Talk:United Nations Security Council/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

POV

However, questions still remain. How did such traditional UN stalwarts as Canada and the Nordic countries get left out of a plan that would leave them on the sidelines but elevate larger developing countries, some of which represent threats to international peace and security? Also these liberal democracies have wholeheartedly adopted Universal Human Rights while many of the proposed new members have a history of abuses towards their own populations.

I've removed this statement as it hardly seems NPOV. At the very least it's very poorly written since it's in the first person. However while it may have some valid points that are worth including, it also misses some other relevant points especially in comparison to current permanent member states. For example, German and Japan clearly have better domestic and international human rights records then China and Russia, and arguably so does Brazil and India. In fact Germany and Japan arguably have better human rights records then the USA. Also, it's highly arguable if any of these countries are worse threats to international peace and security then the USA, China and the UK. In fact, claiming a country is a threat to international peace and security is loaded IMHO and should be avoided whenever possible. In any case, if we're going to get into I'm better then you arguments, what about New Zealand or numerous other countries? For that matter, what about Canada's treatment of the native population? What about the issues between within Nordic countries (such as Denmark) regarding immigrants? What about the issues such as Norway's whaling and reported bribing of small countries to support their whaling? Also, I'm quite unsure about this but how do Nordic countries compare to others when it comes to their acceptance and treatement of refugees? All these apply to both human rights issues and international peace and security Nil Einne 13:49, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

Removal of the contradict template.

After revamping the African section on candidacy (and most of the membership reform sections), I have removed the contradict template tag at the top of the page.

If anyone wishes to dispute this, please discuss it here before reverting it.

Thanks.--Dan ^(Talk)|@ 17:05, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

Naming the Security Council Ambassadors?

I was wondering if anyone would agree that putting the names of the individual Permanent Representatives somewhere in this article, or say, List of UN Permanent Representatives by country? I wouldn't be able to contribute much as I'm not that knowledgeable but I thought it important, and was surprised to find only an article on John R. Bolton, making an article for Emyr Jones Parry myself. -Erolos 09:43, 18 October 2005 (UTC)

• So, it would be an article to list heads of mission of the p5? Perhaps if it were to be the heads of mission for all the ambassadors of the sc, it would make a little more sense. It could even be included on this page. Mystache 15:37, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

Iran

I removed Iran from the list of non-member nuclear powers. Someone was getting abit ahead of the news on that one.--Sennaista 19:40, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

Countries

In the Security Council Template the 2006 countries, were not updated so I added them. Also Greece appeared before Ghana, so I changed it.

Nigeria

Currently, there's some tourist-brochure puffery of Nigeria's importance, without any mention of the numerous obvious negative factors which might impact Nigeria's chances of gaining some kind of permanent council seat. Either the exclusively positive glowing spin has to be diminished somewhat, or there must be some mention made of counterbalancing negatives. AnonMoos 17:46, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

Reform section too large

Can we cut the size of the reform section and move a bunch of it to the main article for that? It seems really long and throws off the balance of this article. The SC has been around for over 50 years but some of the reforms are much newer and having more about them than the SC itself gives it undue weight. gren グレン ^? 08:02, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

Leadership?

It's darned hard to find out, for example, who's going to be chairing the council in, say, three months. Since the leadership rotates, something on this would be nice to see.

Removal of Security Council translations

I don't think that the translations for the UNSC are really relevent and are pointless. If I really wanted to know what their name was in another language, then I could just scan the list at the left hand side for the name of the article in the appropriate language. I mean, it's not rocket science and this is the English Wikipedia.--Dan ^(Talk)|@ 19:48, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

I think it is relevant and should be included. This is the English Wikipedia, yes, but not the ignorant-because-English-is-the-only-language-that-matters Wikipedia. —Nightstallion (?) ^{Seen this already?} 08:15, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

Language template poll

A poll as to whether or not the language template should be included in this article is being conducted at Talk:United_Nations_Commission_on_Human_Rights#Poll Raul654 19:41, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

Brazil references

Can anyone provide a reference for the first bullet of why Brazil may have a strong chance at acquiring a permanent seat? "They sent troops to defeat the Axis and were meant to get a seat when the UN was created," is not very informative for the curious. Were all nations that sent troops to be on it? A link or something would be fine. --will 09:12, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

This has been moved from the top in keeping with the chronological nature of talk pages.

http://www.globalpolicy.org/security/reform/cluster1/2004/0922permbids.htm

http://www.globalpolicy.org/security/reform/index.htm

There are further links in those pages which discuss reasons behind why the G4 believe they deserve SC status individually.--Dan ^(Talk)|@ 12:58, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

sc reforms

What about some stuff about Security Council reforms, democratization and non-veto system???? UN Security Council refom.Mac 11:16 Mar 14, 2003 (UTC)

Uh, this is an article about the UN, not abt unachievable fantasies.

See Reform of the United Nations. That content on UNSC reform proposals should probably be merged somehow. Rad Racer 20:26, 21 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Yes, merge it. Skinnyweed 22:50, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

---

---

I'm interested in knowing more about the security council resolution. Particularly, I'd appreciate if someone could ellaborate on the legal binding-ness of SC resolutions. The mention to the ICJ's Namibia case in the current version is something I still cannot understand. Isn't that about UN General Assembly resolutions? Thanks, Tomos 00:59 2 Jun 2003 (UTC)

---

Member list

My edit of 12:33, 19 Feb 2005 updated the member list to:

The elected members for the 2005 calendar year are:

1. Algeria
2. Argentina
3. Benin
4. Brazil
5. Denmark
6. Greece
7. Japan
8. Philippines
9. Romania
10. Tanzania

But this was reverted by somebody one minute later. Is there any reason for using an outdated list?

Question 12/30/05 8:00 PM EST

Um, why is Greece in Western Europe?

It's Western Europe and others... Greece is aligned with the EU and NATO rather then Russia and the formet Soviet Union so it's part of Western Europe in this regard Nil Einne 09:54, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

People's Republic of China

I have had little luck in finding the date that the People's Republic of China was admitted to the security council. I'M pretty sure it's in the 60's but not 100% as there is no infomation. Any help would be great.

It was in 1971. Thats right. --IncMan 12:22, May 22, 2005 (UTC)

Text vs practice

In SC, abstention is not considered a veto. This is clearly in violation of UN Charter: According to UN Charter, a SC resolution is adopted by 9 concurring votes, including 5 permanent SC members. Concurring means approval.

