This 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.

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

→

Archive 10

I would like to challenge the opinion asserted by Michaelbusch that naming the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland by it's full international title is "contencious". This was one occurance in the text at the top of the page on the list of leader states. For example, the United States of America is not contracted to it's common name the United States. Why should the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland be contracted to the United Kingdom?

I will not go as far as to say this is racism, but it seemed to be ultimately an unnecessary attempt to devalue the nation in question. I leave this open for discussion. —Preceding unsigned comment added by JoelisJoel ( talk • contribs)

The intent was simply to avoid dispute concerning Northern Ireland. My only intention was to avoid giving offense. If there is consensus for using the full name, go ahead. Michaelbusch 17:24, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

That is fair. I will leave this open for a few days, and if it is met with no opposition I will make the ammendment and see how that goes. Thank you. JoelisJoel

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.

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)

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)

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)

Mr Cole's finding was that no government minister, including the Foreign Affairs Minister, Alexander Downer, or the former trade minister, Mark Vaile, or any public servant had prior knowledge of the kickbacks. It is therefore time to remove suggestions that the Australian Governemnt had knowledge of the AWB's involvement in the oil for food scandal from the article. It is regretable that this hearsay was ever included in an encylopedia. I expect facts not hearsay.

Please sign your posts. Mad05963 20:55, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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

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

Do we need an article on The UN Works for Small Island Nations? — Insta ntnood 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 points Jcdams 10:59, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

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)

'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.

You're totally right. However, Israel and the US are, by any standard, the most notorious examples. Lixy 12:58, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

Please refrain from personal political opinions here, please, especially when they do not contribute anything that can improve the article. Thank you. If you wish to say that, please provide some citations. Ariedartin JECJY ^Talk 10:14, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

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

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

Who here thinks that the UN has outlived it's purposes and needs to be disbanded?? LordRevan 05:04 Febuary 2 2006 (UTC)

A recent worldwide survey shows that people with a positive view of the UN far outnumber those with a negative view almost anywhere in the world. Since the UN fulfills a vast array of badly needed roles in dozens of locations around the world, I'm curious as to what/who, in your view, should fulfill those roles instead?-- Dorond 22:40, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

For your information, the media likes to omit certan things from the news, like the widespread corruption within the highest levels of the UN. It took me a year before I heard anything about the Oil-for-food scandal. So it is not surprising that many people do not know the truth about these matters. Second of all, many of these third-world member countries are governed by corrupt, authoritarian governements, that use their "third-world country" statis to pay as little to the UN as possible. Here is a reliable source link, [11], that comes from the mind of Stefan Halper, a former State Department and White House official, who elaborates on the ineffectiveness and wide spread corruption within the UN. Also, it is nice to know that Congress at least knows about the widespread corruption, why do you think they cut the budget size they give to the UN. And for your last question above, I think that the United States is doing a far better job than the UN is doing right now. My goal, is to try to bring guidance into your blind world, but as it is, the blind want to keep stumbling around while watching CNN. LordRevan 5:39 Febuary 6 2006 (UTC)

I concur. I think that suggestion is quite extreme. I can't imagine what chaos would erupt if the UN is disbanded. Without it, countries wouldn't have to answer to a council to account for their actions...-- 202.156.6.54 15:35, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

We in the United States have a right to question the UN's legitimacy, more so than all of the other member countries, seeing how we taxpayers pay for 22% of the UN's budget. This is not including the other two areas that we pay in, Peacekeeping and Donations. It perplexes me that so many of you editors, with your extensive knowledge, that you are unwilling to see the truth, even if it landed right into your lap. It does say in the Bible that God uses the simple things to confound the wise. LordRevan 17:11 Febuary 6 2006 (UTC) [12] [13]

It's really rather pointless, not to mention inappropriate, to register personal views on the validity or otherwise of the UN here- this is not what the talk page (or wikipedia) is for. Unless you've some substantive comment to make on the actual text of the article itself, whether or not you personally happen to care for the institution, is completely irrelevant and rather uninteresting. See WP:NOT if in any doubt. There's any number of other spaces, blogs, etc where you can opine ad nauseam about this or any other topic; kindly use these and not wikipedia.-- cjllw | TALK 02:18, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

U.S. pay for 22% of the UN budget yet U.S. is the dominant as an "indirect" result.( 80.154.37.132 16:23, 25 July 2006 (UTC))

Hi guys, I found this article on the internet: The United Nation's War Against Israel. Maybe you should link it in the WP article. -- 84.146.157.165 11:10, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

