Talk:Model United Nations

Overhaul

Hi, I've noticed that this article generally lacks smoothness in its writing, in addition to being rather poor at explaining what Model UN really is and what it involves. I've completely rewritten the intro piece, as well as the sections on History and Languages. In addition, I have added sections on Model UN Around the world and In pop culture.

Although I have made some changes to the committees section, it is by no means complete. Thankfully the long and needless list of UN organizations has been removed (it really just filled up space, and deceived people into thinking Model UN is confined to simulations of the United Nations).

In addition, the section on Rules of procedure needs some serious work as well.csbisbee (talk) 18:50, 9 August 2014 (UTC)

How applying for United Nations laissez-passer Dameradam (talk) 15:57, 19 May 2022 (UTC)

New Editing

Hello! I've archived the previous talk page to here: /Archive 2. I'm attempting to start a new editing cleanup for this page. I've looked over the article, and here are the issues:

• Sources: There are almost no reliable secondary sources for the concepts described on the page. The only references are for examples.
• Range: Most of the concepts seem to describe a selectively local group. Since this is about MUNs in general, it should have sourced content about MUNs in general.
• Organization: The sections should have better organization and be arranged with a general reader in mind.
• Specific Examples: Specific MUNs should be added here: List of Model United Nations conferences.

There seems to be a lot of material being contributed to this page by various editors, but please remember that all assertions should be sourced and that content should follow WP:N. Please do not write advertisements. To start with, I will remove the section THIMUN Online Model United Nations. Thank youKkj11210 (talk) 01:21, 22 November 2013 (UTC)

UPDATE: I've edited out most of the advertisements and the unreliable information on the first section. May need cleanup and reorganization for legibility purposes Kkj11210 (talk) 10:33, 23 November 2013 (UTC)

UPDATE: I have finished rewriting the article, but in doing so, I have removed a lot of information. Please added information with reliable SOURCES. Thanks you. Kkj11210 (talk) 11:53, 28 November 2013 (UTC)

In Popular Culture referencing

I removed a load of trivial content but was reverted without explanation. Do you really need to list every time someone mentions the word "Model UN" in some kind of media? Also an established editor reverting an obvious good faith and clearly summarized edit without explanation is really bad form. --2601:1:9A00:AC00:5AB0:35FF:FE5D:A1F3 (talk) 15:32, 21 November 2014 (UTC)

I apologize if your edit was in a good faith, but at the time it appeared to be an attempt at sneaky vandalism. You unilaterally removed a large piece of the article under popular culture claiming it all to be "trivial" when a fair amount of what you removed directly centered on Model UN (i.e. content that more than just "mentions the word [sic] 'Model UN'"). I am glad that you brought this up on the talk page and clarified that you merely made a mistake in overly enthusiastically removing trivial content (as there definitely was some, and its removal is appreciated) and were not in fact purposefully compromising the integrity of the article. Thanks! Cjeongbis (talk) 16:57, 23 November 2014 (UTC)

I didn't make a mistake, what I removed were unreferenced trivial mentions of the article subject. Your patronizing attitude is unhelpful. Pop culture references should only be listed when their relevance is backed up by secondary sources. WP:POPCULTURE is a good essay on the topic. Do you plan on finding secondary sources which discuss something like Parks and Recreations mention of Model UN? 2601:1:9A00:AC00:5AB0:35FF:FE5D:A1F3 (talk) 16:41, 25 November 2014 (UTC)

The popular culture pieces were referenced (I'll reproduce the reference here: bestdelegate.com/diplomacy-on-the-silver-screen-model-un-from-a-pop-culture-perspective/), though not individually (and that can easily be fixed). Also, I was being earnest not patronizing. (Just to be clear, the reference explains Parks and Recreations's episode devoted to Model UN). Cjeongbis (talk) 21:00, 25 November 2014 (UTC)

China

Etodemerzel has repeatedly attempted to change the China section of this article replacing information from The Atlantic, a "high-quality review" with a "national reputation" with information from a far more questionable source. I'm going to assume good-faith here and recommend that this user stop changing the article until they can find more reliable sources. Cjeongbis (talk) 10:53, 2 December 2014 (UTC)

