It is the map that needs changing. -- Ji ang 06:14, 28 September 2005 (UTC)
===>My apologies Clearly, you are correct. I'll change the map tonight if no one else does. Justin (koavf) 14:34, 28 September 2005 (UTC)
Actually, the UN has not taken a stance regarding whether or not Taiwan is part of China. Saying that it is is POV. In fact, the PRC government has never had jurisdiction over the island of Taiwan. The issue of what to call Taiwan and how international bodies should interact with Taiwan has been severely influenced by the PRC's insistence on the One-China Policy and their clout in world affairs. In effect, however, Taiwan is a fully-functioning autonomous political and economic body separate from the PRC. - August 14, 2007
Russia is listed as having joined the UN in 1991 despite the fact it is more or less considered the sucessor state of the USSR. To the UN's point of view, the USSR died as a state in 1991. Then's there's the inconsistency that some of the former Soviet Republics joined the UN in 1945, but Russia joined in 1991. China is listed as having joined the UN in 1945 and is listed with the PRC flag. Maybe it would be more accurate to say that to the eyes of the UN, the state known as the Republic of China died in 1971 and its sucessor state is the PRC. Then using that logic, the current China as the UN knows it joined the UN in 1971. If you go to the UN plaza in San Francisco's Civic Center and look at its list of countries joining the UN followed by the date, it would seem to support that point of view with regards to China. It lists that the Republic of China joined in 1945 and that the People's Republic of China joined in 1971. Allentchang 15:58, 25 February 2006 (UTC)
===>Makes sense to me Go for it. - Justin (koavf), talk 16:11, 25 February 2006 (UTC)
===>Regime changes vs. successor states The PRC and ROC weren't regime changes, like when the president of Mauritania was overthrown. The PRC and ROC have different constitutions, governmental institutions, and are currently co-existing rival governments of overlapping, non-identical territories. Their situation is more complex and nuanced than merely a regime change, as they are two separate states, rather than a reconstitution of the same state. - Justin (koavf), talk 16:47, 25 February 2006 (UTC)
===>Granted I may not have made myself clear - certainly, we need to follow and describe the understanding of the United Nations when editing this list. All I'm saying is, for instance, when Suharto overthrew Sukarno, it's not like Indonesia left and then re-joined the UN. (Although they voluntarily suspended their membership.) Regime changes are inherently different than the dissolution or reconstitution of states. This is all I'm saying. - Justin (koavf), talk 03:57, 26 February 2006 (UTC)
Ireland does not take its seat under the name "Republic of Ireland," see official UN site. Taking its seat under anything other than Ireland would violate Article 4 Bunreacht na hÉireann (Irish Constitution), which states: "The name of the state is Éire, or in the English language, Ireland." I am thus editing the article accordingly. Iolar Iontach 01:48, 28 February 2006 (UTC)
The introductory paragraph says this in part:
By definition, only sovereign states can be members of the United Nations General Assembly [...]
But is this so? If India was a founder member back in 1945 (presumably being offered a place as it had previously been a member of the League of Nations), then there's clearly an anomaly here, if not an outright contradiction; India did not become a sovereign state until two years later!
Silverhelm 00:23, 27 May 2006 (UTC).
The Ukranian and Byelorussian (now Belarus) SSRs were part of the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics when they became members of the UN; they weren't independent until the 1990s. Rt66lt 13:47, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
[5]: "Membership in the United Nations is open to all peace-loving states which accept the obligations of the Charter and, in the judgement of the Organization, are willing and able to carry out these obligations. The admission of any such State to membership in the United Nations will be effected by a decision of the General Assembly upon the recommendation of the Security Council." Article 4, Chapter 2, United Nations Charter
There seems to be no mention that a state has to be "sovereign", as long as the General Assembly and the Security Council approves (as demonstrated by the examples of British India, Ukranian SSR and Byelorussian SSR). Of course, it is very highly unlikely a non-sovereign state will be able to join the UN in the future. Maybe a better wording would be:
In principle, only sovereign states can be members of the United Nations General Assembly [...]
Chanheigeorge 23:32, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
Today only fully sovereign states are admitted as members of the United Nations. However, three of the founding members (India, Belarus, and the Ukraine) were not independent at the time of its creation.
