Talk:United Nations

GA Reassessment

United Nations

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • Watch article reassessment page • Most recent review

Result: Delisted. Charlotte (Queen of Hearts • talk) 18:31, 15 October 2024 (UTC)

This article has numerous uncited paragraphs, including the entire "Hymn to United Nations" section. At over 9,000 words, WP:TOOBIG suggests that it might be eligible to be trimmed, and the lead (with six paragraphs) might be a good place to start. Z1720 (talk) 07:49, 7 October 2024 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Merge Criticism of the United Nations here

Per WP:POVFORK, not all "criticism of" articles are POV forks. However, it also specifies that the article should not be entirely negative, and that's pretty much what Criticism of the United Nations is. It's basically just a grab bag of various failures and accusations with no critical discussion, and that is definitely a POV fork. This isn't about anyone's opinion of the UN, and I'm fairly confident the article could be recreated in a neutral and encyclopedic manner (although perhaps at a different title). However, since it would fundamentally require a rewrite to cover the subject neutrally and encyclopedically, rather than being a mushy list of bad things related to the UN, the article should be merged here for the time being. theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 10:50, 22 November 2024 (UTC)

• Oppose, that article was seemingly created because of WP:SIZESPLIT and the criticism of the UN has a long history, as that article shows, with some controversial aspects still persisting (e.g. anachronistic veto power, UN's handling of the Russian invasion of Ukraine or the Middle Eastern conflict, etc.). So I wouldn't consider it a POV fork. Brandmeister^talk 10:24, 24 November 2024 (UTC)
• Also oppose, the article could be fixed/renamed if needed, but if it is problematic, merging it here doesn't seem to address that. CMD (talk) 11:49, 24 November 2024 (UTC)

I think it should be merged. It's still about the UN 97.126.142.110 (talk) 01:19, 11 December 2024 (UTC)

• Oppose per WP:SIZESPLIT concerns. Mkrosman (talk) 02:05, 13 December 2024 (UTC)

• Oppose As others have said, if the merge occurs then the article would be too long to be read comfortably. Rager7 (talk) 03:40, 17 December 2024 (UTC)

Is there a possibility that some parts of the article can be added to the main page and the rest can remain it's own page/sets of pages? Tytech038 (talk) 14:10, 8 January 2025 (UTC)

Like splitting the information to two separate articles? If so, then yeah. Rager7 (talk) 23:50, 8 January 2025 (UTC)

Oppose, the point of the article is to bring forth the longstanding criticism and historical disagreements as to how the U.N. should function/be reformed/etc. Adding it to the main article would remove the nuance it is supposed to highlight (which the main article fails to bring). Counterbalancing the main article with this one would make it illegible and confusing. 94.247.216.174 (talk) 13:31, 13 January 2025 (UTC)

• Oppose, the criticism seems to be notable enough for its own article. Mikeycdiamond (talk) 19:06, 15 January 2025 (UTC)

• Oppose, I'm not opposed to a renaming, rewriting, or refactoring of the article but I think that there is overall just too much here to effectively merge it. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 22:04, 15 January 2025 (UTC)

Oppose as per WP:SIZESPLIT Mind the gap 1 (talk) 22:00, 16 January 2025 (UTC)

Strong Oppose and Snowball Close As per WP:SIZESPLIT. 2001:8003:9100:2C01:A530:1AC4:5C0C:1D94 (talk) 23:40, 22 January 2025 (UTC)

• Strong oppose as the UN's article is long enough on its own. —theMainLogan (t•c) 03:08, 27 January 2025 (UTC)
• Support as per WP:SAMETYPEFORK. AimanAbir18plus (talk) 20:00, 27 January 2025 (UTC)

Third sentence offices

From the third sentence in the introduction:

the UN has other offices in Geneva, Nairobi, Vienna, and The Hague, where the International Court of Justice is headquartered at the Peace Palace.

You'd expect the links to go to our articles about Geneva, Nairobi, Vienna, and The Hague, or perhaps to articles about the UN offices in those four cities. However, they go to:

• United Nations Office at Geneva
• United Nations Office at Nairobi
• United Nations Office at Vienna
• The Hague

Obviously not ideal. I set out to fix this, but I couldn't think how to do so — either we link the offices (and have to delink the Hague), or we link the cities and lose important links in the introduction. Any better ideas? Nyttend (talk) 21:55, 19 January 2025 (UTC)

Delink The Hague, not that those are the clearest links. CMD (talk) 23:49, 19 January 2025 (UTC)

Would United Nations Office at the Hague (or perhaps United Nations Office at The Hague) be a good red link? Nyttend (talk) 03:16, 20 January 2025 (UTC)

I'm not sure, I don't think the UN has its own compound there the same way it does as the other locations. OCHA apparently has a "global hub" there, whatever that means, but it's probably its own thing rather than as part of a larger office. CMD (talk) 04:09, 20 January 2025 (UTC)

January 2025

@Terrainman: care to give a proper explanation for why you reverted every bit of my edit?