Is this correct ?

Yes it's correct. But have in mind that UNSC practice is that an abstention is not considered a veto, and legally speaking it is not, even though the Charter says otherwise. --Cybbe 18:45, May 23, 2005 (UTC)

I always wondered about that. 24.54.208.177 05:49, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Late to the party, but my understanding is simply that an abstention is not considered a vote at all technically.UOSSReiska 11:25, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

5 members

Cybbe, think that there was a short period around (and somewhat earlier than) when the PRC replaced Taiwan that the Chinese seat was held vacant, so there were effectively only four. Also the Soviet boycott that allowed the Korean war resolution to go through, had earlier reduced it effectively to four - should also be in history section. Perhaps these are what the person who used "currently" meant.--John Z 22:00, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)

There have always been 5 seats, the situations you refer to do not change this fact. During the Soviet boycott they still "had" their seat, they simply didnt use it. The UN Charter has always referred to five permament members. It is no "big deal" whether 'currently' is included or not (mostly a semantic question probably), I feel it implies some variances to the number of permament members, when there in fact is none. --Cybbe 00:41, Jun 11, 2005 (UTC)

It is inappropriate to label France (and actually the government that has succeeded, the Fifth Republic) and China (either the ROC or PRC) as victorious powers of WW2. Both of these nations, or their antecedents, were decidedly losing nations in the conflict that were liberated by the other three nations (or their successor, in the case of the USSR) along with several other Allied nations. To say that the P5 is composed of representatives of the victorious powers of WW2 does a particular disservice to those latter nations that aided in the victory for the Allies without total national capitulation to the Axis powers, and even arguable complicity with the same, in the case of France. --User:Keefe 23:01, Jan 30, 2012 (CST) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.197.57.18 (talk)

Neither France or China completely capitulated in the opening days of World War II. In the former case, 'Free France' hung on to French Equatorial Africa and contributed significantly in the Western Front throughout the war. Admittedly, the Vichy regime, while nominally independent, may have collaborated with the Axis occupiers, but without doubt there were Axis sympathizers in all Allied countries. If France should be excluded for its cooperation with the Third Reich, so should the USSR, which at the onset of war, was allied with Germany through the Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact, as well as signing an non-aggression pact with Japan early on in the war. As for China, though the capital city of Nanjing was occupied for much of the duration of the war, the ROC government did not formally surrender to the Empire of Japan. But what matters the most is that these two countries ended up on top, albeit with the support of their fellow allies, and should be counted at victors in this sense.

Brazil

I find it a little hard to believe that Brazil would actually argue that its extremely minor military contribution to the Second World War (which was over sixty years ago!) would give it any sort of entitlement to a seat on the Security Council. Unless someone can provide an authoritative source for this assertion, it should be deleted. Silverhelm 03:14, 8 June 2006 (UTC).

I agree with you, a lot of other nations sent troops as well, what make Brazil so special? Unsigned comment by 124.183.28.217, 08:24, 8 June 2006

There's also that! Silverhelm 14:14, 8 June 2006 (UTC).

Totally agree with you guys. I'll delete it ASAP. —Coat of Arms (talk) 05:30, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

Done. I also removed the comment about the G4 (it's not a reason for a permanent seat) and Brazilian UN troops, a lot of countries send soldiers to peacekeeping missions, but that doesn't make you a candidate for the United Nations Security Council. —Coat of Arms (talk) 05:37, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

The Islamic member - a point of controversy

This section is constantly confusing a religion and a region -- it jumps back and forth between saying the Middle East has no security council vote, then starts talking about an Islamic member. It's also confusing in that it repeats calls for a Muslim seat on the security council -- as if a relgion can sit on the council, or as if there already exists other religions on the council. If anyone wants to take a stab at fixing this language, please feel free, or I will start removing and rewording text at a later date. --Quasipalm 13:48, 8 August 2005 (UTC)

You bring a very good point. On that note, what about muslim dominated countires outside the Middle East like Indonesia, Pakistan, and Bangladash. Are these nations allowed to hold security concil seats?

That's not the way the security council works! Different regions caucus and vote for their representatives. Countries like Indonesia, Pakistan, and Bangladesh vote with the Asian bloc. And the seat for the Muslim nation alterantes between Africa and Asia and only a Middle Eastern nation is allowed to run. Also it's correct muslim and middle eastern in the article because the only countries in the middle east that can run for that seat are muslim. A country like Israel is part of the Western European bloc. Kwazyutopia19 01:57, 23 August 2006 (UTC)Kwazyutopia19

Are we forgetting the world's second largest nation?

"The African group chooses three members; the Latin American, Asian and Western European blocs choose two members each; and the Eastern European bloc chooses one member."

And what about Canada (which is not part of Latin America)?? David 15:51, 14 September 2005 (UTC)

Canada was on the UNSC on 1948, for instance. I believe the rules are not these ones. Doidimais Brasil 03:34, 18 September 2005 (UTC)

Yes Canada and Australia and New Zealand are part of the Western Europe and others bloc. Kwazyutopia19 01:57, 23 August 2006 (UTC)Kwazyutopia19

Addition to Germany section

I added a note about the fact that the UN was formed at a time when Germany had been defeated and split up under the control of other countries. My intent was to elaborate on the fact that it was in quite poor standing with the world (not to mention in shambles) and would probably not have been given a seat on the council no matter how powerful or important Germany was or is. These seats being permanent, there is an argument for Germany having received the short end of the stick - do you see where I'm going with this? I didn't add all of this in because I haven't researched it, but I'm sure there are sources out there that will point this out and go into more detail. 67.181.63.245 17:06, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

Possible merges

Reform of the United Nations Security Council and UN Security Council Veto Power. Perhaps we could merge one (or both). Reform is smaller than the UNSC page. Skinnyweed 22:34, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

I moved most of United Nations Security Council#Membership reform to Reform of the United Nations Security Council. Not sure if the structure I implemented there actually works. BanyanTree 23:25, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

Map

The first map that shows the current members of the UN Security Council, I believe has a small inaccuracy concerning France. Neither Corsica, nor French Guiana are coloured in, despite being integral regions of France. (French Guiana, Guadeloupe, Martinique, and Réunion are members of the EU through France if I'm not mistaken, and I also believe they have members in the French lower house). At the very least however Corsica should be coloured blue. Obviously this is not a big error, I'm not trying to be picky, just helpful. I'm unsure of how images work in regards to wikipedia, so if someone who does wants to take care of it, feel free, if not, it's not really a big deal anyways. Basser g 20:29, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

Changed this

the United States acquiesced in this change in accordance with the Nixon-Kissinger policy of rapprochement with China. Owing to Washington's role as sole guarantor of Taiwan's security, Taipei was reluctantly induced to adhere by the Assembly's resolution and lost its prestigious permanent seat and membership in the UN. (See China and the United Nations)

Actually the US was outvoted in the General Assembly and the ROC delegation walked out.

