Talk:United Nations

Skip to table of contents

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the United Nations article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Article policies

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Archives: Index, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10: 3 months

This article is written in British English with Oxford spelling (colour, realize, organization, analyse; note that -ize is used instead of -ise) and some terms that are used in it may be different or absent from other varieties of English. According to the relevant style guide, this should not be changed without broad consensus.

This page is not a forum for general discussion about United Nations. Any such comments may be removed or refactored. Please limit discussion to improvement of this article. You may wish to ask factual questions about United Nations at the Reference desk.

United Nations was one of the Social sciences and society good articles, but it has been removed from the list. There are suggestions below for improving the article to meet the good article criteria. Once these issues have been addressed, the article can be renominated. Editors may also seek a reassessment of the decision if they believe there was a mistake.

Article milestones
Date	Process	Result
August 15, 2004	Peer review	Reviewed
October 18, 2006	Featured article candidate	Not promoted
December 19, 2006	Good article nominee	Not listed
August 9, 2007	Good article nominee	Not listed
October 2, 2008	Peer review	Reviewed
December 4, 2013	Peer review	Reviewed
January 12, 2014	Good article nominee	Listed
October 15, 2024	Good article reassessment	Delisted
A fact from this article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page in the "Did you know?" column on January 19, 2014. The text of the entry was: Did you know ... that Poland is considered a founding member of the United Nations* despite not having attended the first meeting?*
Facts from this article were featured on Wikipedia's Main Page in the "On this day..." column on October 24, 2004, June 26, 2007, June 26, 2009, June 26, 2011, June 26, 2014, June 26, 2015, June 26, 2018, June 26, 2020, and June 26, 2023.
This article was on the Article Collaboration and Improvement Drive for the week of September 10, 2006.
Current status: Delisted good article

International relations: United Nations Top‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject International relations, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of International relations on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.International relationsWikipedia:WikiProject International relationsTemplate:WikiProject International relationsInternational relations
Top	This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by WikiProject United Nations (assessed as Top-importance).

Organizations Top‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Organizations, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Organizations on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.OrganizationsWikipedia:WikiProject OrganizationsTemplate:WikiProject Organizationsorganization
Top	This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale.

Human rights High‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Human rights, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Human rights on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Human rightsWikipedia:WikiProject Human rightsTemplate:WikiProject Human rightsHuman rights
High	This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.

Politics High‑importance

	Politics portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Politics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of politics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PoliticsWikipedia:WikiProject PoliticsTemplate:WikiProject Politicspolitics
High	This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.

Archives

This page has archives. Sections older than 92 days may be automatically archived by when more than 4 sections are present.

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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.

Media bias cases in BJP

Some cases on BJP in any state of India 124.123.174.130 (talk) 17:02, 2 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Articles criticizing the United Nations from a Chinese perspective

Some articles criticizing the United Nations from China’s perspective.[1] Hhhlx (talk) 04:50, 15 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

That article seems very positive about the United Nations. CMD (talk) 15:14, 15 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]
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)[reply]

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

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

• 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)[reply]