Nothing Special   »   [go: up one dir, main page]

Jump to content

Talk:United Nations

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Former good articleUnited 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.
Did You KnowOn this day...Article Collaboration and Improvement Drive Article milestones
DateProcessResult
August 15, 2004Peer reviewReviewed
October 18, 2006Featured article candidateNot promoted
December 19, 2006Good article nomineeNot listed
August 9, 2007Good article nomineeNot listed
October 2, 2008Peer reviewReviewed
December 4, 2013Peer reviewReviewed
January 12, 2014Good article nomineeListed
October 15, 2024Good article reassessmentDelisted
Did You Know 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?
On this day... 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.
Article Collaboration and Improvement Drive This article was on the Article Collaboration and Improvement Drive for the week of September 10, 2006.
Current status: Delisted good article

GA Reassessment

[edit]

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) · WatchWatch article reassessment pageMost recent review
Result: Delisted. Charlotte (Queen of Heartstalk) 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

[edit]

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

[edit]

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]

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. Brandmeistertalk 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]