Actually, at the time of the UN's formation, there were FOUR non-independent states amongst the founding members. In addition to India, Ukraine, Byelorussia/Belarus, there was also the Philippines, which did not gain its independence from the USA until July 4, 1946, almost a year after the UN's formation. An important correction, methinks. nephos9 04:12, 17 June 2006 (UTC)
Since Montenegro has declared independance, should the article be edited to change the Sebrbia and Montenegro seat to just the Serbia seat? Ixistant 21:01, 3 June 2006 (UTC)
===>Not yet Montenegro is just free to legally pursue the process of separation now. It's not sovereign yet. Once it is, it will have to apply for its own seat at the UN and other international forums. - Justin (koavf), talk, mail 01:05, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
Not yet Serbia and Montenegro still exists as a country, despite Montenegrin independence, because Serbia hasn't officially declared independence to claim rights as a successor state yet. Dr. Manos 18:01, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
Now that Serbia has declared "independence" and claim rights as a successor state, should we make the change from "Serbia and Montenegro" to "Serbia" now or wait until the UN officially recognized the dissolution of the union? Chanheigeorge 22:53, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
The first, dark green map should be updated. — Nightst a llion (?) 01:13, 11 June 2006 (UTC)
It's just struck me that the article name does not reflect the fact that this is a list.
I would therefore propose that the article be moved, perhaps to List of member states of the United Nations.
Comments? Silverhelm 12:19, 13 June 2006 (UTC).
===>Neither here nor there I personally have no strong feelings either way, but I'd like to point out that this isn't strictly a list, and attemptes to explain in addition to list. - Justin (koavf), talk, mail 14:19, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
I concur with moving it. — Nightst a llion (?) 11:12, 20 June 2006 (UTC)
The article as it stands currently says this in the footnotes on former members:
Yugoslavia joined the UN as an original member on October 24, 1945, represented by the Democratic Federal Yugoslavia. It remained as a member until November 10, 2000, even though the Socialist Federal Republic of Yugoslavia had already completely dissolved by 1992.
This doesn't really make any sense -- how could a country continue to be a UN member for 8 years after it had ceased to exist? My understanding is this: Serbia and Montenegro delcared the formation of the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia in 1992, and claimed to be the successor of the Socialist Federal Republic of Yugoslavia, which would mean that the FRY would assume all the international organization memberships and treaty obligations of the SFRY (as Russia had done for the defunct USSR earlier in the year). The UN and most other states, however, did not recognize the FRY as a successor to the SFRY, and the FRY refused to reapply for membership until 2000; thus stalemate. I'm not sure what it would mean exactly to say that the SFRY somehow remained a UN member during that period. -- Jfruh ( talk) 18:29, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
(outdent) Chanheigeorge should stop insisting that SFRY existed up to 1 November 2000, he has no sources which support that exact date. If certain countries with veto power sustained the legal fiction of the SFRY, that information should be noted, without giving any certain date. Where is a single piece of document which supports the theory that SFRY existed up to 1 Nov 2000? It would mean that the Security Council voted on that, like in the case of removing the Republic of China in favour of PRC. United Nations Security Council resolution 757 (adopted May 30, 1992) placed FR Yugoslavia under international sanctions. [1], which included a ban on its participation in international contests and cultural events. [2] What it means? That the SFRY should have placed FRY under sanctions, and the FRY considered itself the successor!? We should note that the European Communities and the United States also placed FRY (hijacking the term Yugoslavia) and that all nations should have approached the FRY as the FRY (Serbia and Montenegro), naturally if complying to the UN SC and UN GA official documents.
Take the necessary steps to prevent the participation in sporting events on their territory of persons or groups representing the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia (Serbia and Montenegro);
— Paragraph 8(b)
.Suspend scientific and technical cooperation and cultural exchanges and visits involving persons or groups officially sponsored by or representing the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia (Serbia and Montenegro)
— Paragraph 8(c)
On 20 July 2006 User:Koavf delinked most dates. As the United Nations uses British dates, I consider using unlinked American dates too American-centric. If there is no significant objection, I will switch all dates to linked British dates per WP:DATE.-- Jusjih 04:41, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
Quoth the article:
Some international organizations, non-governmental organizations, or entities whose statehood/sovereignty has not been precisely defined, such as ... the Palestinian National Authority (called simply "Palestine" in UN literature) ... have a similar observer status but not as "non-member states."''