If Cjeongbis did a bit of research then he/she'll find that cnki.net, the source that this user had used, is not some questionable source but the official Chinese database of all journals. As anyone can see, "China National Knowledge Infrastructure (CNKI), launched in 1988, is an electronic platform created to integrate significant Chinese knowledge-based information resources. As a result, CNKI is the most authoritative, comprehensive, and largest source of China-based information resources in the world, reflecting the latest developments in Chinese politics, economics, humanity and social science, science and technology." The source that this user used is taken from here, and it's taken from the official school magazine, Foreign Affairs Review, published by China Foreign Affairs University in 1995. The article states that China Foreign Affairs University held its first Model UN activity in 1995 in order to celebrate the 50th anniversary of the United Nations, and that it is the first time any university in China had hosted MUN activity. Please use a translation service if you cannot understand the abstract.

Also, if Cjeongbis does care about the authenticity and reliability of the source, why did he keep adding back the deleted paragraphs? Could he/she please point out where in the original article of The Atlantic did the author mention that "Three national conferences, the Peking University National Model United Nations Conference for High School Students, the Fudan University International Model United Nations (FDUIMUN) conference, and the Weland Education Company’s WEMUN Expo are considered the most prestigious in China, drawing the country’s best high school delegates."? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Etodemerzel (talk • contribs) 10:57, 2 December 2014 (UTC)

If you believe that both sources are reputable, please note this on the talk page in the future. I would recommend not continuing to change the article when two sources conflict in this way and finding additional sources to clarify.

The article clearly describes all three as preeminent MUN conferences in China, but if you disagree with wording please try to modify it instead of completely deleting it. Cjeongbis (talk) 11:14, 2 December 2014 (UTC)

I think that my source is the one to believe. The Atlantic states that "This activity took root in China when the first collegiate MUN team was formed at the elite Peking University (PKU) in 2000.". However, if there's proof that the first collegiate MUN conference was held prior to this date on a credible source, then The Atlantic is wrong. As mentionened, I've provided a credible source and thus, the sentence from the Atlantic is inaccurate. Since "MUN was introduced to China in 2000 by PKU" is a common mistake made by Chinese participants, this credible source on a journal clearly refutes that claim. I cannot think of any other better proof: the article I mentioned was published in 1995, doesn't that mean MUN was introduced in 1995 by China Foreign Affairs University?

Also, nowhere in the article by The Atlantic states that the three are the most prestigious ones. The original sentence writes: "Between 2005 and 2010, national MUN conferences such as those organized by PKU and the rivaling Fudan University in Shanghai drew the best high school students from around the country, who competed for limited spaces." Nowhere in the sentence claims that the one organized by PKU and FDU are THE most prestigious ones; they're merely among the national ones that are prestigious. Also, nowhere in the article did the author wrote about WEMUN Expo hosted by Weland is among those prestigious ones.

When I asked Cjeongbis to point out exactly where did The Atlantic mentioned this, I mean EXACT sentences since you pay so much attention to the sources being credible and reliable.--Etodemerzel (talk) 11:35, 2 December 2014 (UTC)

The problem here is that both sources are fairly reliable (thank you by the way for explaining your source, it's appreciated), and even if The Atlantic is more well known and reputable, I'm glad that we're having this discussion. I would disagree with your argument that 'Source X contradicts Source Y, therefore Source Y must be wrong,' because exactly the opposite could be argued. Additional sources would be helpful and if you can find more that verify your claim that would be great. I want to emphasize that I'm just trying to protect the integrity of the article, so if your claim is indeed correct then I of course want it included in the Model UN article—I just want to make sure that everything is accurate and well-sourced.

I would again encourage you to suggest changes on this talk page if you disagree with the wording of the paragraph on conferences.

I want to again state that I'm not trying to be confrontational here or discourage you from editing, I just want to protect the article. I hope that we can work on this together and ensure that MUN in China is well-covered in the article. Cjeongbis (talk) 15:48, 2 December 2014 (UTC)

Still, I cannot think of any other better proof: the article I mentioned was published in 1995, doesn't that mean MUN was introduced in 1995 by China Foreign Affairs University?