Roadrunner 01:36, 20 October 2006 (UTC) even if it did not walk out, it will be expelled any way

Soviet to Russ transition

I rewrote the sentence to

After the USSR broke up and then formally dissolved itself, Russia was treated as its successor.

but i wonder if this was the full story: it is likely that

• one of the measures involved in the dissolution was the SU formally "notifying" the UN that it was designating the RF as its successor in the seat, and if so it may be (diplomacy being a diplomatic affair) that the UN
  • took explicit note of that assertion or not, but if so
    • acknowledged that the designation was binding upon it, or
    • asserted that the designation was legally irrelevant, or
    • avoided the question.

(There is no mention in international law of the important concept of successor state, which may even deserve an article.)

---

--- Would someone who knows something about the subject (e.g. anyone but me ;} ) like to write a paragraph on the actual day-to-day operation of the Security Council- how the countries are represented, how the meetings are run, etc? I found a reference elsewhere to Sir Patrick Dean having been president of the Security Council (for a month-long term, I think?), but I'm not sure what that role entails. Anyone out there in wiki-space feel like filling the rest of us in? -FZ

The Security Council presidency rotates each month. So whoever is the head ambassador for that country will be the Security Council president for that month.Kwazyutopia19 21:59, 25 October 2006 (UTC)KwazyUtopia19

2006 appointments - Panama selected?

Shouldn't this section be changed? Panama was selected to the Security Council. Gadig 03:51, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

Proposal to replace {{flagicon|USA...}} calls

Notice: There is currently a proposal to change calls {{flagicon|USA..}} to {{USA|..}} at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Flag_Template#Changing_USA_flag_calls. Please consider posting there to keep the discussion in one place. (SEWilco 04:50, 8 January 2007 (UTC))

Discussion at MoS on flag icons

Please contribute to the discussion on flag icons at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style#Flag icons - manual of style entry?. (SEWilco 14:49, 15 January 2007 (UTC))

veto power

i read: "Since 1984, the numbers [of vetoes] have been: ..."

What happened in 1984, that we give a count from then? i find nothing in the article about that year, nor in the separate United Nations Security Council veto power article. TIA for making it clearer.

--Jerome Potts 20:17, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

Use of the acronym P5

Should this page give light to the use of the acronym P5 often used by the US State Department and other government agencies in describing the permanent members of the UN Security Council? When I first attempted to figure out what this acronym (or in fact P5+1, which I believe includes an EU rep) described, I turned to wikipedia and found nothing. I would consider noting this to be a benefitial change to the page

Be bold. Go ahead and add it. Robert Brockway 06:37, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

N Korea has nuclear weapons?

This article states as fact that N. Korea has nuclear weapons. I thought it was still a matter of debate as to whether the nuclear test was in fact that - and does a single successful test mean the country "has nuclear weapons"? Rawling 08:07, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

Agreed, there has been one rather dubious test. Most experts say that the difference from going from a crude test to actually building a nuclear warhead possible of being put into a ballistic rocket is quite the jump. I think people too easily fill in the blanks of making a test and actually having weapons. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 192.45.72.26 (talk) 23:56, 2 January 2007 (UTC).

I brought the N.Korea statement in line with the content on N.Korea's page -- that is, a test was conducted but the small yield led some to doubt the success of the test. Also, yes, I agree, there's quit a lot of work between a test and a ballistic rocket; however, "nuclear weapons" are not limited in scope to ballistic rockets -- the weapons used on Hiroshima and Nagasaki were devices very similar to the Nevada tests, merely packaged as a bomb and dropped from a plane. Therefore, I moved the N.Korea to the sentence regarding Israel, that it is "generally" believed that these two have nuclear weapons but that there are some reservations. (In fact, "generally" might be too strong for N.Korea -- it probably would suffice to say "some".) -- Thoreaulylazy 14:05, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

Criticisms of the Security Council - Dutch peacekeepers

This sentence, Srebrenica had been declared a U.N. "safe area" and was even protected by 400 armed Dutch peacekeepers, but the U.N. forces did nothing to prevent the massacre., is quite biased and inflammatory. Saying they did nothing to prevent the massacre gives the impression that they Dutch soldiers basically stood there watching (condoning) this massacre. Most neutral accounts mention the Dutch peacekeepers were outnumbered, outarmed, and were really in no position to prevent this tragedy. These were basically kids sent in to be police - and things turned out how no one had expected, unfortunately. It seems they were more just shocked at how things happened so fast and didn't know what to do.

400 Dutch peacekeepers didn't fire a shot or call for any backup as over 8,000 civilians were killed in a declared 'safe zone' established by the UN. Nothing is nothing, regardless of circumstances.Cromdog 23:52, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

Uncompliance with UNSC Resolutions

Has UN Security Council ever taken any punitive action against UN member states for failing to comply with legal binding UNSC resolutions made under Chapter VI of UN Charter ?

Siyac 11:17, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

Operation Desert Storm. Pocopocopocopoco (talk) 02:43, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

Please see my post at WP:FTN and add your comments regarding whether resolutions are binding

See here and add your comments if you have any. Pocopocopocopoco (talk) 02:43, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

Could not find your post, but please note that the fringe theory here is the assertion that only Security Council resolutions under Chapter VII are binding. Quite the contrary; the vast majority of scholars and the International Court of Justice as you note are in agreement that the binding power of a resolution depends on the intention of the Security Council itself. It is simply NOT TRUE that the Council acts as if only Chapter VII resolutions are binding. The issue is historically controversial and only a few member states--such as France and the UK--sponsor the interpretation that you bring. Quite honestly, the authors you mention are the minority and as such are not representative of general scholarly opinion on the subject. Fbrny (talk) 18:57, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

Zimbabwe

Has anyone updated the veto counts since Russia and China vetoed Sanctions against Zimbabwe? PaulStuffins (talk) 01:19, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

This is in the "veto power" section if anyone is unsure what he means.--HandGrenadePins (talk) 14:08, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

Non-members section

There was a sentence that didn't sound right in this passage. I changed it, yet I'm unsure that I correctly conveyed what the original statement was trying to say. Could someone double check this for me.