If I'm remembering correctly, there was some sort of Palestinian representation at the UN before the PNA was created in the early '90s. I imagine that it was the PLO that was the body sending representation then, at least, and the PLO and PNA are not the same thing -- Hamas, which currently runs the PNA legislature, is not part of the PLO, for instance. Does anyone know precisely what body currently sends the Palestinian delegation to the UN? Is it the PLO or the PNA or something else (perhaps the notional "State of Palestine"?) -- Jfruh ( talk) 21:44, 26 September 2006 (UTC)
Neither Czech Republic nor Slovakia is credited as an original member, which is correct, because back in 1945 there was only country: Czechoslovakia. On the other hand, why should Russia, Ukraine and Belarus be credited as original members while e.g. Estonia, Kazakhstan and Armenia are NOT? Back in 1945, there was only one USSR! We should therefore credit either all the USSR's successor states (as original members) or none. Jancikotuc 14:05, 1 October 2006 (UTC)
Would anyone object to my formatting this list in a wikitable? -- PSUMark2006 talk | contribs 05:20, 13 January 2007 (UTC)
According to this from the UN Observers article, the Holy See has a special relation to the UN. Therefore I sugest that the Vatican should be Yellow and not grey on the UN map . User:Allard Posted: 28 January 2007 14:00 CET
The dates in the table are formatted as a string: so when ordered it is not in date order, but alphanumeric. Will endeavour to correct this today, but might take a while. Dutpar ( talk) 09:30, 23 November 2007 (UTC)
Done and working! Dutpar ( talk) 10:36, 23 November 2007 (UTC)
I have moved "The former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia" to T in the alphabetical listing as per UN policy. [13] -- Scotchorama ( talk) 19:22, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
Taiwan is not a member of the UN. It is not even a UN observer. It should not be blue on the map. Readin ( talk) 18:49, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
Sorry about that I didn't realize that undo would delete all of the successive changes that were made by a user rather than the last one only; I'll have to be more judicious in the future. I did revert back one passage of sourced and relevant information re: Palestine because I can't see any reason to delete it and I can see a reason to keep it. - Justin (koavf)· T· C· M 21:28, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
Germane point Kosovo is a state that has significant recognition and a unique history with the UN, so it seems like it should be mentioned. What is the objection? - Justin (koavf)❤ T☮ C☺ M☯ 21:48, 5 April 2008 (UTC)
This is the paragraph added:
I don't see what's the connection between being a "member of the UN" and "UN peacekeeping forces are based in the country". Chanheigeorge ( talk) 22:01, 5 April 2008 (UTC)
Yes, it was a UN protectorate, but that doesn't mean Kosovo "should" be a UN member. The statement, "The Republic of Kosovo is also not a member of the UN although UN peacekeeping forces are based in the country", is quite misleading, implying that the latter is some "cause" of the former. Chanheigeorge ( talk) 23:22, 5 April 2008 (UTC)
Given that this is a featured list, I'd like that the statements added here be factual and NPOV. How about something like this:
I removed the para about China/ROC and Kosovo once again, simply for the reason that their status is already covered in depth in three separate sections, and the para in question just repeats what has already been stated in those sections, adding nothing new. I won't repeat the removal if this text is reinstated, since there's no point starting an edit war over this, but I just feel the information is completely redundant. Asav ( talk) 14:57, 23 June 2008 (UTC)
Western Sahara is definitely different from Palestine. There is an international consensus about the statute of Palestine, I mean the General Assembly and the Security Council. Western Sahara is under dispute between the kingdom of Morocco and the Polisario front, a separatist faction claiming independence. Palestine is a decolonization process. Western Sahara was a decolonization process in the sixtee's and the seventee's when the Spanish was occupying the region and the kingdom of Morocco was claiming it at the UN level. Then after the establishment of the Polisario front, it became a separatism issue facing the unionist and the separatist sahraouis. Western Sahara has been declared as a non-self-governing territory since the sixtee's longer before the establishment of the Polisario front (1973) and SADR (1976). Actually, the kingdom of Morocco is administrating the region according to a previous UN resolution. After the end of war (1979-1991) corresponding to the end of the Soviet Union block, the UN established a ceasefire maintained by the MINURSO in a buffer zone from the Berm held to protect unionist sahraouis from polisario attacks to the algerian borders. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 196.206.255.160 ( talk) 16:22, 2 September 2008 (UTC)
I see that the map has been disputed because Taiwan is not a member. I think that it would be prudent to change the map back to when Taiwan was coloured grey. The UN has not passed a resolution recognising Taiwan as a part of China. Comments from UN officials to that effect are just that - comments. Only a UN resolution passed by the correct body can decide on a matter like this.