It is important that the description is in the context of the attitude of the UN to Israel what I added is directly related to that and adds context to it.

I am not sure if the latter quote is from the confirmation hearing; I may be wrong. If you're not sure, then why did you remove it?

Also, "right wing minister" violates wp:tone wp:Emphatic says who? The right wing minister are the ones who believe that Israel has a 'biblical right to the entire West Bank' (this is stated in the Israeli source). M.Bitton (talk) 01:56, 26 January 2025 (UTC)

I didn't think she had made that statement during the senate hearing and thought it unrelated, hence why I reverted the whole edit. I have edited it now to restore the specification of "UNs attitude towards", but replaced "ring wing" with name mention of the minister mentioned in sources. I also added one source. 𝙏𝙚𝙧𝙧𝙖𝙞𝙣𝙢𝙖𝙣地形人 (talk) 02:18, 26 January 2025 (UTC)

The key part is the change you had made from "Described the UN as" and "Describe the UNs attitude toward Israel as" 𝙏𝙚𝙧𝙧𝙖𝙞𝙣𝙢𝙖𝙣地形人 (talk) 02:19, 26 January 2025 (UTC)

The key part the key part is you removed "right wing" without a valid reason. All the cited sources (we can add more if necessary) describe them as such. This is important because it highlights the fact that not all Israeli ministers believe in the biblical nonsense. Naming just one of the ministers also doesn't make sense. M.Bitton (talk) 02:43, 26 January 2025 (UTC)

"If you're not sure, then why did you remove it?" Mea culpa 𝙏𝙚𝙧𝙧𝙖𝙞𝙣𝙢𝙖𝙣地形人 (talk) 02:21, 26 January 2025 (UTC)

Could we please edit so that it says "right wing minister Bezalel Smotrich and Ben Gvir". Just saying just "right wing ministers" seems odd to me.

Thank-you, by the way! 𝙏𝙚𝙧𝙧𝙖𝙞𝙣𝙢𝙖𝙣地形人 (talk) 02:51, 26 January 2025 (UTC)

 Done M.Bitton (talk) 13:05, 26 January 2025 (UTC)

English as an official language

On the tab with the official languages of the UN, the English link should not go back to the English Language main page but to the British English language page since the UN uses British English via Oxford’s dictionary. Salandarianflag (talk) 15:51, 20 February 2025 (UTC)

Changed it now, there is a precedent here to with how other languages are listed in the tab. Salandarianflag (talk) 15:54, 20 February 2025 (UTC)

Problem with this article

AI fluff with at times tenuous relation to the article. CMD (talk) 04:58, 22 February 2025 (UTC)