Maybe not. The article is narrow and extremely spurious Zleitzen 10 March 2006

Its not so much the UN staff or those with power, but mostly the large number of Muslim nations that contribute to the Anti-Semitism policies from the UN. LordRevan 00:42, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

Please re-read the comment made by CJLL above which stated "It's really rather pointless, not to mention inappropriate, to register personal views on the validity or otherwise of the UN here". It is not clear whether you understood this. -- Zleitzen 13:21, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

???. And what does that have to do with the price of tea in China. My comment, if you actually look into it, bears much evidence. LordRevan 01:42, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

Please read the Wikipedia Guidlines WP:NOT which states the following

• Wikipedia is not a soapbox
• Concerning Discussion forums. Please try to stay on the task of creating an encyclopedia
• Wikipedia is supposed to compile human knowledge. It is not a vehicle to make personal opinions become part of human knowledge.

Please avoid breaching those guidelines. Thank You.-- Zleitzen 03:06, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

Now I see why the other guy did not want to give his name out. LordRevan 03:33, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

The U.S. owns the U.N. and the U.S. owns Israel. They would not allow it. It's like what if the Jews were on Hitlers side? Now we know.

-G Sheesh what a load of *&&^% above here eh?

Maybe get this on topic by discussing the fact that much of what the UN is mandated to do is put forward and voted on by the constituant states. The policies thus often reflect the consenus of those member states. With regards to "hot" items like Israel, many policies may, in fact, be dominated by the majority opinion of a "block" of countries in the assembly. Hurkummer

could we,by chance, mention the fact that the 5 permanent members of the Security-council who are meant to maintain "security and peace" are the 5 main countries distibuting illegal arms to the poorer countries--- woohoo...the un has saved us all!!!

Well, we should hardly add content by chance ;-). If you think you can make an informative NPOV subsection out of this, please do -- just don't forget to cite sources and present their content with impartiality (you will want to leave out the woos and the hoos). -- Swift 19:01, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

-it has never prevented a war -it has never prevented a civil war (there are at least a dozen in Africa going on as of may 2006) -it has never prevented a genocide (Cambodia, former Yugoslavia, Ruanda and right now: Darfur) -it has never prevented ethnic cleansing -it has never prevented hunger

The corruption and incompetence of the UN cannot possibly be exaggerated. The organization simply does not work. The UN criticizes only the USA and Israel and blatantly ignores serial violations of human rights in China, Syria, Egypt, Arabia, all islamic states (who all ignore provisions on equal rights for women) etc...

Why is there no outcry in the world against such incompetence and why don't we abolish the UN? -- 82.156.49.1 10:50, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

It should be abolished,nations should negotiate one on one,not through an organisation that issues ultimatums and sends in an army if you don't do what it says. Dudtz 6/2/06 6:27 PM EST

If you want to carry on discussing your own personal, non-notable views on the matter, why not go and set up a blog somewhere else where you can opine as much as you've the stomach for. Wikipedia, and this talk page in particular, is not the place for vox-pop scribblings such as these.-- cjllw | TALK 01:24, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

The UN is definitely not a total failure. It had important impact on the development of human rights; it successfully managed the problems of decolonialization in the 1950s and 60s; and it works fine as a forum for international talks. It did not prevent every war that ever menaced international peace, but without it, I bet there would have been more than there were in reality. It definitely worked better than the League of Nations.

I agree with everyone but Cjll. First not everyone have to speak in a very formal language if they want to speak their ideas in order to display some certain FACTS like the genocides that could have been prevented. UN as far as I know has a fundamental dictating that no GENOCIDES shall occure. In a very politic way of manner, or God like. UN have made great effort to improve the conditions of poor and engaged peace keeping missions yet UN made such failures that these faults cannot be considered as minor. They are funadmental faults, they are rather ERRORS which means that UN constitution should be questioned very seriously. For me UN is no more than a charity work. Bitter truth...( cantikadam 16:32, 25 July 2006 (UTC))

you forgot to mention that everytime the UN tries to do something radical it gets vetoed

Well, the choice you make will depend on your constitution.

If you are a cynic, you would go for the “Utopian Notion” hypothesis. Otherwise, we all know that the UN is the best “Hope in the Time of Hostilities”.

The United Nations Organization (UNO), as it was named then, when formed on 24th October 1945 with 51 member states post WWII, seemed to be the only logical step towards preventing the world from further disintegration and in containing the misplaced sense of power and authority of some of the world’s colonizing nations. Since then it has worked well, if not extraordinarily well.