Original statement: "In recent years, the Council has interpreted this loosely, enabling many countries to take part in its discussions or not depending on how they interpret the validity of the country's interest."

Revised statement: "In recent years, the Council has interpreted this loosely, enabling many countries to take part in its discussions that are not depending on how they interpret the validity of the country's interest." —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jy2414 (talk • contribs) 17:26, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

"Any nation"?

In the "Criticisms of the Security Council" section, it states in part, "Any nation may be elected to serve a temporary term on the Security Council."

Given that a nation must be a member of a regional group in order to be nominated for a temporary term and that there are or have been countries that were members of no regional group (Israel is a notable case because of its exclusion from the Asian group), is this statement accurate? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.135.24.224 (talk) 21:04, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

Israel received full membership to "Western Europe and Others" in 2004. Grsz^Review! 22:56, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

Still, it's NOT true that "any nation may be elected to serve a temporary term ". It IS true that ANY MEMBER-STATE can be elected =)

Head of UNSC

why is China head? Romanfall (talk) 19:56, 27 October 2008 (UTC)Romanfall

Answer: Every month a different country presides the Council. They rotate alphabetically. 201.80.219.117 (talk) 06:48, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

UN vs SC

This article is about the United Nations & not specific to the Security Council. The security council is an enforcement leg according to UN dot org. I haven't learned how to link outside yet. or checked for legality, So... The United Nations is much more. It works with UNICEF and on literacy programs, etc.

Role of President

I've updated the text to read "the Security Council member nations' names" to clarify that the non-Security Council members of the UN do not take a turn in this role. Also, it should be clarified whether only the each of the P5 takes a turn, or every member of the SC takes a turn. I don't know the answer. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dblanchard (talk • contribs) 20:07, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

The presidency of the Security Council is rotated alphabetically (by Country Name in English) through the Security Council monthly. This applies to the fifteen members. Romanfall (talk) 19:03, 27 October 2008 (UTC)Romanfall

Japan

The entry on Japan seems weighted against their addition to the Security Council. There is an entire paragraph explaining the opposing country's position and the recent protests. The connection between the protests and the opposing country's opposition to a possible Japanese Security Council seat is flimsy at best. Whohangs 15:08, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

It explicitly mentions that Japan is most likely to get a seat. Skinnyweed 22:49, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

--- Japan has been voted to the Security Council by the General Assembly more times than any other of the 192 members. www. un. helporg /Overview .............../uninbrief/ Romanfall (talk) 19:31, 27 October 2008 (UTC)romanfall

== pres of gen assembly ==The Presidency of the General Assembly rotates through the 192 states. Sweden (2005), Bahrain (2006), former-Macedonia (2007), Nicaragua. (2008). B, M, N , alphabetical.Romanfall (talk) 19:52, 27 October 2008 (UTC) Romanfall

== President of Security Council == okay. Monthly. rotation through the 15 members China in October 2008, followed by Costa Rica, & Croatia (Dec. 2008). http://wwwdotun.orgslash_sc/presidency.asp..... Romanfall (talk) 20:38, 27 October 2008 (UTC)romanfall again

History

The League of Nations should be mentioned in the history & The Security Council's permanent members won World War II.Romanfall (talk) 21:09, 27 October 2008 (UTC)romanfall

"or" or "nor"?

Here's a site that says "not" goes with "or" and "neither" goes with "nor": Grammar Trap: Or vs. Nor.

This site says that "when in doubt", only use it with neither. However, according to the explanation offered on the site, the use of nor here was correct anyway. However, if you're going to continue being like this and arguing something that you really do not know, I will just change the sentence to a form that you can't argue with. Furthermore, the sentence ended with a preposition, which is not allowed in the English language. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.249.50.27 (talk) 02:11, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

update!

"Head Croatia (for December 2008)". Not anymore! It's 2009 now. And Jan 2nd already!. 201.80.219.117 (talk) 06:49, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

Soviet Union

Has the Soviet Union ever taken part or lead a peacekeeping mission? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 164.116.17.149 (talk) 19:41, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

Yes, see Timeline of United Nations peacekeeping missions. --Joowwww (talk) 20:22, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

Blue Panel : Editing

Given the fact both English and French are the only working language of the U.N, I allowed myself to put the french translation of "United Nations Security Council" just under the english version. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Utod15 (talk • contribs) 06:42, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

The UN has six (not two) official languages: English, French, Chinese, Spanish, Russian, and Arabic. NPguy (talk) 21:37, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

Yes, it has six official languages, but just two working languages. --Joowwww (talk) 21:50, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

So why has Turkish been added? -- megA (talk) 14:15, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

Good question. Should probably be deleted. NPguy (talk) 20:56, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

I assume it was because Turkey is currently a member. But by that logic, you'd have to add German, Japanese and Swahili, too. -- megA (talk) 18:33, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

Israel?

While I think it's common knowledge that Israel likely has nuclear weapons, the article asserts this without any sort of sourcing. This should probably be corrected UOSSReiska 11:26, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

Yes, I agree. It should actually be "It is believed that Israel also has nuclear weapons, although there is no proof." if the author does not want to provide proof. Joshywawa (talk) 08:56, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

That makes three of us in agreement. Someone go do it. 192.12.184.2 (talk) 19:50, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

why doesn't this page (should) list

real clearly, as close to the top of the page as possible the permanent members:

russia
china
france
US
UK

or whatever. it's all soviet union blah blah,,,, historically blah blah,,,, yameen? McKzzFizzer 19:20, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

the historical stuff that comes first feels distracting, tho if the list is bold and easy to notice, it prob wouldn't need to be moved closer to the top. if no one else really cares, I'll prob be back to look into a change like this. McKzzFizzer 19:31, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

Nononononono, the permanent members are not the security council. They are 1/3 of the SC no matter how much power they have.

