Talk:Russia and the United Nations

Russia: History / Politics and law High‑importance

	Russia portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Russia, a WikiProject dedicated to coverage of Russia on Wikipedia. To participate: Feel free to edit the article attached to this page, join up at the project page, or contribute to the project discussion.RussiaWikipedia:WikiProject RussiaTemplate:WikiProject RussiaRussia
High	This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by the history of Russia task force.
	This article is supported by the politics and law of Russia task force.

International relations: United Nations Mid‑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
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by WikiProject United Nations.

Politics Low‑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
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Untitled

For the May 2005 deletion debate on this article, see Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Assumption by Russia of the Soviet Union's seat in the United Nations.

Eleven of the twelve members of the CIS signed a declaration...

~~Idle curiosity. Which one didn't? Russia itself, or one of the others?~~ Ah. Georgia, right? –Hajor 00:21, 23 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The UK

If Northern Ireland were to break away from the United Kingdom, so that it changed from the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland to the United Kingdom of Great Britain, would that create the same kind of legal dispute over the UK's seat? Nik42 22:31, 31 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Probably not, because a mere name change or change in a member's territory does not terminate the entity. The difference is that the Soviet Union was formally dissolved. 24.54.208.177 16:08, 20 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Northern Ireland is only one of 4 major divisions in the United Kingdom, so there likely wouldn't be a dispute. Even a change that would have taken the country from the USSR's size to Russia's size would likely be resolved without much dispute - as the above comment noted, it was the dissolution of the government that caused the trouble. Without a dissolution, the only "split" that I think would cause such a dispute would be a division on the scale of the (temporary) one that was apparent during the American Civil War. (See Border states (Civil War) for a map demonstrating the division.) --Tim4christ17 17:08, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

France and UK should leave

if some should be questioned than its these both countries, or they should give up their seat for a EU one--Karesu12340 (talk) 18:35, 8 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

removing POV tag with no active discussion per Template:POV

I've removed an old neutrality tag from this page that appears to have no active discussion per the instructions at Template:POV:

This template is not meant to be a permanent resident on any article. Remove this template whenever:

There is consensus on the talkpage or the NPOV Noticeboard that the issue has been resolved
It is not clear what the neutrality issue is, and no satisfactory explanation has been given
In the absence of any discussion, or if the discussion has become dormant.

Since there's no evidence of ongoing discussion, I'm removing the tag for now. If discussion is continuing and I've failed to see it, however, please feel free to restore the template and continue to address the issues. Thanks to everybody working on this one! -- Khazar2 (talk) 00:07, 21 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This article has multiple issues.

In search to improve it or discuss these issues on the talk page.--J. D. Redding 21:44, 4 August 2013 (UTC) [ps., ... and remove the tophat][reply]

Most of the article is about succession, but there should be a broader treatment of the topic. Kaihsu (talk) 18:07, 13 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

attention from an expert

Experts? Any around?--J. D. Redding 21:44, 4 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

original research

Please bullet list points of original research.--J. D. Redding 21:44, 4 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

personal reflection or opinion essay

Please list what is non-encyclopedic description of the subject. --J. D. Redding 21:44, 4 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 3 external links on Russia and 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: 5 June 2024).

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 II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 06:32, 11 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Andrew McLeod

I'm not an expert on wiki etiquette so I haven't made any changes yet but I'm sceptical that Andrew McLeod should be used as a source. If you look at his website it's pretty clear the man is a grifter and a chancer who massively oversells his own expertise, he's only a visiting professor at kings with no specialist knowledge of constitutional or international law, and he's controversial for making up nonsense facts. 2001:4646:4DE6:0:4C09:DA34:B645:F3DE (talk) 12:42, 2 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]