Today the United Nations' (UN) membership stands at 192 which in itself is a certificate for its role and relevance.

The role of the UN spans from peace and security to economic and social development to human rights to humanitarian efforts to international laws. There is no part of life which is untouched by this organization in today’s world.

The world of today is grappling with the “problems without passports” (to quote Kofi Annan - Shashi Tharoor) which transcend borders and continents and impact every sphere of existence of every individual whether he/she is from the “developed”, “developing” or for that matter, from the “under-developed” part of our planet. These are: terrorism, international crimes, conflicts, AIDS, drug trafficking, human trafficking, epidemics, famine, poverty, genocide, refugees, and environmental concerns, to name a few.

And, to deal with this spectrum of problems, only an international organization like the UN with international outlook and policies and more than six decades of experience in international diplomacy and governance would be effective.

Looking into the UN’s past accomplishments, it would be no exaggeration to state that it has succeeded in averting this earth from turning into hell for many if not altogether making it a heaven for all. Its notable contributions have been in the fields of peacekeeping and refugees’ resettlement, and not to forget its commitments towards international law, international security, economic development and social equity.

In fact in the present times of substantial escalation in humanitarian crises all across the globe, the United Nations’ indispensability becomes all the more apparent.

Nevertheless, the UN requires reforms relating to the geo-political realities of 2006, and a “suitable talent” at its helm (as the next UNSG) who can balance continuity with changes.

Let’s keep this hope alive before hostilities relegate homo-sapiens into history…

‘Straying straws of the poll, who is suitablest of them all?’…

“Straw polls” and subsequent voting in the ongoing selection (or election?) for the next United-Nations-Secretary-General have left me perplexed. Is there a guarantee with this procedure that “The Suitable Man” will get picked up for the topmost diplomatic position in the world?

While scanning candidature of the officially announced candidates so far, Shashi Tharoor surfaces as “The Suitable Man” for the post. Why and how? Well, I think perhaps in our hearts we already know the answer.

Shashi Tharoor is the only contender with almost 3 decades of work experience with the UN and is well versed with the functioning of this global governing body. The reforms carried out by him in his Department-of-Public-Information-and-Communications as its current Under-Secretary-General speak spectacularly about his competency. This proves his capability to handle 192 heads of states in making them converge on diverse issues concerning welfare of the world, and bring about the required reforms related to the geo-political realities of 2006 by balancing changes with continuity.

Moreover, Shashi Tharoor’s ‘adventure with Indian pluralism’ as an Indian supplements his suitability to administer the UN which is so similar to India in its constitution: of being singular while remaining plural. With his belief in ‘a world safe for diversity’, he is most likely to emerge as a worthy successor to Kofi Annan, and thereby, succeed in retaining the relevance of the UN in the time of radicalism.

Being an author-diplomat also complements Shashi Tharoor’s candidacy. In his work he is sure to espouse the same supreme sensitivity towards the ‘larger idea of humanity’ which he has shown in his writings, though they have been exclusively about India and Indians. This is plausible because of his ability to inhabit alternate spaces simultaneously: living as an ‘Indian’ author with his idea of ‘an India for Indians’ while managing myriad matters of the world as an international diplomat.

These are precisely the merits which make Shashi Tharoor “The Suitable Man” to adorn the Top-Seat as the next UNSG and do justice to probably the ‘most impossible job on earth’!

See, I had told you we already knew the answer to our question :-)

‘The Da Vinci Code’ had left me perplexed about the Pope’s selection process and I am getting the same feeling following this senseless series of straw polls to select a suitable Secretary General at the UN. Wonder if the topmost diplomatic seat would get ‘the suitable’ man / woman to adorn it.

Currently there are 6 official candidates in the fray. More are in the offing to join as the rounds progress. Before dissecting each candidate’s candidacy, I would like to harp on the selection process. The ‘idea’ of a regional candidate in itself is idiotic. When we are looking for an able administrator for a global governing body as important as the UN, from where does the question arise of a ‘regional candidate’? Shouldn’t we rather be searching for ‘the suitable' man / woman at the helm?

But what makes a man or woman ‘suitable’?

As per the definition of the post, the UNSG is an administrator - a CEO (to use the corporate world’s parlance). And to be able to qualify as an able administrator, the candidate needs to have the first hand experience of the working culture of this colossal corpus.