Would a small table be possible to place at the top with the "Members" section picture and a list of the permanent members and then the temporary ones as well? It took me a while to find out the members when I was researching this subject myself. Personally, I am not good with Wikipedia code...so it would be cool if another person could make a table if this is approved? Rockymountains 18:54, 9 July 2006 (UTC)Rockymountains

If you are going to list members, then put in the offical name, not the common name. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 184.78.175.238 (talk) 03:16, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

Brazilian economy

It is stated in the text that Brazil is being nominated to be a permanent member due in part that it has the largest economy in Latin America. Both the World Bank and the IMF list the Mexican economy as being larger that the Brazilian. This statement should be corrected.

Are you living in the past or something? According to Wikipedia itself, both the IMF and the World Bank list Mexico as having a smaller economy then Brazil [[1]]. Admitedly, this is for 2004, but I doubt Mexico has overtaken Brazil since if anything I expect the gap has grown... Nil Einne 13:26, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

I see what your looking at now. I guess you're looking at the nominal GDP [[2]]? AFAIK, GDP based on the PPP is generally regarded as a fairer and more accurate representation of a countries economic status and well being. It's what's used by Wikipedia for example. You're welcome to point out it's not if you use the nominal GDP but make sure you're consistent i.e. you have to raise this issue for every country discussed here when the size of the economy is raised if it also applies... Nil Einne 13:58, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

First of all, the GDP (both PPP and nominal) is not the absolute measure to state the size of a country's economy. second , if it is, than Brazil is the largest of Latin America in every way you measure it. PPP, GNP and GDP (yes, look at the figures for 2006, Brazil passed Mexico).

Er the above discussion was from 2005 with 2004 figures Nil Einne (talk) 16:33, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

Requirements for reform

Is this the only requirement for reform:

Currently the proposal has to be accepted by two-thirds of the UN General Assembly which translates to 128 votes.

So i.e. any proposal will only have to be accepted by 2/3s of the UN General Assembly and will not for example have to be voted on in the Security Council itself. This is quite important because if a proposal has to be voted on in the Security Council then any proposal will have to at least not be opposed (even if not supported) by any of the 5 permanent members otherwise it will simply be vetoed. Nil Einne 02:18, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

Are you sure about that? Because in order for there to be a change in the SC, the SC must pass the resolution. I know that General Assembly committees can vote to kick members out but then again GA committees aren't spelled out in the charter.–—Kwazyutopia19

Any amendement to the UN Charter must have the approval of 2/3rds of UN memebers AND the P5 (veto holders) - it's in Chapter 18, Article 109. So there can't be any amendment to the UN Charter without agreement from China, France, Russia, the UK, and the US. Auric04 05:01, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for confirming my suspicions/clarifying. Now update the article, with references :-P Nil Einne (talk) 16:38, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

Israel not eligible?

I dont see where the source cited says that Israel is not eligible to sit on the UNSC. The word Israel appears twice in the document, unless I am missing something, once when saying that Israel is not included in the researches data on economic aid because it was a high income country and the other time when it discusses periods when aid from the US to member states on the SC varied, defining one of those periods as "1967 and 1973 (Arab-Israeli wars)". Wikifan, could you please provide a quote from the source that supports the sentence cited? nableezy - 02:25, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

Hold on. Wikifan12345 (talk) 02:33, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

Candidates for the Security Council are proposed by regional blocs. In the Middle East, this means the Arab League and its allies are usually included. Israel, which joined the UN in 1949, has never been elected to the Security Council whereas at least 15 Arab League members have. In fact, Israel was the only one of the 185 member countries ineligible to serve on the Security Council. Every UN member state belongs to one of the five regional groups. Geographically, Israel should be part of the Asian bloc, but Arab states such as Iraq and Saudi Arabia have successfully prevented Israel's inclusion. A breakthrough in Israel’s fifty-year exclusion from UN bodies occurred on May 30, 2000, when Israel accepted an invitation to become a temporary member of the Western European and Others (WEOG) regional group. This historic step helped end at least some of the UN’s discriminatory actions against Israel and opened the door to the possibility of Israeli participation in the Security Council.^[3]

Wikifan12345 (talk) 02:36, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

Then why are citing this paper? Israel was never ineligible to sit on the SC, they just didnt stand a chance of getting the votes. "Ineligible" has a specific meaning, and not being popular enough in a regional group is not that meaning. Also, we have been through this chart business before. It is OR by SYNTH, you are making comparisons that sources do not make. You also use Wikipedia as a source. nableezy - 02:40, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

I made a minor formatting change to your post, hope you dont mind nableezy - 02:41, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

JVL explicitly refers to Israel's status as "ineligible." Numerous sources complain about the disproportionate attention Israel receives in the UN. One of the most common ways cited is comparing UNSC resolutions. The chart isn't comprehensive (though it could be), but it is supported by the UN site. How do I use wikipedia as a source? Wikifan12345 (talk) 02:57, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

The citation you use for the casualties is "compiled from the corresponding Wikipedia articles. When a range was given, the median was used." Next, the issue is not you comparing the number of resolutions per country, sources do indeed do that. What you do here though is more than that, you attempt to relate the number of resolutions to the number of deaths. I am unaware of any serious sources that do that. That is the SYNTH that you are engaging in by placing this chart here. And the JVL is not exactly the most reliable source, I'd like a better one for the statement that Israel was "ineligible". Also, it is OR for you to cite the UN Charter and say that "Some believe this is a violation of the principles in article 2 of the UN charter". A source is required that actually makes that argument. nableezy - 03:55, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

Jewish Virtual Library is a reliable source. The wikipedia cite is for casualties, not resolutions. I could simply go to the original article and pull out the specific sources corroborating casualty stats, but I didn't think that was necessary. I see your death issue, so I would be totally okay with removing the casualties. Wikifan12345 (talk) 04:10, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

WF, it is an exceptional claim that Israel was not eligible to be elected a seat on the SC. If you have not noticed I have not removed that material, instead I am asking if you can provide a source not authored by Mitchell Bard for this claim. Exceptional claims require exceptional sources. So far my searching only shows Bard saying this. Also, could you please provide a source for the claim that "Some believe this is a violation of the principles in article 2 of the UN charter"? And yes, please remove the column on casualties. nableezy - 04:18, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

how is it exceptional? Israel is ineligible to serve in the UNSC. It is the only UN-member state that hasn't served. I did include a secondary source about UN charter 2 in my latest edit. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Wikifan12345 (talk • contribs) 04:37, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