If you found that The Atlantic has an article stating that the concept of realpolitik was coined in say, 1950, and then you discovered an article using the word realpolitik in a database that contains all printed magazines which was published in 1945 , shouldn't the latter one be credited instead of the first one? Chronological order of publishing date is impossible to fake: it's like fossils: once you find an earlier one, the date must be pushed back.

Also, I adjusted the wording to reflect the quote in The Atlantic.

I'm also not confrontational on this one, I just want to reflect the whole truth. If you still don't agree with the begin date of MUN in China, I'll try to contact a higher level editor to settle this.

Thank you for the efforts.--Etodemerzel (talk) 16:18, 2 December 2014 (UTC)

I would say that's not an accurate comparison. A more accurate one might be if in the year 1981, The Atlantic stated that Chinese market reforms occurred in the 1970s and the China Foreign Affairs University published a piece in 1976 which said that Chinese market reforms occurred in the 1950s under Mao. Just because the China Foreign Affairs University article was published earlier, does not make it more reliable or correct.

Thank you though for being more conciliatory. I'm hoping that we can find additional sources to clarify the discrepancies between these two accounts. Cjeongbis (talk) 18:27, 2 December 2014 (UTC)

I've found additional sources supporting the claim that CFAU held the first collegiate MUN conference in China. Here they are: 1. Xinhuanet (Xinhua News Agency's website, in English); 2. Sina Finance (Sina News, one of the largest news portals in China, in Chinese. Translation for paragraph 3 sentence 2: As the "Cradle of Diplomats" of China, China Foreign Affairs University introduced MUN as early as 1995 from Yale University and has since successfully held five nationwide Beijing Model United Nations.) 3. Tianjin University News Portal (In Chinese. Translation for paragraph 4 sentence 1: Since China Foreign Affairs University held the first MUN in China, the activity has witnessed rising popularity in Chinese higher education institutions and has become a hot-spot student activity in universities nationwide.) 4. China Youth Daily Online Archive (China Youth Daily, newspaper published on April 21, 2014 in Chinese. Translation for paragraph 3: As the "Cradle of Diplomats" of China, China Foreign Affairs University introduced MUN as early as 1995 from Yale University and has since successfully held nine nationwide Beijing Model United Nations.)

Is that enough to prove the credibility of my modifications? Sorry that most of the sources are in Chinese. Recommending the usage of a translation service if you don't know Chinese.--Etodemerzel (talk) 16:07, 3 December 2014 (UTC)

Those sources look good! I'd say that the change to your updated version of the China section is definitely appropriate now. Thank you very much for being patient and finding additional sources to verify the information! Cjeongbis (talk) 23:45, 3 December 2014 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Model 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:

• Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20160109102930/http://banmun.com/ to http://www.banmun.com

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: 18 January 2022).

• 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} 19:08, 27 February 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Model United Nations. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.banmun.com

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

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: 18 January 2022).

• 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} 23:52, 26 May 2016 (UTC)

Cover Photo

The cover photo that promotes Becoming-a-MODEL-UN-delegate Step By Step Guide. Is this appropriate? I don't think it should be there and should be moved to references. Eddydavik (talk) 07:19, 7 January 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 25 May 2017

Please add mentions of AUDMUN and AUSMUN as notable MUN Conferences under the UAE section. 5.37.148.36 (talk) 11:31, 25 May 2017 (UTC)

Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. Murph9000 (talk) 14:26, 25 May 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 29 July 2017

Soham Das

Model United Nations conferences are simulations of various international and national executive and legislative committees , forums or organs. It is a vibrant forum for discussion and deliberations. Model United Nations provides you with a perspective. Your allotment or portfolio determines your perspective or approach to the problem at hand. In Model United Nations conferences , portfolio or allotments are your assigned roles in the discussion. Your preparation and performance will depend on this. For example, you might be allotted Defense Minister in a simulation of the Union Cabinet. Preference is indication of your affinity for any particular portfolio or allotment, say Republic of India. You should ideally indicate it on the MUN registration form. It will be an enlightening experience for the students and they would surely get more exposure.