The UNSG also needs to be a dexterous diplomat with the competency to get the 192 member states converge on diverse international issues. By a diplomat I certainly do not mean a politician – head of state or a minister – who would find himself / herself seriously inept in carrying out such crucial chores.

So, the UNSG would essentially be dealing with people – people working in the organization and people in the member states. And as we know, to be an effective administrator, the person needs to be an effective communicator.

Therefore, when we conclude who is ‘suitable’ and who is not as the UNSG, we compare candidates on these considerations, no matter from which ‘region’ of the world he / she comes from. This leaves us with just one candidate in the current crowd and that person is Shashi Tharoor.

Shashi Tharoor has been with the UN for almost three decades now, participating in its working from bottom-up, successfully handling various responsibilities ranging from refugees resettlement to peacekeeping to public affairs. And nobody can ever question his communication skills. My vote goes out for this author-diplomat!

So I am not wasting my time preparing a comparative chart as this is certainly not a selection of ‘The First Amongst The Equals’. Nevertheless, I am still trying to make sense of this senseless series of straw polls to select the ‘suitable’ UNSG.

Wikipedia is not a political discussion forum. Factual answers might be found at United Nations Secretary-General and factual questions can be asked on the Wikipedia:Reference desk.

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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?

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/archive1. 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)

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.

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

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)

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

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)

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)

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)

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)

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.

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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.

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)

I recently did an essay on the Taiwan/PRC situation for my degree, so, I will hopefully be able to resolve this. Basically what happened was that China was the ROC until 1948, when the ROC government fled to Taiwan, and the PRC was set up on the mainland. Both governments claimed to be the sole legitimate authority for all of China (Taiwan included), because the ROC was a US ally, most of the world continued to recognise the ROC as the government of China and as a result kept the 'Chinese' seat on the security council, yet as time went on more and more countries switched their recognition to the PRC, for a variety of reasons, most importantly the aggressive campaign to get recognition masterminded by the PRC itself. This resulted in the UN resolution above, which kicked the ROC out of the UN and put the PRC in, in its place. You have to realise its not a case of who actually runs the mainland, its a case of who the international community RECOGNISES as having SOVEREIGNTY over ALL China. Today the ROC exists in diplomatic limbo, as, while it no doubt rules Taiwan and the other islands nearby, the UN and most (all but 25) of the countries in the world recognise Taiwan as part of the PRC. -- CTerry 17:01, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

I have removed the image of a poster refering to the 'United Nations.' This poster was done by Leslie Ragan in 1943, two years before the UN was formed. It is merely refering to the allied powers of WWII as 'the united nations,' and not to the organization which had not yet been officially formed.

-- Columba livia 00:38, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

Hmm... reading the explanation on the image page is not what I have read on other sources, but I will look into the matter. If anyone has an external source that would clear this up, it would be much appreciated. I'll return the image for now. -- Columba livia 00:41, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

Alright, I've found a couple of sources, but none are difinative or agree.

http://www.bookrags.com/research/united-nations-aaw-03/

http://www.rare-posters.com/2642.html

http://www.mpls.lib.mn.us/wpdb/index.asp?exact=MPW00296

The last, being a library, is perhaps the most convincing. Would still like to see some sort of government website that says as much. -- Columba livia 00:54, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

I am failing this article as a good article for 2 reasons. First, since I put this article on hold, the stability of it has deteriorated. There is confilct over a picture, and the article has had to be protected from vandals. Second, no new citations have been added since I put the article on hold, so I am failing this article as a good article. Diez2 17:43, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

Is there any particularly contentious issue regarding the United Nations that could lead to an edit war here?

There has been previous discussion on this page concerning the location of the headquarters of the United Nations. ( here and here) The article says that the UN headquarters are in New York City. Technically, the UN is located on international territory. [14] I have changed the article accordingly. Please make any comments regarding this here. Thanks. -- Think Fast 23:44, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

It should probably read something like "Located on international territory in New York City" ... or "surrounded by New York City" Just saying it's on international territory doesn't give its location. - newkai t- c 00:00, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

the United Nation's webite has not worked for some time, meaning its' members and goals are hard to find.