It is true that they have not served on the SC. However it is far from true that it is the only member state that has not served on the SC (see here for a list). If it were true that Israel was actually ineligible you would be able to provide more than just Bard to support that. You have sources such as AIPAC and Bard making these claims, can you at least try to provide a quality sources that does so? Searching for such a claim I can not find a single quality source making it. I do find it being made by the usual suspects such as AIPAC. And even Bard does not say this is currently the case, since Israel is now in the European group it is not "ineligible" for anything. It still does not have a chance of getting the votes, but that does not make it "ineligible". nableezy - 05:03, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

Bard is independent of AIPAC. He is just as reliable as anyone else. I think we are debating semantics. How do you define ineligible? Wikifan12345 (talk) 05:14, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

Disqualified by the rules, not the circumstances. If the reason that Israel has not served on the SC is because it was unable to garner the required votes it is not "ineligible". If the reason that Israel has not served on the SC is because it was disqualified from doing so by the rules then it was "ineligible". Let me give an example; a person who is not a natural born citizen of the United States is ineligible for the position of President of the United States. I, a natural born citizen, am eligible but have no chance in hell of ever getting the required votes. I am not "ineligible" to be elected President, but it has no chance of happening. nableezy - 05:21, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

One could argue Israel is ineligible to become a member of the UNSC because it is loaded with Jews and the Arab bloc leaders are avid consumers of antisemitism? Your president analogy is unfair because the UN is not a democracy. Wikifan12345 (talk) 05:46, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

You are using ineligible incorrectly. I dont plan on discussing whether or not "the Arab bloc leaders are avid consumers of antisemitism", even if that were true Israel would not be "ineligible". The determination on the non-permanent seats is based on votes, if a country can be voted on, even if it has no chance of winning, that country is eligible. That Israel had no chance of gaining the required votes does not make it "ineligible". nableezy - 15:59, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

(outdent) In this particular case, AIPAC and JVL editorials are not reliable sources. This article explains that Israel actually is eligible for a temporary seat on the Security Council and that it has applied for one. [4] The article also indicates that Israel's disengagement from Gaza and the West Bank has been an important factor. A number of sources report that Israel's on-going process of disengagement is NOT contributing to the maintenance of international peace and security or complying with the purposes and principles of the UN Charter. Israel's Wall and the Gaza blockade have frequently been described as collective punishment, persecution, war crimes, crimes against humanity, murder, and etc., e.g. [5]

The composition of the UNSC is governed by the General Assembly according to article 23 of the UN Charter. There has never been a requirement that all of the member states be allowed to serve in the rotation of temporary members. There are three criteria. Geographical distribution is the least important factor. Article 23 provides that

"The General Assembly shall elect ten other Members of the United Nations to be non-permanent members of the Security Council, due regard being specially paid, in the first instance to the contribution of Members of the United Nations to the maintenance of international peace and security and to the other purposes of the Organization, and also to equitable geographical distribution."

I moved this here for discussion. It constitutes a pretty flagrant violation of Wikipedia NPOV, NOR, and Synth policies:

examples of POV editorials, WP:Synth, and original research
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Since 1961, Israel has been barred from the Asia regional group and therefore could not even theoretically be a member of the Security Council. In 2000, it was offered limited membership in the Western European and Others Group (WEOG). Israel Out of all UN-member states, Israel is the only nation that is not eligible to sit on the Security Council. Some believe this is a violation of the principles in article 2 of the UN charter, which lists "sovereign equality for all member states." The amount of time devoted to the Israeli-Arab conflict in the UNSC has been described as excessive by a numerous political organizations and academics, including United Nations Watch, the Anti-Defamation League, Alan Dershowitz and Martin Kramer, and Mitchell Bard. UNSC resolutions on the Arab-Israel conflict See also: List of United Nations resolutions concerning Israel The following table compares the number of United Nations Security Council resolutions on the Arab-Israeli war to other wars and armed conflicts fought by UN-member states since 1948. War(s) Deaths UNSC res Arab-Israeli conflict (1948–present) 60,000 225 Korean War (1950-1953 ceasefire) 2,300,000 5 Algerian War (1954-1962) 600,000 0 First Sudanese Civil War (1955-1972) 500,000 0 Vietnam War (1959-1975) 4,200,000 1 Islamic insurgency in the Philippines (1960-present) 150,000 0 North Yemen Civil War (1962–1970) 120,000 2 Cambodian Civil War (1967-1975) 1,000,000 1 Bangladesh Liberation War (March-December 1971) 2,800,000 2 Lebanese Civil War (1975-1990) 250,000 43 Civil war in Afghanistan (1978-present) 1,700,000 28 Sino-Vietnamese War (February-March 1979) 200,000 0 Iran–Iraq War (1980-1988) 1,000,000 8 Second Sudanese Civil War (1983-2005) 1,900,000 7 Sri Lankan Civil War (1983-2009) 140,000 0 Islamic insurgency in Jammu and Kashmir, (1989-present) 100,000 0 Rwandan Civil War (1990-1993) 800,000 4 Gulf War (August 1990 - February 1991) 80,000 19 Somali Civil War (1991-present 400,000 54 Sierra Leone Civil War (1991-2002) 100,000 24 Yugoslav wars (1991-2002) 130,000 67 Algerian Civil War (1991-1992) 170,000 0 Second Liberian Civil War (1999-2003) 150,000 8 Second Congo War (1998-2003) 3,900,000 22 Second Chechen War (1999-2009) 200,000 0 War in Afghanistan (2001–present) 70,000 27 Iraq War (2003-present) 1,000,000 10 War in Darfur (2003-present) 400,000 32 References

The article you cite is over 4 years and 2 ambassadors old. Israel has been petitioning for years, this isn't new. In this instance Israel is still unique from a historical perspective. Its status in the WEOG is partial. The arguments organization have made is Israel is not given "sovereign equality" as guaranteed in article 2 - and the second-class status in decision making bodies is cited as evidence. But reliable sources still support most of the content so there was no reason to remove content whole-sale. Wikifan12345 (talk) 07:22, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