To, begin with I am providing you with some original content about international relations, MUN and the United Nations.

https://www.quora.com/What-is-the-role-of-the-United-Nations-UN-if-a-war-erupts-between-two-or-more-countries/answer/Soham-Coeur-DLion

https://www.quora.com/Does-the-world-still-need-the-US-for-leadership/answer/Soham-Coeur-DLion

https://www.quora.com/Can-the-UN-serve-as-a-balance-against-US-dominance/answer/Soham-Coeur-DLion

https://www.quora.com/What-does-portfolio-preference-mean-in-MUN/answer/Soham-Coeur-DLion

https://www.quora.com/How-shall-I-represent-Libya-in-MUN-INTERPOL-where-we-discuss-cybercrime-and-transnational-terrorism/answer/Soham-Coeur-DLion

In simple words, MUN stands for MODEL UNITED NATIONS. Now, what are MUNs? It is an interactive forum for discussion on diverse issues of both national and international concern. It is usually hosted by universities, colleges and even schools. Its a lot of fun and a learning experience too. You get to know a lot of nice, intelligent people. You get to make new friends. And for those of you on the look-out for civil services, there cannot be a better homework for you. It would make you industry-ready. It will kick the shyness out off you and make you smart, confident and corporate. DAS SOHAM (talk) 23:29, 29 July 2017 (UTC)

Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format. st170e 23:36, 29 July 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 24 October 2017

add "2017- Global Populism and National Identity" to the table in the "Korea" section of the Model United Nations page, with '2017' under 'year' and 'Global Populism and National Identity" under 'conference agenda'. Source: https://www.seomunxx.com/ Turkeyluck (talk) 09:39, 24 October 2017 (UTC)

Done Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 16:58, 25 October 2017 (UTC)

References

Semi-protected edit request on 24 October 2017

Add Hong Kong to the Asia section of the page, and include these conferences: CDNISMUN An annual conference which takes place at Canadian International School and includes delegations from both local and international schools in hong kong, and has also started inviting delegations from overseas schools. VSAMUN The Victoria-Shanghai Academy MUN is a conference for beginner delegates to gain experience of what an MUN Conference is. Held annually, it compromises of delegates from all over Hong Kong. CISMUN SISMUN HKMUN Hong Kong MUN is the largest MUN held annually in Hong Kong during March. Compromising of hundreds of students from both local and international schools, this MUN seeks to encourage students to debate about issues of global political significance. Hong Kong continues to provide a wide range of conferences for students in both local and international schools to attend over the course of the year. Turkeyluck (talk) 09:52, 24 October 2017 (UTC)

Not done but open for more discussion – Two of the provided sources are future events and the other two are plain primary. I'd say wait this out until coverage in reliable secondary sources appears. ToThAc (talk) 17:44, 25 October 2017 (UTC)

References

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Model United Nations. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20150115050959/http://www.unachina.org/upload/Attach/default/272497.doc to http://www.unachina.org/upload/Attach/default/272497.doc

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

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: 18 January 2022).

• 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.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 04:13, 6 December 2017 (UTC)

External links modified (February 2018)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 6 external links on Model United Nations. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20131006070307/http://www.thimun.org/9-features/2-thimun-conference to http://www.thimun.org/9-features/2-thimun-conference
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20150825233629/http://unysab.org/?page_id=584 to http://unysab.org/?page_id=584
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20150402121800/http://www.unyouth.org.nz/events/thimun to http://www.unyouth.org.nz/events/thimun
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20160111230450/http://dhaseanplus.org/ to http://dhaseanplus.org/
• Added archive https://archive.is/20150501160542/http://hccri.org/ to http://hccri.org/
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20160127113132/http://modelun.ch/ to http://modelun.ch/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

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: 18 January 2022).

• 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.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 07:46, 3 February 2018 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 7 February 2018

I have advised MUN for 20 years and out of frustration with the current books available decided to write my own. I would like this resource added to the "Books" section. The book contains instructions and exercises to develop key MUN skills in addition to basic information about the UN. I am not asking for an advertisement, just a listing alongside the others with a link so readers can be aware it is an option.