Dated. Site works now. Michaelbusch 00:04, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

UN's website is STILL NOT WORKING, it takes you to some shady ucla site. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.42.96.78 ( talk • contribs)

www.un.org links to the UN, as it always has. Michaelbusch 18:52, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

Michael, if you can explain how to access the UN webpage I would appreciate it, I see no links, the page asks for a username, and password. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.42.96.78 ( talk • contribs)

User:MichaelAusems has repeatedly added text to the article criticizing the UN for having non-democratic countries in its membership. The initial versions violated WP:NPOV. He has since moderated the text and provided citations, but I'm still not convinced that the criticisms merit inclusion under Wikipedia:Notable. They certainly have no place in the article's lead section. Perhaps in the 'Criticism and controversies' section, but then it seems largely redundant. For reference, the latest version of his additions is:

Among its members are both nations that have implemented democratic freedoms and nations that have non-democratic governements; critics consider this lack of democratic unity between all UN member nations a weak point. ^[1], ^[2]

Until/unless there is consensus for adding this material in some form, I will remove it if it is added again. Michaelbusch 00:04, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

Constructive criticism: suggest to try to be less "dictatorial" in your approach with people going forward, to be more considerate, to think more about entries and actually read the references before you delete anything with the speed of light as you usually do. Your quest for conciseness is noble but the article on membership is much too brief (relative to others for example) and absolutely: as there is no mention about what "type" of members there are; only a description of "how many", and which notable ones are not a member. Imagine a reader who doesn't know much about the UN yet, then this is an extremely important aspect for them to know about, much more important then many other elements under UN which are treated in great detail! This is an extremely important concept and it should be covered succinctly under membership, or else it makes no sense and feels lost. I made several changes based on your valid criticism, my contribution is pointed, and now I am putting it up again. I ask you kindly to leave it in, or else it will constitute Wikipedia:Vandalism. Until/unless there is consensus for removing this material in some form, I will add it if it is removed again. Remember you are not the only one who makes contributions here. Thanks. Final remark, instead of only deleting like a madman, try to be constructive, open-minded, and maybe help build up this point in a way that it also satisfies you, the same way as I have also listened to you. If the references don't please you, maybe you can find some additional references? -- -- MichaelAusems 00:28, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

User:Raymond arritt deleted my contribution again, under reference to "SOAP". SOAP states: "Propaganda or advocacy of any kind. Of course, an article can report objectively about such things, as long as an attempt is made to approach a neutral point of view. You might wish to go to Usenet or start a blog if you want to convince people of the merits of your favorite views.". Raymond arritt, all the contribution does is to concisely report objectively form a NPOV that there is 1) a huge difference between two groups of members, and 2) that there is a huge amount of criticism out there to the objective fact that there are many undemocratic and un-free nations member of the UN. In no way do I propagate or advocate any point of view. Thank you. Please do not muzzle people and facts that you might not personally be interested in by referring to "SOAP" I refer to my earlier warning: I ask you kindly to leave it in, or else it will constitute Wikipedia:Vandalism. Until/unless there is consensus for removing this material in some form, I will add it if it is removed again.-- MichaelAusems 01:16, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

As Michaelbusch has pointed out such comments belong in the "criticisms" section, if at all. Note also that you are in violation of Wikipedia's three-revert rule, and your characterization of editor Michaelbusch as "dictatorial" is inappropriate per Wikipedia's policies on civility. Please maintain a civil and constructive tone when contributing to Wikipedia. Thank you. Raymond Arritt 04:01, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

MichaelAusems: Cease now. I am only being dictatorial in enforcing Wikipedia policy. Michaelbusch 04:41, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

Michaelbusch: You ought to answer to some of my points that I brought up and also to look around, why is it OK that in the History article above it there is also criticism: "Others see such "peace keeping" as a euphemism for war and domination of weak and poor countries by the wealthy and powerful nations of the world". You cease and desist now. My addition is highly valid, it's important. It stays in until/unless there is consensus for removing this material in some form which in this case appropriately will mean: based on a free and democratic and properly organized vote. Just because you are a wiki activist doesn't mean you are always right... Fresh ideas can help. -- MichaelAusems 04:50, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

Michaelbusch: Stop vandalizing and deleting my valid points without going into the content of my contributions and my arguments above, and with only having two people over a brief period of a few hours objecting my contribution. You are committing vandalism and more specifically blanking.(Blanking: Removing all or significant parts of pages or replacing entire established pages with one's own version without first gaining consensus both constitute vandalism. Sometimes important verifiable references are deleted with no valid reason(s) given in the summary. However, significant content removals are usually not considered to be vandalism where the reason for the removal of the content is readily apparent by examination of the content itself, or where a non-frivolous explanation for the removal of apparently legitimate content is provided, linked to, or referenced in an edit summary.)-- MichaelAusems 05:01, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia policy is for contenious edits to be reverted and the page held as it was until the contention is resolved, that is there is consensus for the addition or against it. This is not an endorsement of the current version. You do not appear to be aware of this. You now have been told.