Wikifan1234, the General Assembly and the Security Council are political organs of the United Nations. "Sovereign equality" does not apply to the five permanent members listed in article 23(1) of the UN Charter nor does it govern the election results prescribed in Article 23(2). Membership on the Security Council has always been based upon the political considerations contained in article 23. The Ynet article says that Israel is eligible for membership on the Security Council. That situation has not changed with the passage of 4 years, or the replacement of 2 ambassadors. Please stop using Wikipedia to publish outdated propaganda, editorials, and your own original research. Neither Mitchell Bard nor AIPAC are reliable peer-reviewed mainstream publishers. They can only be considered reliable sources for their own opinions. I've started a discussion at the Original Research Noticeboard [6]

Harlan, I'm not disputing what the 5 year old Ynet article says. Mitchell Bard is an academic scholar, AIPAC is a lobbying organization. I don't know what your standards are for "reliable" but JVL passes. I find it suspect you stand behind a dated ynet article and yet dismiss a published academic with intimate knowledge of the Arab-Israeli conflict. Also, try and assume good faith - accusing other editors of promoting propaganda is a good way to get sanctioned. Wikifan12345 (talk) 13:03, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

You have studiously avoided the flagrant violation of WP:Synth, WP:NOR, and WP:NPOV that your additions represent when taken as whole. There is no place for WP:UNDUE and out-of-date JVL propaganda in this article. Israel is really NOT ineligible for membership on the Security Council. It filed its first application for candidacy several years ago in 2005 and has to be elected like any other state. Mitchell Bard's article says that Israeli Foreign Minister Silvan Shalom announced in September 2005 that the country will, for the first time, seek a temporary seat on the Security Council."[7] and links to the UN news story. [8] The JVL claim that Israel is both "ineligible" [9] and an official candidate for a seat on the Security Council is WP:Fringe. No such occurrence has been discussed in the mainstream or by the mainstream. harlan (talk) 13:46, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

I totally support revising the section but this is one sentence and could have been resolved without name-calling. Israel's status in the UNSC is unique because for over 60 years the Arab bloc established a campaign to deny Israel a seat in the UNSC. Now, apparently Israel is capable of petitioning for a seat which is fine and dandy. Wikifan12345 (talk) 23:29, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

New UN Security Council Chamber

Hello, in my opnion the UNSC has a new meeting place:

http://www.unmultimedia.org/photo/detail.jsp?id=442/442631&key=97&query=category:"Security Council"&lang=en&sf=

best wishes from Germany Nils 20.40, 12 October 2010 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.77.250.42 (talk) 18:45, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

Logo in Hindi and in Spanish  ??? why?

Why the logo United Nations Security Council (into top-right graphic) is written in Hindi and in Spanish? Those two are not UN official language. Does it mean, everybody could write in their own langauge? If not, Hindia and Spanish writings of संयुक्त राष्ट्र सुरक्षा परिषद (Hindi) and Consejo de Seguridad de las Naciones Unidas should be removed. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.251.59.182 (talk) 13:56, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

I don't see this as a problem. Hindi and Spanish are large languages (spoken by a lot of people), just like English, Chinese etc. The UN is about international co-operation, and there really is no need to remove the phrases in the motif. JeevanJones (talk) 09:20, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

Further reading section

These books were repeatedly added by Aberdonain99 a short while ago; are they worth including? My primary concern is to whether there is a connection between the user and the authors. --Ckatz^chat_spy 09:44, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

---

'Further reading

• The United Nations Security Council and War: The Evolution of Thought and Practice since 1945, edited by Vaughan Lowe, Adam Roberts, Jennifer Welsh and Dominik Zaum, Oxford University Press, Oxford, 2010, paperback, 794 pages. ISBN 978-0-19-958330-0. For US edition, click here.

• After Anarchy: Legitimacy and Power in the United Nations Security Council, by Ian Hurd, Princeton University Press, Princeton NJ, 2007.

• Council Unbound: The Growth of UN Decision Making on Conflict and Postconflict Issues after the Cold War, by Michael J. Matheson, US Institute of Peace Press, Washington DC, 2006.

• Decision-Making in the UN Security Council: The Case of Haiti, by David Malone, Oxford University Press, Oxford, 1998, 322 pages. ISBN 978-0-19-829483-2.

• New World Disorder: The UN After the Cold War – An Insider’s View, by David Hannay, I.B. Tauris, London, 2008.

• The Procedure of the UN Security Council, 3rd edn, by Sydney D. Bailey and Sam Daws, Oxford University Press, Oxford, 1998. ISBN 978-0-19-828073-6.

• Selective Security: War and the United Nations Security Council since 1945, by Adam Roberts and Dominik Zaum (Adelphi Paper no. 395 of International Institute for Strategic Studies, London), Routledge, Abingdon, 2008, 93 pp. ISBN 978-0-415-47472-6. ISSN 0567-932X.

---

Sarcastic comments

Some one added sarcastic comments to the Role section. They seemed somewhat misleading as the sarcasm might not be obvious to everyone so I rephrased them to express the concerns openly and added a counter point. It might be best to simply exclude them and add a reference to the criticism section. -bpl

Fellow Wiki members

The article in its present state, doesn't really deal with the crisis in UNSC during the Chinese Civil War, and the subsequent offer to India by the Americans and Russian to replace the Chinese. If we can establish a consensus on the talk page I will go ahead and make the required edits. For more information on the this topic http://defenceforumindia.com/politics-society/15854-how-nehru-turned-down-permanant-unsc-seat.html Yes its a forum, but the posts have been copied from a newspaper.

CheersEnthusiast10 (talk) 07:01, 24 June 2011 (UTC)

Conversation between Margaret Thatcher and Ronald Reagen about Germany

OK, Google News goes pretty deep these days, but a little help: I've got a paper copy of the article, so I know it exists, but there was a conversation between Thatcher and Reagan during the same period of time in which they manipulated oil prices to shut down the Soviet economy, and it essentially referred to a study done directly after World War II in which it was determined that Germans never change, they remain sociopathic in nature - that they would remain an occupied nation for the foreseeable future – and that they would also never be allowed a seat on the UN Security Council. I've been Googling for weeks (months!) and can't seem to find the reference. I would like to link to the article from this page, but could we pool our resources, and some of you guys look for it? Germaniae (talk) 10:36, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

Reason why these particular 5 countries?