Therefore I would appreciate it if someone could sort the map out. Cheers, John Smith's ( talk) 15:58, 12 March 2009 (UTC)
I appreciate the convenience of using {{ flag}}, but in the case of this list, naming the states by their full official name is rather crucial. I'll try to migrate the list to such a format. -- dab (𒁳) 10:56, 16 July 2009 (UTC)
The list does give some offical names but not all, and it delegates the official names to a footnote section (only if the name has been changed during membership). This is unnecessarily complicated. I agree that the official name is a bit of a burden in many cases, but it is crucially relevant in others, particularly in the case of disputes between two rival states or governments. -- dab (𒁳) 15:58, 17 July 2009 (UTC)
OLD format put too many notes OUTSIDE the table - rendering the notes section of the table bacically pointless.
Obviously neatness is prefered on WikipEdia over it's usability - I know I hate having to scroll up and down the page to find a simple note... -- Kurtle ( talk) 14:24, 26 July 2009 (UTC)
AFAIK there are member states that do not pay their UN fees and thus they do not vote in the GA. Does somebody have such list ( the list here is from 2008)? Alinor ( talk) 12:26, 15 September 2009 (UTC)
Neither North nor South Korea is a UN member? Surprising. 71.34.106.57 ( talk) 17:32, 17 December 2009 (UTC)
There is a discussion at the Naming Conventions (geographic names) project page on the use of UN names in article titles that may interest editors of this and related articles. The discussion was instigated by myself as a possible route to standardising the approach to the names of articles of nation-states in Wikipedia. I would be very interested to have more views on the subject from those who are familiar with the detail of UN naming conventions, UN-related articles, etc. Thanks. Jamesinderbyshire ( talk) 21:19, 24 August 2010 (UTC)
So the map gives Antarctica, Western Sahara, the Vatican and the 'Palestinian territories' as non-member geographical regions. But the text gives the Cook Islands and Niue as non-member states as well. So what gives? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.68.197.211 ( talk) 00:04, 15 January 2011 (UTC)
The result of the move request was: page moved. Vegaswikian ( talk) 03:21, 22 January 2011 (UTC)
List of United Nations member states →
Member states of the United Nations — Not only a listing. Similar to
States of Austria,
States of Germany,
States of Venezuela. --
TopoChecker (
talk) 17:08, 15 January 2011 (UTC)
There is an inaccuracy in the list of Member States...It says that the list is the list of member states using the "official designations" used by the UN. However, when it comes to the People's Republic of China, the official UN designation, which is simply "China" is not used. I have recitified this. Interestingly, China appears to be the only case where this discrepancy and the other long form designations used by the UN are used, i.e.:
Bolivia (Plurinational State of) Democratic People's Republic of Korea Democratic Republic of the Congo Iran (Islamic Republic of) Lao People’s Democratic Republic Libyan Arab Jamahiriya Micronesia (Federated States of) Republic of Korea Republic of Moldova Russian Federation* Syrian Arab Republic
It is odd that the China entry is wrong but I will fix it. 84.203.76.88 ( talk) 19:59, 9 June 2011 (UTC)
This map must be updated to include South Sudan as unrecognized, then changed again if it is accepted into the UN in a number of days. -- Silv the Something ( talk) 16:38, 12 July 2011 (UTC)
I don't think I'm allowed to revert this, but the page explicitly says that we use the official designations of countries at the United Nations. In Libya's case the official name is still "Libyan Arab Jamahiriya". [15]
I'm guessing this will change in September, but until it does we should leave Libya's entry as is. Orange Tuesday ( talk) 22:49, 4 September 2011 (UTC)
Palestine There are several resources regarding the Palestinian statehood bid and international reaction (specifically, US intransigence.) E.g. http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2011/sep/20/palestine-towards-an-independent-state , http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/interactive/2011/sep/20/palestinain-state-israel-un-interactive , http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2011/sep/20/palestinians-recognised-two-thirds-globe , http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-14946179 , http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2011/sep/14/palestinians-pressure-united-nations-statehood , http://www.time.com/time/world/article/0,8599,2091317,00.html , http://www.google.com/hostednews/afp/article/ALeqM5hDGkwlB2p6ypQ5iicov7nAerW3yg?docId=CNG.37f490980793ed822010b69c4858a6ab.311 , etc. — Justin (koavf)❤ T☮ C☺ M☯ 10:04, 21 September 2011 (UTC)
I have just now undone an edit listing some countries with limited recognition by name - this is made clear in the lead section, there are such countries, they are not members of the UN, and the list is linked to. Hence, there is no need to clutter this article with listing them here as well. I'm only writing this here because it was too much to write in an edit summary. -- ... there's more than what can be linked. 15:35, 6 August 2012 (UTC)
Supposedly, Ras al-Khaimah joined the United Arab Emirates 1972.02.11., which is a bit after they became UN members on 1971.12.09. I say supposedly, because I have just read so at History of the United Arab Emirates, and the exact date was at Ras al-Khaimah, but the sources of both articles are, well, maybe not exactly rubbish, but... In any way, I couldn't find the info using Google. So I thought I might as well let this be known here. If anybody is going to do something about this - good hunting! -- ... there's more than what can be linked. 15:08, 13 August 2012 (UTC)
"Original members are listed with blue background and in bold." - why both ? would one be enough? 85.195.69.112 ( talk) 17:15, 5 September 2012 (UTC)
Could this section possibly be auto-hidden? It's quite bulky, and since it's merely a collection of notes, I recommend either hiding it in a table or moving it to the bottom of the page. Thoughts? 2602:304:AF05:D9D9:C5D6:9E05:1A14:89F9 ( talk) 19:08, 6 July 2013 (UTC)
the Federal Republic IS a member NOT a former member - so why does the article call it a former member - that is factually untrue!!! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.42.252.102 ( talk) 12:52, 19 October 2013 (UTC)
Depending on the result of the Scottish referendum, what will happen to this article? Ezza1995 ( talk) 17:20, 12 August 2014 (UTC)
Is this statement correct? "There are 986 United Nations (UN) member states."