Now, editors: should MichaelAusems' proposed additions be included in the article? If so, where? Michaelbusch 07:33, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

[[User:Michaelbusch]: wikirules should be followed by the spirit not the letter. I have made a very strong case for this addition, it stays in first (spirit of the wikirules). We can discuss on this talk page (once you have decided to go into the subject matter instead of blindly deleting) what changes, such as further additions or modifications we could make. You need to first discuss the arguments substantially before anythings should be voted, this is such a "big" subject that we should take several days/weeks for that to do that right, this is not something three people should argue over during half a day and then try to decide. So i revert, and will infact also emphasize the NPOV further, and meanwhile i invite you to go into many of the detailed matter of fact UN related points in this above talk to which i will then reply. It is wiki policy that voting should be avoided whenever possible, and it is my feeling we are just starting a good discussion. thank you for your cooperation! -- MichaelAusems 07:35, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

Please do not make any changes to the article, instead discuss the detailed merits of your proposed changes here on this talk page, which is WP best practice and according to the spirit of WP rules. I haven't seen any in depth discussion about the detailed contents, I trust it is not due to inherent bias or incompetence regarding the subjectmatter from your side. This is a very serious subject. Don't treat it lightly. -- MichaelAusems 08:22, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

Mr Ausems - your revisions have been reverted enough times by several contributors including myself (and many more wikipedians will continue to do the same thing if you persist in resubmitting these edits). You would do well to consider what the other contributors have stated in the above discussion. I can only conclude that you still have something to learn about style, structure and objectivity of encyclopedic articles. I suggest that you consult the appropriate section of the wiki to learn more about this. An understanding of the above will allow you to be a more productive contributor. Also - please try to be a little more courteous when criticising other contributors. You do yourself no favours in demeaning your fellow Wikipedians. Mrodowicz 08:51, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

Mr Odowicz (I think is your name) Mrodowicz: I appreciate your comments, but don't appreciate your blind deletion of this important subject without trying first to make modifications to the text yourself, i.e. to improve the style, structure and objectivity. It is easy to criticize without actually doing something to improve it, and I have seen a lot of that above here. Also, I did read the sections of the wiki and one of the things I noticed is that there should be a substantative discussion about the subject before voting etc. I invite you to make your constructive contribution to my proposal. Regarding courteousness, I am trying to be as courteous as possible, but the self-admitted dictatorialism from certain people, it is hard to stay calm under, if you understand what I mean! (No reading of the articles and references, because revertions within seconds -- no constructive criticism, etc. -- it smacks of abuse of power in fact). I will at some future point not revert back to my proposal only if you and or the other wiki guys make a serious effort to look at what is good about my suggestions and propose an improved version. Kind regards, Mike -- MichaelAusems 09:27, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

My only comment is that if anything, it shouldn't go into the summary on membership. United Nations is so much, that the point in question is hardly the most pressing issue of membership. Probably into the sub-article or criticism? Ariedartin JECJY ^Talk 13:34, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

Which countries are not part of the UN? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Cornwoman ( talk • contribs) 01:19, 31 January 2007 (UTC).

This is addressed in the article: the Holy See, the Palestinian State, Taiwan, and several regions that have proclaimed self-government ( Western Sahara is the largest by area). Michaelbusch 19:11, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

And then we'll run into the debate of whether they should be considered countries in the first place, and so on... Ariedartin JECJY ^Talk 12:04, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

It is is not for the United Nations to decide and declare what is and is not a country. In fact there is not a single country in the world that is recognised by every single other country. Yet there are breakway de-facto countries like Abkhazia and Transnistria that are fully functional countries albeit withour diplomatic recognition. So there is no debate , a country is a country regardless of diplomatic recognition. Buffadren 13:37, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

I would say something, but nevermind. Ariedartin JECJY ^Talk 15:19, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

I have some images of the council meetings rooms at the UN New York building, would they be wanted in this article or anything UN related one? Or are they illegal to put up for some reason? Or are there already enough images? They were legally obtained on the tour, but I havent come across any such images so far, maybe they are on another article, but leave me a message if anyone thinks they are useful. I'm not sure which chambers i have photographed, but certainkly a few of them. SGGH 13:35, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

Does anyone have any information on the authority controversy with the UN? The objection comes mainly from Libertarians, if that helps. Bl a st 12,02,07 0917 (UTC -5)