Engaging the United Nations: A Brief Introduction to the UN. Brian Dille. Engagement Learning. 2017. ISBN: 9780998851808

Embed the following link in the title: www.engagingtheun.com

Thanks for considering this request. 71.211.103.86 (talk) 22:01, 7 February 2018 (UTC)

 Done — MRD2014 ^Talk 00:18, 8 February 2018 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 19 March 2018

Youth Model United Nations (Y-MUN) was established in 2017 in Kabul Afghanistan. Youth Model United Nations (talk) 18:26, 19 March 2018 (UTC)

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. — IVORK _Discuss 21:55, 19 March 2018 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 28 April 2018

176.205.126.112 (talk) 16:18, 28 April 2018 (UTC)

The mun has position papers to submit.

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. NiciVampireHeart 17:46, 28 April 2018 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 1 May 2018

Reason: Add below text to Japan: Model United Nation conference by region and countries tag. Many missing information

Japan

Model UN was first introduced to Japan in 1983 by Sadako Ogata (former UN High Commissioner for Refugees). MUN activities then gradually spread across Japan, conducted now in various universities. There are currently over 700 students conducting MUN activities in Japan; to list some, students range from University of Tokyo, Waseda University, Keio University, Sophia University, Kyoto University to Osaka University. With its over 30 years of history, Japanese MUN graduates are now leading wide range of careers including international organizations, Japanese ministries, financial sectors, IT companies, media, higher educational institutions and NGOs.

Currently, Japan Model United Nations (JMUN, an umbrella organization managing MUN activities and conferences in Japan) holds three other conferences apart from AJMUN (Kansai MUN in August, Kyushu Summer Session in September, Hokuriku MUN in November). Also, it is responsible for training and sending selected Japanese delegates to NMUN (National MUN in New York). JCK (Japan China Korea) Youth Forum and Global Classrooms (MUN for high school students) are other examples that show how MUN activities are widespread across Japan. In recent years, increasing number of high school students or even company leaders enjoy MUN activities for its educational values.

In recent years, MUN in Japan is usually hosted by the international schools and universities in Japan too. Kindai University, Kobe University, Tsukuba University, Senzoku Gakuen and Tokyo International University have all hosted Model United Nations conference. These conferences are typically separated into university and high school levels. Model United Nations conferences are run by the school or the university club, with some guidance from their advisors. These regional MUN conferences from students in Japan are widely recognized by the Japan Model United Nation committees. Big conferences hosted by students such as: Japan English Model United Nation; Tsukuba English Model United Nation; Tokyo International University Model United Nation have gained a lot more recognition over the years. These yearly conferences agenda are chosen after careful and extensive deliberation and discussion by the Organizing Committee and deals with an issue of great importance to the world that needs to be addressed with comprehensive and innovative solutions; that serve as a basis for resolutions in the future. Rwby00 (talk) 14:40, 1 May 2018 (UTC)

 Not done: The sources provided don't satisfy reliable sources as they are either original research (the JMUN, Tsukuba, tiu, nmun & waseken refs), self-referring (you can't use wikipedia as its own reference) or questionable reliability (best delegate is fairly similar to an industry magazine in this context, and so reliability is possible, but questioned). I wasn't quite able to determine news2u's reliability, but it wasn't sufficient evidence for more than a small amount of the article, which wouldn't make much sense on its own. The key bit is reliable, secondary sources Nosebagbear (talk) 15:01, 1 May 2018 (UTC)