We need a section saying why these particular 5, compared to Germany, Japan, India, Brazil, or etc.. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.7.1.158 (talk) 23:33, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

"With the exception of the People's Republic of China (which replaced the Republic of China in 1971), and Russia (which superseded the Soviet Union seat in 1991), the current P5 membership are represented by the main victorious powers of World War II." Doesn't seem to require a separate section. Fat&Happy (talk) 00:30, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

The phrase "with the exception of ..." is not quite correct and should be removed. All P5 nations indeed are the main victorious powers in world war II. The UN is part of the post-WWII security arrangement. Japan and Germany are not part of the P5 because they are referred to as "enemy states" in the UN charter. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.196.226.10 (talk) 22:03, 21 November 2011 (UTC)

The Veto chart. INCORRECT

This chart is NOT correct, there are inconsistencies regarding votes. The site the information was retrieved from (globalpolicy.org) is, in fact, incorrect.

PLEASE, someone smarter than I with this stuff, check out http://daccess-dds-ny.un.org/doc/UNDOC/GEN/N04/417/02/PDF/N0441702.pdf?OpenElement

You will see that with this document AS WELL AS the information on the Security Council website, the numbers DO NOT add up. France has 17 vetoes. NOT 18. This chart should be changed accordingly.

-Seth

198.110.32.2 (talk) 17:39, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

Further Reading resource

• Five to Rule Them All: The UN Security Council and the Making of the Modern World, author David L. Bosco ISBN-13: 978-0195328769 publisher Oxford University Press, USA; 1st edition (September 10, 2009). 99.35.12.139 (talk) 06:14, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

It is there. 99.19.40.255 (talk) 07:33, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

UK

Will the UK stay in the UN Security Council if Scotland secedes from UK? Or will pushed out? --134.176.205.155 (talk) 16:38, 26 January 2013 (UTC)

French Guiana on File:P5countries.png

French Guiana needs including in the map as it is part of the French Republic. --Inops (talk) 14:46, 31 January 2013 (UTC)

Criticisms of the Security Council - Operations, effectiveness

The article currently provides no information on the equipping and operational directives of Security Council directed Peacekeepers and there appears to be a significant need for information on this topic. Topics I personally want to see answered are, 'What type of equipment are the Peacekeeper personnel issued and is this dependent upon the country providing the personnel?' and 'Are Peacekeepers empowered to take immediate action in their own self-defense or when there is an immediate threat to the life of a group they are tasked to observe and/or assist?' (in humanitarian efforts, etc.).

I am going to attempt to make inquiries to the Security Council on these matters as being of vital importance to a principal member country of the United Nations. Dpcosteajr 18:03, 30 May 2012 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Klaatu01 (talk • contribs)

Since 60% of the permanent members are also European, and 80% predominantly white Western nations, the Security Council has been described as a pillar of global apartheid by Titus Alexander, former Chair of Westminster United Nations Association.[46]

=

Needs fixing.

Russian isn't a western nation, nor is it in Europe (only partly), so better described as Eurasian.

USA. Western country, predominantly white. Same as France and the UK. France, UK, Russia and China are all Eurasian countries. Only France and the UK are in Europe, strictly speaking. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.192.242.222 (talk) 12:52, 15 November 2012 (UTC)

The regional grouping that are being used in UN contexts are, although unofficial, quite well-defined and fixed. See United Nations Regional Groups. --朝彦 (Asahiko) (talk) 23:03, 20 October 2013 (UTC)

Inappropriate picture of Chamber under renovation

I fail to understand the rationale for this picture. Does Wikipedia show a picture of the oval office in the White House under renovation? Looks like an attempt to degrade a symbol of the Security Council. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 8.25.32.37 (talk) 17:44, 19 October 2013 (UTC)

I fail to understand your point. Any building can use a renovation from time to time, and that is totally independent from any status or prestige of the party that meets in that building. With a renovation, the SC is now meeting in an upgraded, better chamber. How's that a degradation? --朝彦 (Asahiko) (talk) 22:57, 20 October 2013 (UTC)

Then please show a picture AFTER renovation, not DURING renovation. See the difference? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 8.25.32.37 (talk) 23:22, 21 October 2013 (UTC)

I don't. Both are valid as a record of the building. --朝彦 (Asahiko) (talk) 03:36, 22 October 2013 (UTC)

That said, I see that it's a "non-free" media used under the "fair-use clause", so it must meet Wikipedia:Non-free content criteria. A big renovation is an important part of the building's history, so historical significance? Perhaps. But will "its omission would be detrimental to the reader's understanding of the topic"? That's where the question is; not on the basis of "degradation of a symbol", which could be very subjective. --朝彦 (Asahiko) (talk) 16:01, 22 October 2013 (UTC)

If you can't see the difference between work in progress and completed work you need to call 911 immediately — Preceding unsigned comment added by 8.25.32.37 (talk) 19:43, 22 October 2013 (UTC)

You're missing the context of our conversation. --朝彦 (Asahiko) (talk) 04:45, 23 October 2013 (UTC)

I define the context since I started this section, so I cannot miss what I define. I reiterate that this picture of the chamber under construction is not appropriate and is of no value. If you want to showcase the upgrading of the facility, then show a picture after renovation. Is that difficult to understand? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 8.25.32.37 (talk) 18:03, 25 October 2013 (UTC)

I'm not saying that you get to remove the image only over my dead body. "Upgrading of the facility" is a process, and the image serves to illustrate the process, whereas the completed image will show the upgraded facility not the upgrading of the facility. Now, as I said, I don't agree with you on the point that this image is a degradation of UNSC. However, I'm wondering whether this image is so integral to the article so that "its omission would be detrimental to the reader's understanding of the topic", which is the non-free criteria that we have to conform to. I'm just asking: do you think so too? --朝彦 (Asahiko) (talk) 20:06, 25 October 2013 (UTC)

I don't for a second agree that this image "degrades" the UNSC, but Asahiko is right that we probably can't use a non-free image for something as inessential as showing renovations. -- Khazar2 (talk) 13:39, 15 November 2013 (UTC)

Good that this nonsense image was finally deleted. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 8.25.32.37 (talk) 22:24, 21 November 2013 (UTC)