Talk:United Nations in popular culture

Television

• Documentaries about the United Nations frequently document the work of individuals within the organization, the peacekeeping activities of the United Nations, or ridicule the organization. – source?
  • WP:PRIMARY? Happy to drop the frequently if necessary. Pilaz (talk) 11:15, 15 October 2022 (UTC)[reply
    ]
    • With "frequently", this is
      WP:PROPORTION). The examples of documentaries all come exclusively from sources on the examples themselves, not sources on the overarching topic of the article (how the UN has been depicted in popular culture) or even this subsection (how the UN has been depicted in documentaries). Why are these the examples used? Is that reflective of the literature on the subject? Without sources on the overarching topic, there is no way to ensure that this represents due weight. The content here could be completely at odds with the treatment given in reliable sources on the topic in terms of relative weight, and we would have no way of knowing that without those sources. In short, verifiability is not the only reason sources are required, we also need them to assess and assign proper weight. TompaDompa (talk) 05:14, 18 October 2022 (UTC)[reply
      ]
• Helen Clark should be linked.
  •  Done. Changes in bold: My Year With Helen follows the unsuccessful bid of Helen Clark to become the first female UN Secretary-General. Pilaz (talk) 11:15, 15 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Omitting that Clark's candidacy was ultimately unsuccessful is a bit conspicuous.
  •  Done. Pilaz (talk) 11:15, 15 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• whereas Cahal McLaughlin, Siobhán Wills's It Stays with You: Use of Force by UN Peacekeepers in Haiti (2017) investigates [...] – this is ungrammatical and difficult to parse. Is it supposed to say that (1) the film by McLaughlin and Wills investigates, (2) that McLaughlin investigates in the film by Wills, or (3) something else?
  •  Done. Rephrased in order to clarify that the subject of the sentence is the documentary: whereas the documentary It Stays with You: Use of Force by UN Peacekeepers in Haiti (2017) of Cahal McLaughlin and Siobhán Wills investigates civilian deaths at the hands of UN peacekeepers in Cité Soleil, Haiti, between 2004 and 2007. Pilaz (talk) 11:15, 15 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • That should presumably be "by" McLaughlin and Wills rather than "of" them. TompaDompa (talk) 05:14, 18 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• the documentary U.N. Me, influenced by Sacha Baron Cohen's interviewing techniques – all three cited sources make comparisons to Michael Moore and only one to Sacha Baron Cohen. Why is Cohen mentioned here but not Moore?
  •  Done. It would make more sense to have Moore than Cohen mentioned in the article indeed, but going back to one of your recurring questions: why bother mentioning this? Removed influenced by Sacha Baron Cohen's interviewing techniques, since this removal doesn't negatively impact the article. Pilaz (talk) 11:15, 15 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• "T. H. R. Staff" is not the name of the author of The Hollywood Reporter article.
  •  Needs discussion. I only see THR Staff listed as author under the byline. Is 1) the author named somewhere else, 2) is it a punctuation problem, or 3) does THR Staff need to be removed since it is not an identifiable physical person? Pilaz (talk) 11:15, 15 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • Number 3. When an article is credited only to unnamed people working at the publication, I just leave the author parameters blank. There may be some other way of dealing with it, but we certainly cannot treat it as "first name: 'T. H. R.', last name: 'Staff'". TompaDompa (talk) 05:14, 18 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• offers a critique of the United Nations through the travels of its filmmakers, who seek to expose its shortcomings and scandals – the first "its" refers to the film and the second "its" to the UN. Try to rephrase to avoid this.
  •  Done. Rephrased to (changes in bold): offers a critique of the United Nations through the travels of its filmmakers, who seek to expose the organization's shortcomings and scandals. Pilaz (talk) 11:15, 15 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• The Warriors stuff relies way too much on verbatim quotes.
  •  Done. Paraphrased.
• the United Nations and the United States, where the protagonists hail from – is this meant to say that the protagonists hail from the UN and the US?
• Israeli-Palestinian conflict – Israeli–Palestinian conflict.
  •  Done. Pilaz (talk) 14:43, 15 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• The circumnavigation of the UN Security Council – circumvention?
  •  Done – circumvention. Pilaz (talk) 14:43, 15 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• the misrepresentation of the role of the UN Secretary-General – in what way?
  •  Done. Added, in parenthesis: (who is implied to be in control of the peacekeeping operation) Pilaz (talk) 14:43, 15 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • That's an improvement. I would add a further "rather than" clause to briefly explain how it actually works. The reader cannot be assumed to know how this is incorrect, so that context should be provided for them. TompaDompa (talk) 05:14, 18 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• the role of UN peacekeepers "botching" their mission in Rwanda is a subject of scrutiny – who is this quoting and why? This expresses the viewpoint that they mismanaged their assignment, using informal and somewhat inflammatory language in quotation marks, without attribution.
  •  Done – rephrased to in particular, the shortcomings of the UN peacekeeping mission in Rwanda are a subject of scrutiny. Both sources mention this: The Guardian less directly (one particularly harrowing scene involving UN peacekeepers shows that honourable intentions are not the same as fair and just results., with the A.V. Club being much more explicit (There’s very little wrongdoing that Black Earth Rising doesn’t attempt to address, from the United Nations botching its peacekeeping mission in Rwanda) Pilaz (talk) 14:43, 15 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • That is a major improvement. When writing articles like this, it is crucial to be mindful of the distinction between the subject of the depiction and the depiction itself. That goes both for the phrasing we use in the article and the context in which the sources are speaking. TompaDompa (talk) 05:14, 18 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Animated cartoons – is there any other kind?
  •  Needs discussion. Yes, non-animated cartoons? Cartoons aren't always animated according to Cartoon, and Animation also has the term cartoon bolded in the lead. Animated cartoon seemed like a good compromise to me at the time. I know we have comic books as a subsequent section, but I wonder if readers will expect comic books to be under cartoons. Any thoughts about how to best go forward on this? Animation perhaps, or just simply cartoons? Pilaz (talk) 14:43, 15 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • Right. Under the heading "Television", saying "Animated cartoons" seems rather redundant, however. I would use "Animation" here. TompaDompa (talk) 05:14, 18 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• the United Nations play an important role as they are depicted – treated as plural again.
  •  Done. Singular. Pilaz (talk) 14:43, 15 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• wiping off humanity's dignitaries – wiping out?
  •  Done. As suggested. Pilaz (talk) 14:43, 15 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• In the superhero cartoon series Young Justice, the Justice League is forced to deal with UN sanctions, as control over the United Nations remains an important theme throughout the series, and is also hampered by the election of nemesis Lex Luthor – "as" control remains an important theme? Who or what is hampered? This needs copyediting.
  •  Done. I split the sentence in two, and added one Polygon piece. The passage now reads: Throughout the superhero cartoon series Young Justice, the Justice League is forced to deal with UN sanctions and to struggle for influence over the United Nations. The Justice League is also hindered by the election of nemesis Lex Luthor to the position of UN Secretary-General. Pilaz (talk) 14:43, 15 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• the election of nemesis Lex Luthor to the position of United Nations Secretary-General – this is the seventh time the Secretary-General is mentioned in the article. Not linking the term until here seems rather late.
  •  Done. As suggested. Pilaz (talk) 14:43, 15 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Literature

