![]() | 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 |
This page and the country page seems to confuse coutry with sovereign state? There are lots of recognised countries like Wales or Scotland which have their own "national football teams" and are universally referred to as "countries" for example in sport (and I reluctantly acknowledge that football is pretty well the only really global soprt) but which are not in the UN in their own right as they are not sovereign states. -- BozMo |talk 09:31, 25 Jun 2004 (UTC)
Somebody should make it...
There seems to be some history missing, or at least I think there is, about Canada's role in the development of the UN. I may be totally out to lunch but I'll see if I can find any references. It'll be something about the formation of the Peace Keepers, Secretary-General Dag Hammarskjöld and Lester Pearson (Secretary for External Affairs of Canada).
I don't have time at the moment to add it, but there is reference [1] to it on the UN site.
>>In the United States, the term is frequently used to mean "make changes that will reduce the UN's power to hamper the United States", while outside the United States the term is usually a code for "make changes that will increase the UN's power over countries, including the United States".<<
I removed this paragraph because I think it's inaccurate, biased, or perhaps both. There's a large constituency in the US for shrinking or eliminating the UN, but I think there's also a large constituency for a stronger UN, and a reasonable minority supporting an actual world government. A safe distinction to make is reduction/enlargement, which is what the remaining text does. -- Beland 20:03, 15 Aug 2004 (UTC)
To the failures, I think the allegations concerning corruption in the "Oil for Food" program for Saddam's Iraq should be listed. Sources: http://www.globalpolicy.org/security/sanction/iraq1/oilforfood/2004/0323unprobe.htm http://www.nationalreview.com/comment/rosett200403101819.asp Whyerd 16:25, 16 Sep 2004 (UTC)
Wikipedians who support at least some aspects of the UN may like to add their names to Wikipedia:Wikipedians/World Citizen. Best wishes to all! Robin Patterson 22:56, 16 Sep 2004 (UTC)
Something needs to be done about the growing similiarities between the Criticism and Reform sections. I like that the one section states the issues succinctly and the other more elaborately, but something should be done to avoid the duplication of materials (or at least the sound of things being duplicated). The Commission on Human Rights' admission of certain nations is one example of this. [[User:Brettz9| Brettz9 (talk)]] 04:17, 4 Oct 2004 (UTC)
I added the Battle of Mogadishu to the UN failure to succsessfully deliver food to Somalia (under criticisms of the UN). Its important to point that out because as a direct result of that battle the United States has been wary of assisting UN peacekeeping forces. TomStar81 02:37, 25 Oct 2004 (UTC)
Can someone tell me the meaning of this sentence: " The peacekeeping scale is designed to be revised every six months and is projected to be near 27% in 2003."? 27% of what? It means the budget in 2000 is 100% and that in 2003 is 73%? (or 27%!?) Thank you in advance.-- Corruptresearcher 13:35, 9 Nov 2004 (UTC)
What follows here is an example how talk pages should NOT be used:
REASONS NOT TO TRUST THE UN:
ONE: The U.N. Peacekeepers have been raping women in Africa
TWO: Kofi Annan (Sec. General) is put up for a NO CONFIDENCE vote
That is totally unfortunate, because Annan, from what I read about him, suggests that he is a corrupt person, totally unaccountable to anybody but himself. I should also mention that Annan and many top ranking UN officals blocked a US Senatorial investigation into the Oil-for-food scandal. 05:39 January 31 2006 (UTC)
The one fatal flaw of the United Nations is that they are totally unaccontable to anybody but themselves. This leaves room for the abuse of power and corruption. If some of you are saying out there, "But they are accontable. They have to account themselves to the Member nations." I say this to you, the majority of the votes in the UN are held by corrupt, authoritarian nations (cough, France) that are totally unaccontable to themselves. 05:59 January 2006 (UTC) [4]{ http://www.heritage.org/Research/MiddleEast/wm217.cfm}
THREE: U.N.'s Security council member (Syria) was elected one of the eleven members THOUGH IT IS ON THE U.S.'s list of nations supporting terrorism!!!
The nation of Israel does not totally disregard human rights, they are just trying to protect their citizens from all of the hostil nations surronding it that are bent on obliterating Israel from the map. 05:42 January 31 2006 (UTC)
FOUR: In the Oil For Food scandal THE U.N. LITERALLY GAVE BILLIONS TO SADDAM!!!
Too the person you made the commit above, DO YOU HONESTLY BELIEVE THAT PILE OF BOLOGNA. The UN is blocking any outside investigation into this scandal, and do you truly believe that a corrupt Annan would allow the truth of this to get out (considering that he was implicated as being involved in this scandal). I am getting tired of people who are unwilling to get the scales off their eyes. 05:49 January 31 2006 (UTC)
FIVE: Several Records state U.N. Officials have taken BRIBES.
SIX: In Rwanda the U.N. let 800 thou people be slaughtered and had their troops taken hostage
This occured because many influential nations hindered the UN from acting effectively Mir 05:36, 9 Jan 2005 (UTC)
SEVEN: U.N. ROASTS BABIES!!!
Kofi Annan was not the secretary general of the UN during the genocide in Rwanda, he was the Under-secretary-General for Peacekeeping Operations (March 93 - Dec 96). As UnderSecGen he was one of three people in charge of the Department of Peacekeeping Operations, making him more directly responsible for Rwanda. Annan became SecGen on Jan first 97.
I have re-added the UN table removed by User:Ed g2s on the argument it was "completely useless" and that "it doesn't provide enough information." I disagree. If it doesn't provide enough information, then add information to the table yourself. And I don't think it is useless. I believe every organization with a flag or seal should have a table. Maybe we should make this into a policy? —02:33, Jan 6, 2005 (UTC)
Have made "UN resolutions" an internal link and written a short intro on this subject (perhaps one of you international lawyers out there could expand this further?) Ian 12:09, 27 Jan 2005 (UTC)
I hope noöne objects to the way I have re-added the mention that Taiwan/Republic of China and the Holy See/Vatican City are the only CIA-recognized first-order sovereign entities which are not members of the UN. The reasons for their non-membership are quite obviously very different, but I think that such a mention deserves note at the very outset of the article. TShilo12 03:48, 11 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Is it appropriate to have a paragraph here on Model United Nations? Is there any organizational connection between the real U.N. and the school programs? If not, I would suggest just a "See also" link, not a full section in an already long article. Isomorphic 20:15, 15 Apr 2005 (UTC)
There is a new image copyright tag for UN images: {{unimage}}. It can be used on copyrighted images released by the UN, provided a reasonable claim for fair use can be made. TreveX talk 03:13, 27 May 2005 (UTC)
Were there any resolutions introduced in UN General Assembly condemning US military actions during/after the US invasion of Iraq ?
User:Siyac 11:10, 9 June 2005 (UTC)
Thank you for your reply.
My question is: were any Resolutions introduced in UN General Assembly, i.e. proposed to be voted upon.
User:Siyac 10:13, 10 June 2005 (UTC)
Frankly I don't know. But like in the law, anyone can be accused of being a child molester, arrested, brought up on charges, only to have the matter dropped before any rendering of a final verdict. Yet the charge can always be made "He was accused of being a child molester". Is this the sense of your question, "Were there any resolutions introduced in UN General Assembly condemning US military actions during/after the US invasion of Iraq ?", considering the General Assembly doesnt even deal with matters the Security Council was created to deal with? Nobs01 15:45, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Thank you for your reply.
Do you mean that UN General Assembly can't deal with any matters witin Security Council's purview ?
User:Siyac 7:49, 13 June 2005 (UTC)
As an Indian I have total disrespect for the U.N. Where was the U.N when Pakistan attacked Kargil,the least they could have done is expelled them.When in late 2001 and early 2002 tensions rose again between India and Pakistan ,and India deployed tropps on the border, U.N was making noise,but when the U.S deploys troops thousands of miles away they do nothing?This organisation is becoming more and more meaningless.
Too the guy who wrote on top of this, I salute you. I am an Alaskan Native and I have no respect whatsoever for the United Nations. For one, because they accepted bribes from Saddam Hussein, which they had put economic sanctions, they have shown that they are totally incapable of any good. 07:54 January 30 2006 (UTC)
I changed "ethnic cleansing campaign" to "genocide" under specific failures. It is factually incorrect and offensive to the victims to classify April 1994 as "ethnic cleansing". The use of the term ethnic cleansing, at least in the context of Rwanda and Srebrenica, among other events, is nothing more than an attempt to deny the actual events.
The NPOV-section template was added on 22nd July 2005 by 62.180.32.97. That is the only edit made to date by that IP address, and there is no discussion or rationale presented on this talk page. Accordingly, I've removed the template. Hv 11:16, 3 August 2005 (UTC)
Anyone who writes about the alleged attack as well-sourced should check his sources first - partisan websites are no good sources.
The BBC shows a different picture:
[11] -- 216.139.155.144 21:38, 18 August 2005 (UTC)
Well, then you should write a more neutral version citing both sources, explaining how they differ and how they agree. These statements were well-sourced in that they agreed with their source, and were properly qualified as allegations. You should try to understand Wikipedia policy better. Democracy Now is a reasonable and respectable source and they think it is credible. As for the "brutal ex-president" this is remarkable in the context of Haiti, as it is quite undeniable and agreed by all serious observers that the level of brutality and political violence in Haiti under Aristide was far less than under his predecessors and successors. The evidence - based on the earlier elections and polls in the US, where anti-Aristidists might be expected to be overrepresented, indicates that most Haitians have been and are "supporters of the brutal ex-president" - thus their view certainly deserves respect and allegations coming from them are encyclopedic material.-- John Z 23:20, 18 August 2005 (UTC)
In the 3rd paragraph, it mentions:
By 1944, there wasn't any People's Republic of China, not until 1949 when the Communist Party took the power over Mainland and Chinese Nationalist ( KMT) withdrew to Taiwan.
These following links supports this correction, one is wikipedia itself
So, actually it was Republic of China, not People's Republic of China
![]() | 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 |
This page and the country page seems to confuse coutry with sovereign state? There are lots of recognised countries like Wales or Scotland which have their own "national football teams" and are universally referred to as "countries" for example in sport (and I reluctantly acknowledge that football is pretty well the only really global soprt) but which are not in the UN in their own right as they are not sovereign states. -- BozMo |talk 09:31, 25 Jun 2004 (UTC)
Somebody should make it...
There seems to be some history missing, or at least I think there is, about Canada's role in the development of the UN. I may be totally out to lunch but I'll see if I can find any references. It'll be something about the formation of the Peace Keepers, Secretary-General Dag Hammarskjöld and Lester Pearson (Secretary for External Affairs of Canada).
I don't have time at the moment to add it, but there is reference [1] to it on the UN site.
>>In the United States, the term is frequently used to mean "make changes that will reduce the UN's power to hamper the United States", while outside the United States the term is usually a code for "make changes that will increase the UN's power over countries, including the United States".<<
I removed this paragraph because I think it's inaccurate, biased, or perhaps both. There's a large constituency in the US for shrinking or eliminating the UN, but I think there's also a large constituency for a stronger UN, and a reasonable minority supporting an actual world government. A safe distinction to make is reduction/enlargement, which is what the remaining text does. -- Beland 20:03, 15 Aug 2004 (UTC)
To the failures, I think the allegations concerning corruption in the "Oil for Food" program for Saddam's Iraq should be listed. Sources: http://www.globalpolicy.org/security/sanction/iraq1/oilforfood/2004/0323unprobe.htm http://www.nationalreview.com/comment/rosett200403101819.asp Whyerd 16:25, 16 Sep 2004 (UTC)
Wikipedians who support at least some aspects of the UN may like to add their names to Wikipedia:Wikipedians/World Citizen. Best wishes to all! Robin Patterson 22:56, 16 Sep 2004 (UTC)
Something needs to be done about the growing similiarities between the Criticism and Reform sections. I like that the one section states the issues succinctly and the other more elaborately, but something should be done to avoid the duplication of materials (or at least the sound of things being duplicated). The Commission on Human Rights' admission of certain nations is one example of this. [[User:Brettz9| Brettz9 (talk)]] 04:17, 4 Oct 2004 (UTC)
I added the Battle of Mogadishu to the UN failure to succsessfully deliver food to Somalia (under criticisms of the UN). Its important to point that out because as a direct result of that battle the United States has been wary of assisting UN peacekeeping forces. TomStar81 02:37, 25 Oct 2004 (UTC)
Can someone tell me the meaning of this sentence: " The peacekeeping scale is designed to be revised every six months and is projected to be near 27% in 2003."? 27% of what? It means the budget in 2000 is 100% and that in 2003 is 73%? (or 27%!?) Thank you in advance.-- Corruptresearcher 13:35, 9 Nov 2004 (UTC)
What follows here is an example how talk pages should NOT be used:
REASONS NOT TO TRUST THE UN:
ONE: The U.N. Peacekeepers have been raping women in Africa
TWO: Kofi Annan (Sec. General) is put up for a NO CONFIDENCE vote
That is totally unfortunate, because Annan, from what I read about him, suggests that he is a corrupt person, totally unaccountable to anybody but himself. I should also mention that Annan and many top ranking UN officals blocked a US Senatorial investigation into the Oil-for-food scandal. 05:39 January 31 2006 (UTC)
The one fatal flaw of the United Nations is that they are totally unaccontable to anybody but themselves. This leaves room for the abuse of power and corruption. If some of you are saying out there, "But they are accontable. They have to account themselves to the Member nations." I say this to you, the majority of the votes in the UN are held by corrupt, authoritarian nations (cough, France) that are totally unaccontable to themselves. 05:59 January 2006 (UTC) [4]{ http://www.heritage.org/Research/MiddleEast/wm217.cfm}
THREE: U.N.'s Security council member (Syria) was elected one of the eleven members THOUGH IT IS ON THE U.S.'s list of nations supporting terrorism!!!
The nation of Israel does not totally disregard human rights, they are just trying to protect their citizens from all of the hostil nations surronding it that are bent on obliterating Israel from the map. 05:42 January 31 2006 (UTC)
FOUR: In the Oil For Food scandal THE U.N. LITERALLY GAVE BILLIONS TO SADDAM!!!
Too the person you made the commit above, DO YOU HONESTLY BELIEVE THAT PILE OF BOLOGNA. The UN is blocking any outside investigation into this scandal, and do you truly believe that a corrupt Annan would allow the truth of this to get out (considering that he was implicated as being involved in this scandal). I am getting tired of people who are unwilling to get the scales off their eyes. 05:49 January 31 2006 (UTC)
FIVE: Several Records state U.N. Officials have taken BRIBES.
SIX: In Rwanda the U.N. let 800 thou people be slaughtered and had their troops taken hostage
This occured because many influential nations hindered the UN from acting effectively Mir 05:36, 9 Jan 2005 (UTC)
SEVEN: U.N. ROASTS BABIES!!!
Kofi Annan was not the secretary general of the UN during the genocide in Rwanda, he was the Under-secretary-General for Peacekeeping Operations (March 93 - Dec 96). As UnderSecGen he was one of three people in charge of the Department of Peacekeeping Operations, making him more directly responsible for Rwanda. Annan became SecGen on Jan first 97.
I have re-added the UN table removed by User:Ed g2s on the argument it was "completely useless" and that "it doesn't provide enough information." I disagree. If it doesn't provide enough information, then add information to the table yourself. And I don't think it is useless. I believe every organization with a flag or seal should have a table. Maybe we should make this into a policy? —02:33, Jan 6, 2005 (UTC)
Have made "UN resolutions" an internal link and written a short intro on this subject (perhaps one of you international lawyers out there could expand this further?) Ian 12:09, 27 Jan 2005 (UTC)
I hope noöne objects to the way I have re-added the mention that Taiwan/Republic of China and the Holy See/Vatican City are the only CIA-recognized first-order sovereign entities which are not members of the UN. The reasons for their non-membership are quite obviously very different, but I think that such a mention deserves note at the very outset of the article. TShilo12 03:48, 11 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Is it appropriate to have a paragraph here on Model United Nations? Is there any organizational connection between the real U.N. and the school programs? If not, I would suggest just a "See also" link, not a full section in an already long article. Isomorphic 20:15, 15 Apr 2005 (UTC)
There is a new image copyright tag for UN images: {{unimage}}. It can be used on copyrighted images released by the UN, provided a reasonable claim for fair use can be made. TreveX talk 03:13, 27 May 2005 (UTC)
Were there any resolutions introduced in UN General Assembly condemning US military actions during/after the US invasion of Iraq ?
User:Siyac 11:10, 9 June 2005 (UTC)
Thank you for your reply.
My question is: were any Resolutions introduced in UN General Assembly, i.e. proposed to be voted upon.
User:Siyac 10:13, 10 June 2005 (UTC)
Frankly I don't know. But like in the law, anyone can be accused of being a child molester, arrested, brought up on charges, only to have the matter dropped before any rendering of a final verdict. Yet the charge can always be made "He was accused of being a child molester". Is this the sense of your question, "Were there any resolutions introduced in UN General Assembly condemning US military actions during/after the US invasion of Iraq ?", considering the General Assembly doesnt even deal with matters the Security Council was created to deal with? Nobs01 15:45, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Thank you for your reply.
Do you mean that UN General Assembly can't deal with any matters witin Security Council's purview ?
User:Siyac 7:49, 13 June 2005 (UTC)
As an Indian I have total disrespect for the U.N. Where was the U.N when Pakistan attacked Kargil,the least they could have done is expelled them.When in late 2001 and early 2002 tensions rose again between India and Pakistan ,and India deployed tropps on the border, U.N was making noise,but when the U.S deploys troops thousands of miles away they do nothing?This organisation is becoming more and more meaningless.
Too the guy who wrote on top of this, I salute you. I am an Alaskan Native and I have no respect whatsoever for the United Nations. For one, because they accepted bribes from Saddam Hussein, which they had put economic sanctions, they have shown that they are totally incapable of any good. 07:54 January 30 2006 (UTC)
I changed "ethnic cleansing campaign" to "genocide" under specific failures. It is factually incorrect and offensive to the victims to classify April 1994 as "ethnic cleansing". The use of the term ethnic cleansing, at least in the context of Rwanda and Srebrenica, among other events, is nothing more than an attempt to deny the actual events.
The NPOV-section template was added on 22nd July 2005 by 62.180.32.97. That is the only edit made to date by that IP address, and there is no discussion or rationale presented on this talk page. Accordingly, I've removed the template. Hv 11:16, 3 August 2005 (UTC)
Anyone who writes about the alleged attack as well-sourced should check his sources first - partisan websites are no good sources.
The BBC shows a different picture:
[11] -- 216.139.155.144 21:38, 18 August 2005 (UTC)
Well, then you should write a more neutral version citing both sources, explaining how they differ and how they agree. These statements were well-sourced in that they agreed with their source, and were properly qualified as allegations. You should try to understand Wikipedia policy better. Democracy Now is a reasonable and respectable source and they think it is credible. As for the "brutal ex-president" this is remarkable in the context of Haiti, as it is quite undeniable and agreed by all serious observers that the level of brutality and political violence in Haiti under Aristide was far less than under his predecessors and successors. The evidence - based on the earlier elections and polls in the US, where anti-Aristidists might be expected to be overrepresented, indicates that most Haitians have been and are "supporters of the brutal ex-president" - thus their view certainly deserves respect and allegations coming from them are encyclopedic material.-- John Z 23:20, 18 August 2005 (UTC)
In the 3rd paragraph, it mentions:
By 1944, there wasn't any People's Republic of China, not until 1949 when the Communist Party took the power over Mainland and Chinese Nationalist ( KMT) withdrew to Taiwan.
These following links supports this correction, one is wikipedia itself
So, actually it was Republic of China, not People's Republic of China