Strengths Comprehensive Scope: The article covers the UN’s history, structure, objectives, funding, and controversies in depth—over 10,000 words, with sections like “History,” “Structure,” and “Criticism” providing a broad overview. It’s a one-stop shop for someone new to the topic. Rich Historical Detail: The “History” section shines, tracing the UN’s roots from the League of Nations through WWII declarations (e.g., Atlantic Charter, Dumbarton Oaks) to its 1945 founding. Specifics like Roosevelt coining “United Nations” or Haile Selassie’s 1936 plea add color. Data-Driven: It’s packed with stats—193 member states, $3.59 billion 2024 budget, 88,000 peacekeepers as of 2021—which ground the narrative in facts. Tables (e.g., top 25 budget contributors) make complex info digestible. Balanced Perspective: The “Criticism” section doesn’t shy away from flaws—veto power paralysis, corruption (Oil-for-Food), perceived bias (e.g., Israel focus). It cites diverse voices, from Bush to Obama to scholars like Edward Luck, showing multiple angles. Well-Sourced: With over 280 references, including UN documents, books (e.g., Kennedy’s The Parliament of Man), and news outlets (BBC, CNN), it’s academically robust. Citations like the RAND study on peacekeeping success add credibility. Weaknesses Overwhelming Length: At this size, it’s a slog. The “History” section alone sprawls across pre-1941 to post-Cold War eras with dense subheadings (e.g., “Declarations by the Allies”). New readers might drown before reaching “Objectives” or “Criticism.” Uneven Depth: Some sections over-explain (e.g., “Founding” details every conference), while others skim—like “Environment and Climate,” which glosses over the Kyoto Protocol’s impact or the IPCC’s controversies. The “Model United Nations” bit feels tacked on, barely a paragraph. Dry Tone: It’s encyclopedic but stiff. Phrases like “The UN is financed from assessed and voluntary contributions” lack punch. More vivid storytelling—like the UN’s scramble during the Suez Crisis—could hook readers. Outdated Feel: Despite my current date being 2025, the article’s latest budget figure is 2024 ($3.59 billion), and peacekeeping data stops at 2021. Major 2023-2025 events (e.g., Ukraine war resolutions, Guterres’ term progress) are absent, making it feel static. Bias in Criticism: The “Criticism” section leans heavily on Western voices (Bush, Obama, US lawmakers) and US-centric issues (e.g., sovereignty bills). Non-Western critiques—like China’s view on UN human rights focus or Africa’s take on peacekeeping—are underrepresented. Structural Issues Repetition: Funding pops up in “Structure” (specialized agencies’ budgets) and again in “Funding,” with overlapping points. The “Cold War” and “Post-Cold War” sections rehash peacekeeping shifts without fresh insight. Fragmented Flow: Jumping from “Membership” (listing 193 states) to “Group of 77” feels disjointed—why not integrate G77’s role earlier? The “Principal Organs” table disrupts the narrative, better suited as a sidebar. Citation Overload: Some paragraphs (e.g., “Peacekeeping and Security”) end with a barrage of footnotes (153-156), which looks cluttered and breaks readability. Inline citations could be streamlined. Specific Content Gaps Recent Developments: No mention of 2024-2025 milestones—say, UN responses to AI governance, climate crises, or new conflicts. The “Post-Cold War” section ends vaguely with Guterres’ 2017 goals, missing his latest moves. Cultural Impact: The “United Nations in popular culture” link is a dead end here. Where’s the UN’s footprint in media, activism, or global consciousness beyond Model UN? Visuals: Only two images (UN flag/emblem, a 1945 map) are embedded. Photos of key moments (e.g., Hammarskjöld’s crash, peacekeeping in action) or charts (budget trends, membership growth) would break up the text wall. Opportunities for Improvement Condense and Prioritize: Trim “History” to key turning points (e.g., 1945 founding, Cold War shifts) and merge redundant sections. A “Key Achievements” summary could spotlight smallpox eradication or SDGs without the sprawl. Update Dynamically: Wikipedia’s strength is real-time edits—add 2025 data (budget, missions) and flag “outdated” stats with a cleanup tag. I’d check X or UN.org for fresh context if asked. Engage Readers: Inject narrative hooks—e.g., “Dag Hammarskjöld died chasing peace in Congo” beats “He died in a plane crash.” Subheadings like “Why the Veto Stalls Peace” could draw eyes. Diversify Voices: Balance “Criticism” with Global South perspectives—e.g., India’s push for Security Council reform or Brazil’s take on climate funding. X posts from non-Western diplomats could source this. Visual Aids: Add a timeline of UN milestones, a map of current peacekeeping missions, or an infographic on budget splits. Wikipedia’s image tools are underused here. Threats to Quality Edit Wars: The “factual accuracy disputed” tag in “Exclusion of Nations” (Taiwan, France) hints at contention. Without resolution, it risks bias or vandalism—common on high-profile pages. Stagnation: If editors don’t update beyond 2024, it’ll lag behind real-world shifts, losing relevance. X chatter about the UN moves faster than this page. Accessibility: The wall-of-text format alienates casual readers. Without a tighter structure or plain-language summary, it’s more academic than public-friendly—ironic for an org about global inclusion. 78.3.92.198 (talk) 17:24, 21 February 2025 (UTC) This does not appear to be a serious proposal for improvement, especially since it's lacking any reliable source. It appears to be one of twelve AI-created "analyses" that the IP address posted. The first one posted initially said "the Wikipedia-style article" before changing the wording to "this article". Space4TCatHerder🖖 20:16, 21 February 2025 (UTC) Wikipedia is already using AI, so this does not violate their rules. Notice that user behind this AI did not edit articles, only posted AI generated critique and let you decide what do about it. 78.0.163.247 (talk) 04:51, 22 February 2025 (UTC) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Artificial_intelligence 78.0.163.247 (talk) 04:55, 22 February 2025 (UTC)