• The entire "Science fiction" section is almost a thousand words—roughly a quarter of the length of the article as a whole—and cites only a single source. At some point, over-reliance on a single source crosses the line into outright plagiarism regardless of referencing, rephrasing, and
  WP:INTEXT
  attribution.
• the Isaac Asimov short story Shah Guido G – titles of short stories are presented in "quotes", not italics, and Isaac Asimov should definitely be linked.
• The reader shouldn't have to click the links to find out that Blue Mars and Red Mars are part of a series—the Mars trilogy.
• one of the leaders of the expedition on Mars recalls his counterparts to their duty, stating that their will is dictated by the United Nations, which represents 10 billion people, versus the ten thousand that they represent – "recalls his counterparts to their duty"?
• Stanisław Lem should be linked.
• Unsurprisingly,
  extraterrestrials would be Extraterrestrial intelligence or Extraterrestrials in fiction
  (take your pick).
• the UN is defined as "alienating, oppressive and militaristic" – "defined"?
• the world currency has become the UN dollar; and the organization overcharges – using a semicolon here does not seem correct to me.
• in French sci-fi novel needs a definite article.
• the UN votes adopts a law to kill newborns – anacoluthon.
• Red Mars is given as an example of both idealist and realist depictions of the UN. This apparent discrepancy should be clarified.
• at times capable of raising armies – I would parse "at times" as "some of the time in a given work", though the intended meaning is presumably "in some works". "Sometimes" or "occasionally" would be better.
• The architecture of the Assembly also leaves characters divided: admirative for some, and disenchanted for other. – I'm not sure what this is trying to say. Also, the last word should be plural.
• More often than not, the Secretary-General mirrors the real world, in that it is represented as a male or female political figure with a nationality, ranging from the idealist to the cynic. – as opposed to what? Also, the last two definite articles should be indefinite ones.
• Finally, science fiction depictions of the United Nations depict it as a bureaucratic institution, as a corrupt institution, and underline its legal formalism. – is this generally true, or should there be a qualifier along the lines of "some"?
• depict it as a bureaucratic institution, as a corrupt institution, and underline its legal formalism. – is this three different ways of depicting it or three different aspects of the same depiction (or something else entirely)? Either way, it needs copyediting for clarity.
• Dick, Barjavel and Dantec describe the organization as a bureaucracy. – maybe there's something I'm missing, but this seems rather trivial?
• In Dick, Bordage and Dantec, UN officials engage in acts of corruption – if this is true of multiple works by these authors, write "In the works of", and if it applies to specific works that have already been mentioned, give the titles. Either way, avoid the metonymy of using the author's name to mean their works.
• in Haldeman's Forever War, the only way to make the organization incorruptible would be to automate it, depriving it of its humanity. – this is rather unclear. Does this assertion come from the book itself or is it analysis of the book?
• Legal formalism is basically only name-checked. The article does not make it clear why this is something that is interesting to note or examine further.
• Robert A. Heinlein should be linked.
• "Finally" is used five times in the article, thrice in this section, and twice in a single paragraph.
• Beyond science-fiction, other representations – it is debatable whether "science fiction" should have a hyphen when used attributively (e.g. "science-fiction novel"), but it should not have one when used as a stand-alone term.
• other representations of the UN have also seen the light in fiction – "seen the light" is not exactly the most encyclopaedic phrasing.
• the protagonist works for the League of Nations, the predecessor of the United Nations – I would link League of Nations, but why is this included at all? This is not actually about the UN.
• offers a fictional critique of the organization – what is meant by "a fictional critique" in this context?
• offers through fiction insights – clunky wording.
• Is it "Plutonian" or "the Plutonian"?
• Iron Man is seen giving a speech at the United Nations – what about it?
• the UN disavows the Avengers' charter – this is entirely devoid of context that would make it understandable to anyone not already familiar with this storyline.