An editor removed UNnu and replaced it with the number 986. We HAAD only 193 members. That's QUITE A JUMP! MaynardClark ( talk) 19:49, 25 January 2015 (UTC)
Coats of arms are mainly of European/historical interest, these play absolutely no role in the United Nations as far as I am concerned; all those nations lacking coats of arms make the list look quite messy. I would like to see that column completely from the list. 183.193.186.67 ( talk) 10:14, 25 July 2016 (UTC)
I suppose if someone tries to change czech republic to czechia that will get reverted — Preceding unsigned comment added by 97.127.103.106 ( talk) 15:48, 22 August 2016 (UTC)
@ Vsmith: In the list of original members, what is the good reason for listing the USSR, US and UK by their full official names when all other countries are listed with their short names? Abjiklɐm ( tɐlk) 17:18, 6 January 2017 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 13 external links on Member states of the United Nations. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 18 January 2022).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 17:38, 19 May 2017 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 3 external links on Member states of the United Nations. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 18 January 2022).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 07:25, 8 June 2017 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 4 external links on Member states of the United Nations. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 18 January 2022).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 17:04, 24 September 2017 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 6 external links on Member states of the United Nations. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
{{
dead link}}
tag to
http://go.worldbank.org/14OS09UZ90When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 18 January 2022).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 15:06, 30 September 2017 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links on Member states of the United Nations. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 18 January 2022).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 23:46, 7 November 2017 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Member states of the United Nations. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 18 January 2022).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 12:42, 12 November 2017 (UTC)
Per WP:BOLD, I've changed a sentence in our lead from:
to just:
List of intergovernmental organizations shows several organisations that are 'larger' than the OIC, such as the WTO and the World Bank (in terms of number of member states, etc), the Commonwealth of Nations (in terms of population represented, etc), and so on. So the source is either being misquoted, or is unreliable, or is reliable but unrepresentative, or gives a reason for ignoring the Commonwealth and WTO, etc. So a clarification would be needed if this were to be kept in the article, let alone the lead. But it probably belongs in neither. I've also removed the relatively-hard-to-check source since it currently seems unnecessary and possibly unreliable or unrepresentative or misquoted (though it is easy to restore if a check shows it to be reliable and representative and correctly quoted). Tlhslobus ( talk) 18:56, 7 January 2018 (UTC)
The claim is here by a Christoffer S. Biggers on page 1114 (not 114) of International Encyclopedia of Civil Society which is edited by Helmut K. Anheier and Stefan Toepler and published in 2009 by Springer Science & Business Media with isbn=9780387939964. Without mentioning the UN it simply asserts without explanation that "The OIC is the second largest intergovernmental organization." The claim should probably be viewed as WP:EXTRAORDINARY. In any case it does not mention that it is the second largest after the UN so it should not be used here (we should not attempt to read the minds of those making extraordinary and incomprehensible claims, nor should we treat our attempts at such mind-reading as reliable sources for anything). Tlhslobus ( talk) 19:25, 7 January 2018 (UTC)
I tried to make the table sortable, but it doesn't work. Can anyone help to make the table sortable by name and join date? Terrorist96 ( talk) 02:23, 22 October 2018 (UTC)
This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |