Talk:Criticism of the United Nations/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1

United Nations vs Criticism of the United Nations : a clear example of content forking

In order to prevent forking of this important discussion, please discuss at Talk:United Nations#United Nations vs Criticism of the United Nations : a clear example of content forking. Emmanuelm (talk) 12:19, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

I oppose any merge or deletion, because although the United Nations is an important global institution, it does not satisfy the criteria of a State, but does get criticized by most countries as if it were a real state. See for example criticism of the Roman Catholic Church : the Catholic Church is a quasi-State institution that gets criticized in the same way that the United Nations is criticized. ADM (talk) 12:52, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

Chart of UNSC resolutions

In the chart of UNSC resolutions, where does the insane number of 5,000,000 deaths in the Arab-Israeli conflict come from? The corresponding article has totally different (and far more realistic) numbers. Dovi (talk) 18:23, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

The whole chart is original research. It does a strange comparison between fatality figures and UN intervention. It is not even close to NPOV for that reason. Thus i've cut it. (again) --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 20:17, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

Tibetans, Armenians, Kurds, Tamils & Palestinians, Plus Alan Dershowitz

These groups are all seeking self-determination but it is being denied to them. They have all used terrorism in support of this goal. It is their inalienable right to do so, to struggle against racist and colonial regimes under international law. You may disagree with them morally and/or tactically but you can't say they are terrorists because the UN Conventions on International Terrorism preclude those fighting racist and colonial regimes. Furthermore, China, Turkey, Sri Lanka and Israel all use extreme terrorism to suppress these populations. In Iraq, under Saddam Hussien, Chemical weapons where used against the Kurds. In all cases, the West ignores their so called Responsibility to Protect Doctrine. On the other hand, decisive aid was/is being provided by the west to fund these atrocities.

Most of the criticism of the United Nations page could be transfered to the Alan Dershwoitz page and it should be nominated for deletion. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.180.61.194 (talk) 21:46, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

After reading all that, I am confused. What exactly is your point? You refer to the plights of peoples, then ask for this page to be deleted. -- 李博杰  | —Talk contribs email 05:47, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

Untitled

"Alan Dershowitz noted that while Tibetans, Kurds, and Turkish Armenians all desire "national liberation," the United Nations has only officially recognized Palestinian claims to "national liberation" and allows representatives of the Palestinian cause to speak at the UN. The difference between the three groups and the Palestinians is that the Palestinians use terrorism as a tactic for getting their voice heard while the other three do not."

Am I the Only one who has ever heard of Kurdish Separatists carrying out bombings in Istanbul and Izmir? (188.74.93.166 (talk) 19:17, 10 October 2009 (UTC))

I would also point out that this appears to be OR. I do not fully understand wikipedia protocol but i understand it is impolite to delete the content. This whole section reeks of OR and anti-Palestinian intent. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.68.160.115 (talk) 08:34, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

RE: "Claims about ties to New Age and occult groups"

This section was raised at the Fringe Theories Noticeboard (see discussion here). That discussion resulted in an agreement that mentioning these claims essentially gave Undue weight to Fringe conspiracy theories. For this reason, I am deleting the section in question. Blueboar (talk) 17:51, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

Removal of this article -- take two

Discussed here. Emmanuelm (talk) 14:20, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

Proposed restructuring

Take one:

  1. Move general complaints and criticism (e.g. concerns about the structure of the security council) to the main article. This may require some rewriting for WP:WEIGHT purposes.
  2. Retain some information in this article and rename it to "Controversies involving the United Nations" or something similar which does not imply that Wikipedia has an opinion on the topic.
  3. Explicitly link Israel, Palestine, and the United Nations, which has a full article on its own and has some general redundancies with some of the content in this article. It's a controversy, that's no joke, but if we have a full article on it we should just link it rather than repeat ourselves, especially on a controversial topic where independent coverage can lead to problems.

Just a place to start with discussions. SDY (talk) 23:30, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

My concern is having one central location to deal with controversies about the UN. So rather than delete all mention of "general complaints and criticisms" I would be satisfied with a short summary or mention that links back to the main article. Similarly, a short summary of Israel, Palestine, and the United Nations with the main article template would be fitting, I think. AzureFury (talk | contribs) 02:05, 16 April 2010 (UTC)
Are you guys saying that no one ever expressed praises for the UN? Presuming I find one source, where do I put it? Emmanuelm (talk) 03:08, 16 April 2010 (UTC)
Perhaps we could structure this like a movie review, with the positive first, and then the negative. AzureFury (talk | contribs) 03:30, 16 April 2010 (UTC)
Perhaps we could create Praises of the United Nations? And, of course, Neutral opinions about the United Nations, Half-hearted sort-of-criticism of the United Nations, Cynical pseudo-praises of the United nations, etc. Or, perhaps, you Azure could admit this makes no sense and move criticisms, praises and other opinions, side by side, to the appropriate articles. That's the spirit of NPOV. Emmanuelm (talk) 12:01, 17 April 2010 (UTC)
You know, they have articles devoted to criticisms of people too. They just renamed them to "Public image of". Public image of John McCain, Public image of Sarah Palin, Public image of Barack Obama, etc. Very sneaky. You won't ever convince me that criticism focused articles are against policy while so many of them exist elsewhere. AzureFury (talk | contribs) 19:53, 17 April 2010 (UTC)
Praise and criticism can equally be covered in a "public image" article. I frankly think that they're just a bunch of gossip and that they should also be merged with the main article, but they're much easier to defend since they only tempt WP:CFORK, not WP:NPOV directly. SDY (talk) 01:25, 18 April 2010 (UTC)
We're going in circles. You don't like something about Wiki and you want to start enforcement of your wanna-be rule here. Is it such a surprise that your imaginary rule is not compelling? Get consensus for WP:CRITICISM AT WP:CRITICISM, 'cause you ain't gettin it here. AzureFury (talk | contribs) 01:41, 18 April 2010 (UTC)
"Not a rule" doesn't have any relationship to "not a good idea." It seems like we have a disagreement. Frankly, I just don't care that much, and if you're that convinced that having a dedicated smear page is important, I have no interest in continuing this discussion. SDY (talk) 02:30, 18 April 2010 (UTC)
Azure, I agree with SDY. Keep your fork and make sure it never contains any positive opinion so that it remains totally neutral. Emmanuelm (talk) 02:31, 23 April 2010 (UTC)
See WP:CIVILITY. AzureFury (talk | contribs) 03:27, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

Removal of this article - take three

After six months without debate on this talk page, does anyone still oppose the deletion of this obvious fork after moving its content to the appropriate articles? Emmanuelm (talk) 13:15, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

Yup. AzureFury (talk | contribs) 15:06, 27 October 2010 (UTC)
Yup. --GHcool (talk) 16:48, 27 October 2010 (UTC)
See WP:AFD. I'm not gonna let you game the system and try to sneak a speedy delete or something by while no one's watching. AzureFury (talk | contribs) 17:21, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

Fury, I am glad to see you faithful at your post. Emmanuelm (talk) 13:10, 30 October 2010 (UTC)

I also manned the wall around Criticism of Judaism, which got AFDed and overwhelmingly kept. AzureFury (talk | contribs) 17:53, 30 October 2010 (UTC)

Don Habibi source

I removed the following content:

Professor Don Habibi of the University of North Carolina at Wilmington lamented the limited reports on Sudan and Darfur, in contrast to reports on Israel. He criticized the United Nations, among other organizations, for their “obsession” with Israel, to the exclusion of other human rights violators. Habibi wrote: "This obsession would make sense if Israel was among the worst human rights offenders in the world. But by any objective measure this is not the case. Even with the harshest interpretation of Israeli’s policies, which takes no account of cause and effect, and Israel’s predicament of facing existential war, there can be no comparison to the civil wars in Sudan, Algeria, or Congo."[1]

Refs
  1. ^ Human Rights NGOs and the Neglect of Sudan. Discoverthenetworks.org. Retrieved on 2012-07-12.

The reference sources the content to discoverthenetwork.org, an unreliable source. The content is a paper written by Don Habibi, without a publication listed. This paper appears to be a primary source, without any secondary sources to establish due weight. Further research indicates that this was indeed published in some journal: "Journal of Human Rights", though it's not clear which journal that is, since there is no journal with that exact name. Most likely it is "The International Journal of Human Rights", but there are other journals with similar names. Based on that information, inclusion is WP:UNDUE, as no secondary sources have been used to establish due weight. aprock (talk) 19:13, 10 February 2013 (UTC)

Note, this content was introduced in this edit, and appears to have been part of a series of edits which culminated in a topic ban for that editor. This appears to be a case of misusing primary sources, contray to WP:PRIMARY. aprock (talk) 23:37, 10 February 2013 (UTC)
Why do you say it's an unreliable source? In addition to wherever else it may be published, it has been published by Discover the Networks, a project created by the David Horowitz Freedom Center, an established think tank. You may dislike the source and disagree with their views, but that doesn't mean it isn't permitted. The source is an analysis, but this does not make it a primary source; indeed, it is a secondary source.
I'm not sure what relevance the mention of the ban that editor received is. I reviewed the documentation and see no references to this particular content or this article. It appears to involve the particular behavior of that individual editor, nothing relevant to this content. — Fishicus (talk) 00:50, 11 February 2013 (UTC)
Regarding David Horowitz/discoverthenetwork.org, this has been discussed at WP:RSN: [1], [2]. Polemical sites are generally not reliable for anything beyond their own views. Regarding the editing behavior of topic banned editors, I don't think it's appropriate to rehash such issues on talk page articles. If you want to continue that discussion, my talk page is a much more appropriate place to discuss that issue further. My reading of the situation here is that there are no secondary sources here to support the content, rendering it WP:UNDUE. aprock (talk) 07:17, 11 February 2013 (UTC)
I've reviewed both discussions. The first one concludes that use of the source is alright as long as it's not the main source for an article, something which goes against your assertions. Though two comments is not notable enough to use in support of any position. The latter doesn't demonstrate a consensus against use. There are approximately as many statements in favor as against. A number of editors also asserted that this source has published fabricated stories, though when asked, they were unable to provide any relevant examples. If you have any specific reasons against inclusion, please explain them, preferably without simply providing a link. — Fishicus (talk) 08:44, 11 February 2013 (UTC)
Your repeated refusal to provide any specific explanations when I've asked for them in multiple instances or to respond directly to the points I make is beginning to seem like a sort of evasion/refusal to engage in a constructive discussion. I would appreciate if you would respond to the points I make and provide explanations in a constructive manner. — Fishicus (talk) 08:49, 11 February 2013 (UTC)

Communist front.

Hi. I think we should note that one particuarly notable controversy about the UN was due to large amounts of suspicions that the UN may have actually been founded for the purpose of spreading Marxism internationally. There are a few sources to that claim, anyway, which I can post assuming you think that's a reasonable approach. Weedle McHairybug (talk) 14:34, 12 March 2013 (UTC)

During the cold war, Soviet-bloc personnel had some entrenched positions within the U.N. bureaucracy, but I'm not sure what saying that the U.N. was overall a "Communist conspiracy" would mean, or who other than the John Birch Society would believe it (and they thought Eisenhower was a Communist).
In any case, before the rise of "third-worldism" in the late 1960s, the U.N. was probably overall more useful to the U.S. than to the Soviets (notably in the Korean war)... AnonMoos (talk) 12:40, 17 October 2014 (UTC)

Alternative

Is there any resistance to the United Nations? If so why is there no schism? Wouldn't an opposition be more attractive to the countries were it has failed? --124.149.111.143 (talk) 13:54, 6 October 2014 (UTC)

Not sure what you mean -- some of the most powerful countries have entrenched powers in the current United Nations, and would be unlikely to give them up to join an alternative organization where they had less power, and any rival to the U.N. without the membership of major powers would not be too credible. There are all kinds of regional groupings and groupings of countries with common interests, and much work is done in these forums where appropriate, but they're not direct rivals to the U.N... AnonMoos (talk) 12:46, 17 October 2014 (UTC)

Future

Since the United Nations is largly dependent on the United States, what happens when American imperialism ends? Would the U.N become a federation or will it be forced to close down?--120.151.106.44 (talk) 08:48, 1 November 2014 (UTC)

Cholera

Should be something about the Haiti cholera scandal, and the U.N.'s chronic inability to tell the truth about it... AnonMoos (talk) 12:49, 17 October 2014 (UTC)

The general at the time commited suicide for his troops molesting the Haitian children, so I don't think its that covered.--120.151.106.44 (talk) 09:00, 1 November 2014 (UTC)

Other criticisms

Should mention other common criticisms, such as: 1) A bunch of petty dictatorships and tyrannical regimes banding together to outvote democratic nations (very common in past decades). 2) Inefficient money-wasting bureaucracies. 3) No transparency -- allegations of wrongdoing and corruption by whistleblowers seem to disappear into a bureaucratic maze, and the response emerges much later in the form of very vaguely-worded reports which do not result in any ascertainable concrete action being taken... AnonMoos (talk) 01:37, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

re: (1) How about superpowers (mis)using their veto power to single-handedly override democratic nations and petty dictatorships alike? (2) Show me efficient money-saving bureaucracies anywhere in the world. One would certainly worth mentioning in wikipedia (3) Is there a legal/criminal base for investigations of such allegations? Is there a wikipedia article about this? Yceren Loq (talk) 02:12, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

While the UN has facilities for the protection of women and children, it also has the sexist attitude that men don't matter and actively encourages this ideal by only funding womens and childrens groups, at the detriment of men the world over. Trumpy (talk) 10:49, 7 January 2015 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Criticism of the United Nations. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 07:53, 29 January 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Criticism of the United Nations. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 13:21, 21 July 2016 (UTC)

Apparently, the UN said that Jews do not exist. Surely this can't be correct

At the moment, the article says "UN documents of the period denied the existence of the Jews". How can anyone deny that Jews exist? I find it very hard to believe that the UN said this. Orthogonal1 (talk) 00:21, 1 November 2016 (UTC)

Seems to referring to history denial, but very awkwardly. See Temple Denial etc. Some have claimed that modern Jews are descendants of Khazars with no connections to ancient Judaism (not sure whether that's been repeated by a UN body, but wouldn't be too surprised if so). AnonMoos (talk) 17:51, 2 November 2016 (UTC)
Ah, okay, makes sense. I don't know how to access the listed source, so I'll remove the denial of the Jews' existence part but keep the rest. Orthogonal1 (talk) 06:25, 3 November 2016 (UTC)
I'll find the source and quote it when I do. --GHcool (talk) 18:14, 3 November 2016 (UTC)

Social Constructionist Ideology

The United Nations Alliance of Civilizations is a United Nations initiative that aims to improve understanding and co-operative relations among nations and peoples across cultures and religions and, in the process, to help counter forces that fuel polarisation and extremism, including ‘clash of civilisations’ theories that the world is made up of mutually exclusive cultures, religions, or civilisations, historically distinct and destined for confrontation. The United Nations established the alliance in 2005, on the co-sponsorship of the prime ministers of Spain and Turkey.

Here we have a body that is pressuring the alliance’s "four main fields of action: education, youth, migration and the media". The ideology makes a difference ("a miss is as good as a mile"). Check out the UNAC newsletters. Yonk (talk) 21:36, 23 May 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on Criticism of the United Nations. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 03:28, 26 May 2017 (UTC)

Funding and Voting

More weight in the article should be given to why the US pays so much while other large-populated and well off countries like China, Japan, and UK pay so little. Not to mention tiny countries paying virtually nothing. Also, why should some puny country with 50,000 people a vote equal in influence to large populated countries? Nutso. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 199.112.128.15 (talk) 22:28, 28 September 2016 (UTC)

In my opinion, possibly because countries in stage 3 or 4 of the demographic transition, which have most of the population, would outvote LLDCs in places like Africa and South America if votes were based on population. Also to not discourage tiny countries from joining the UN. Here's my criticism of the UN: Why would the UN meet the PLO's demands and agree to create the State of Palestine? Not only are they rewarding criminals, but the PLO was a terrorism group, so the UN, by meeting the demands of the terrorist group, letting them get what they wanted, showed terrorists around the whole world that terrorism works. By doing this, the UN encouraged terrorists. Also, the UN doesn't know what it's doing in LLDCs because it's run entirely by people from MDCs who don't know anything about LLDCs or how to keep them stable because they've never lived there. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.235.102.246 (talk) 15:44, 28 October 2016 (UTC)

There are at least three different putative problems being discussed here. Question is: is Wikipedia a forum for discussion or an encyclopedia? If it is an encyclopedia then it is necessary to identify sources and give weight to topics whilst putting aside the personal views of the contributor. And, here, these three issues need to be teased out.

In terms of the proportionality of voting in the UN, I am surprised there is no comment here that, out of the 200-odd members of the UN, the least populous 101-odd represent a majority in this organisation whilst representing a small minority of the global population. This then challenges the idea of democracy and one-vote-one-value. ON the other hand, if UN votes were proportional to population, a united south and south east Asia could take it over entirely. So the respective weaknesses and strengths of different approaches could be outlined. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 144.139.113.152 (talk) 03:23, 16 June 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Criticism of the United Nations. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 17:17, 14 August 2017 (UTC)

Ukraine

Should it not be mentioned that the UN: - Failed to restore the borders of Ukraine in 2014 (is this stated in the UN charter?) - Failed to de-escalate the situation - Failed to prevent the Ukraine war and failed to act in the interest of the civilians - Succeeded in arranging the Ukraine grain-deal

Stunned that this isn't mentioned here... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.118.94.49 (talk) 16:49, 21 December 2022 (UTC)

Table of contents not showing up

There's no TOC for this article even though there should be with more than four headings. I just tried forcing it using

but to no avail. Can anyone figure out what's going on? 20WattSphere (talk) 23:45, 15 April 2023 (UTC)

Ah, I think the wikipedia redesign has fooled me - TOC is on the left.... 20WattSphere (talk) 01:22, 16 April 2023 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Criticism_of_the_United_Nations/Archive_1&oldid=1165437524"