References

Semi-protected edit request on 1 December 2018

== Model UN by region and country == === South America === ====Brazil====

IBMRMUN

The IBMR Model United Nations is a MUN Conference held in the city of Rio de Janeiro, nearby the Olympic Park, in Barra da Tijuca. It is organized by students of the course of International Relations, Law, Journalism and Economics of Uni IBMR. During the 4th edition, in 2018, IBMR MUN became the largest MUN Conference in the State of Rio de Janeiro, and one of the largest in the Southeast of Brazil and the secretariat officialized the international status of the event, stating the two official languages, Portuguese (National Language) and English (International Language), as well as IBMRMUN's multilingual services. The Conference, currently, offers full consulting for prospective delegates in Portuguese, English, Spanish and French, and partial consulting in German, Italian, Japanese and Korean. The Conference seeks to create an open space for ideas, culture sharing and friendship, as well as a place for knowledge improvement, emphasizing the need of inclusion. That's why IBMR MUN is one of the most inclusive Conferences in Brazil, aiming the lowest costs for delegates. Due to our slogan, "Turning Ideas into Action", IBMR MUN is also a partner of UNIC Rio(United Nations Information Center in Rio de Janeiro) and Caritas, local representative of UNHCR (United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees), which IBMR MUN supports, such as performing campaign, mainly for Venezuelan and Haitian Refugees. The event, usually, lasts four days, including lectures, debates and networking chances. 187.48.167.29 (talk) 18:16, 1 December 2018 (UTC)

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. Izno (talk) 19:00, 1 December 2018 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 1 February 2019

39.32.48.232 (talk) 13:44, 1 February 2019 (UTC)

HITEC University Taxila Pakistan also arranges HITMUN every year.

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. ‑‑ElHef (Meep?) 14:30, 1 February 2019 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 11 April 2019

I'd like to add a section about Switzerland Arteditsorus (talk) 09:53, 11 April 2019 (UTC)

 Not done: this is not the right page to request additional user rights. You may reopen this request with the specific changes to be made and someone will add them for you, or if you have an account, you can wait until you are autoconfirmed and edit the page yourself. ‑‑ElHef (Meep?) 13:07, 11 April 2019 (UTC)

External links

• Global Youth MUN Conference
• Arab Youth International MUN

Renewing the structure

The creation of the List of Model United Nations conferences has managed to clearly remove much of the advertising and self-promotion from here. It's not over, but it's something.

Now what truly needs to happen is a review of the structure. The Model UN by region and country section has become disproportionately big, and some other categories are pretty much useless and could be merged together. I also believe that the general rules section should be split between classic MUN and crisis committees.

So, what needs to go and what needs to stay in terms of structure?

--Pilaz (talk) 20:50, 28 April 2019 (UTC)

Hello, I strongly agree with the point about splitting the general rules section into crisis and classic committees. Because crisis committees are an important, unique aspect of Model UN in their own right, I think it is fair to go ahead with editing that section without further delay. Hexlance (talk) 01:12, 23 November 2020 (UTC)

Update: I just completed writing a Crisis Committee subsection, this is my first time editing on Wikipedia so if anything is wrong, feel free to change it! Hexlance (talk) 01:43, 23 November 2020 (UTC)

Notable participants

I'm removing the following "notable participants" because I cannot find any source about them, and they have just been sitting unsourced in this section for years:

• Ryan Seacrest: no source found. No reference to Model UN on his Wikipedia page.
• Barack Obama: no source found. No reference to Model UN on his Wikipedia page.
• Samuel L. Jackson: no source found. No reference to Model UN on his Wikipedia page.
• Stephen Breyer: no source found. No reference to Model UN on his Wikipedia page.

I saved a few notable participants, although they are not technically full participants in Model UN:

• Ban Ki-moon has claimed he participated in a UN debate when in university
• Stephen M. Schwebel was president of the society which sent Model UN delegations at Harvard, and reportedly participated in a UNESCO committee, but it's unknown if the format was Model UN. He seemed less interested in simulations that I initially thought.

Pilaz (talk) 13:09, 10 May 2019 (UTC)

Trimming down national sections of Model United Nations

Clearly most of the conferences listed are irrelevant because unencyclopedic. I'd especially like to point to the fact that almost all conferences plugged in this article for promotional purposes and have zero coverage beyond primary sources, i.e. their own website.

Take for example this passage, which I have moved out of the Article to here:

In 2018 , a company focused on delivering the authentic MUN experience Pinakulo started with their innagural conference The Army Public School MUN , Bhopal

The key feature here should be that we need to move the national stuff out of the main page and keep it at an encyclopedic reasonable level. Just because a conference was founded last year isn't a reason to be on Wikipedia, and definitely not on the main Wikipedia page for MUN. Pilaz (talk) 16:39, 24 July 2019 (UTC)

Deletion of non-secondary sourced conferences

In line with the above, I'm proposing that we strike every conference in the page that doesn't have a secondary source supporting them (whether that source is good enough can be considered in the usual manner). And we continue to do so - we clear it out every six months or year and they slowly trickle back in.