Video games

• an incredibly powerful corporation – don't use "incredibly".
  •  Done. See below. Pilaz (talk) 10:20, 15 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• given that the "world's problems" have been "outsourced" to him – overuse of direct quotes. Paraphrase instead.
  •  Done. Split in two sentences, removed direct quotes, paraphrased, added two sources to support the description of the organization he heads, and the fact that he is granted a seat at the Security Council: In Call of Duty: Advanced Warfare (2014), game nemesis Jonathan Irons, leader of the world's largest private military company, is granted a seat at the UN Security Council. In a speech to the UN, he declares the organization obsolete due to the world having delegated its problems to him. Pilaz (talk) 10:20, 15 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• It should be made clear that UNATCO is fictional.
  •  Done. Rephrased and inserted at the end of the first paragraph (as opposed to its own paragraph): The protagonist of Deus Ex, JC Denton, similarly works for the fictional United Nations Anti-Terrorist Coalition (UNATCO), a militant police force which is prominently featured throughout the game. Pilaz (talk) 10:20, 15 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • Rephrased as: A similar futuristic organization appears in Deus Ex (2000), where protagonist JC Denton works for the fictional United Nations Anti-Terrorist Coalition (UNATCO), a militant police force prominently featured throughout the game. Pilaz (talk) 10:22, 15 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Music

• United Nations later released a second album, featuring the United Nations's cease-and-desist letters on its cover. – I would replace the first "United Nations" with "The band" and remove the second one outright (leaving "[...] featuring the cease-and-desist letters [...]").
  •  Done Changed to "the band" and "the organization". It now reads: The band later released a second album, featuring the organization's cease and desist letters on its cover. Pilaz (talk) 09:56, 15 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• the band's lead singer stated that the UN official who was behind the lawsuit had been recently fired – what of it? Why are we repeating what appears to be hearsay here?
  •  Done Removed. Although contextually interesting and properly sourced per
    WP:SUBSTANTIATE, this sentence does not significantly improve the understanding of the representation of the United Nations in popular culture. Removing it does not degrade the article, so I'm happy to remove it. Pilaz (talk) 09:56, 15 October 2022 (UTC)[reply
    ]

1. Is it well written?

   A. The prose is clear and concise, and the spelling and grammar are correct:

   A lot of copyediting is needed, as noted above.

   B. It complies with the

   list incorporation

   :

   WP:LEAD

   is also way too short.

2. Is it verifiable with no original research?

   A. It contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with

   the layout style guideline

   :

   See however my comments above.

   B. All

   reliable sources, including those for direct quotations, statistics, published opinion, counter-intuitive or controversial statements that are challenged or likely to be challenged, and contentious material relating to living persons—science-based articles should follow the scientific citation guidelines

   :

   A cursory look has revealed nothing overtly unreliable, though I would need to take a closer look to be sure.

   C. It contains no original research:

   See my comments above.

   D. It contains no copyright violations nor plagiarism:

   Earwig reveals no overt copyvio, but the "Science fiction" section is well beyond what I consider acceptable, as noted above.

3. Is it broad in its coverage?

   A. It addresses the main aspects of the topic:

   As a quick-to-spot example, the relative lack of prominence of the UN in popular culture (and the possible reasons behind that) discussed by this source (listed in the article's bibliography but not cited in the article itself) is not covered by the article.

   B. It stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style):

   There is quite a bit of material of questionable relevance here. See my comments above.

4. Is it
   neutral
   ?

   It represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each:

   Opinions are presented as facts in some places, as noted above.

5. Is it stable?

   It does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing

   edit war

   or content dispute:

6. Is it illustrated, if possible, by images?

   A. Images are

   copyright status, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content

   :

   The sole image is public domain.

   B. Images are

   suitable captions

   :

   The sole image is relevant and the caption is suitable (though it needs minor copyediting, as noted above).

7. Overall:

   Pass or Fail:

   I think this was nominated prematurely. There is much to be done before this can be listed as a

   WP:Good article

   . It's plain to see that quite a bit of research went into this, but that has unfortunately not translated into a high-quality article. In terms of writing style, it doesn't really look like something that was written for Wikipedia.

@TompaDompa: Hello TompaDompa, thank you for the GA review. I'll be going through your points in the next few hours, and will ping you again once I have addressed those. Pilaz (talk) 18:03, 11 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Adding to this, I think the sample of issues that you have highlighted are resolvable, and while I do not know the full intended extent of your review, I will happily work with you through them in a timely manner. I think I anticipate to be able to address the first batch within the next few hours. Pilaz (talk) 18:07, 11 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

More than a week has passed and several major issues remain unresolved. I'm closing this as unsuccessful. I have added strikethrough markup to resolved issues, replied to some of your comments, and added a couple of additional issues I spotted. I will also add some maintenance templates to the article itself.

The core issue that permeates this article is that it does not read like a Wikipedia article. Rather, it reads more like a secondary source. This is not trivially fixable, because it is not merely a question of individual sentences being problematic. There are several components to this, one being the writing style/language use, the many

The article needs to be based on sources on the overarching topic of the article (or at least major aspects thereof—I haven't looked into it in detail, but Sluga and Hajjami seem like adequate sources for this purpose). Sources on the examples (i.e. individual depictions) can absolutely be used to supplement sources on the overarching topic (a good example of how this can be done: North by Northwest is used as an example on the basis of being discussed in a source on the overarching topic, while the source for the sentence Hitchcock was not allowed to film inside the UN building [...] is a source on North by Northwest itself), but they cannot serve as the basis for the article. The essay

This may be renominated at any time (as discussed above, preferably in the "Language and literature" category), though if that is done before the issues above have been resolved it will of course qualify for a