I know I could just go the BRD approach, but I thought It'd be better to give at least a chance for someone to object before wiping a good 25% of the article.

It's a hoard of promotional stuff that we already have a perfectly good list for. Nosebagbear (talk) 21:48, 4 August 2019 (UTC)

Support. There's honestly no way around this. We've got to put an end to WP:PROMO on this page. I recommend we ping editors who added individual conferences to look for secondary sources by a deadline. We could set August 15 as a deadline, which is a full week. Thanks for the initiative Nosebagbear. Pilaz (talk) 17:28, 6 August 2019 (UTC)

Pinging

Though it won't, and can't, be a complete list, I'm pinging various users who have added conference content in the last year. Please ensure you have at least 1 suitable secondary reference for any conference you have added by the 14th August. If you've already added a suitable source, thank you, please feel free to ignore. @Rahul2sawant, Sakhir.ali, Mohsinism, Zvikorn, Marco12091, MalikAbbas10, Intellectual Bookworm, Wikipedia editor 240904, Evin Sönmez, 77.124.33.49, and Muhammad Abbas Akbari: Nosebagbear (talk) 17:46, 6 August 2019 (UTC)

Please don’t delete my content. I am traveling and won’t be back by the 14th. IsraeliIdan (talk) 18:24, 6 August 2019 (UTC)

@Israelidan, here's a version with what you wrote on Israel. I suggest you re-add it only if you have secondary sources. Pilaz (talk) 22:17, 22 August 2019 (UTC)

Update

• Right, I've taken a rusty axe to the content - hence the now hoard of "empty section" tags. If anyone wants to remove them until content is added, that's fine. There is one table that wasn't particularly promotional in its existence, but the conferences are already on the list of conferences, so seemed to serve no purpose as a duplication. I did a brief check for each country's paragraph and in-depth one for several of them, usually with no joy. I did find that Morocco has a surprisingly good source coverage, despite no mention in this article. Please do not re-add the content without adding sources with it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nosebagbear (talk • contribs) 14 August 2019 (UTC)

• I've reviewed all your edits and can't disapprove any, so congratulations on taking a jab at this. Concerning the "empty section" tags, I suggest we keep them around for a month or so and take them out if no one is willing to add stuff to them. I also think Spain may have some sources in Spanish regarding Model UN, so if I see one or more I'll be sure to re-add a little bit of it into the article. I'm also considering Denmark as a candidate for removal, since no secondary sources have emerged - I'll take a second look though. Pilaz (talk) 22:01, 22 August 2019 (UTC)
• @Nosebagbear and Pilaz: Good job to you both! I agree with the recent edits and the discussion here as well. :D –MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 03:56, 23 August 2019 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 16 December 2019

Saudi Arabia Model United Nations is the biggest MUN Conferences in the Middle East region. They aim to place Riyadh as the next Hub for Youth conferences and the new global center for MUN. It hosts over 1,000 participants. It is hosted in King Faisal School, Riyadh, Saudi Arabia. Their website is www.samun.net. https://sabq.org/hT5tZM . https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0lh5pLoGl8E . https://www.kfs.sch.sa/ar/node/402 . Albizioui (talk) 10:28, 16 December 2019 (UTC)

 Not done. It's not clear what changes you want to make. –Deacon Vorbis (carbon • videos) 23:13, 16 December 2019 (UTC)

Citation for line in 'Academic aspects'

While several guides on the techniques of writing Position Papers, including templates and examples, are available, no conferences publish their Study Guides, Position Papers or Resolutions.^{[citation needed]}
This point varies from conference to conference, some have their study guides public, but it's not as common to upload position papers or resolutions nonetheless. Do advise nonetheless! :) Aaryan ^{📬 • 🥰} 08:10, 11 June 2020 (UTC)

MUN vs M.U.N.

@Idell: I have reverted your addition of dots to the acronym of "MUN". MOS:POINTS states that it's customary "not to use full points" within an acronym, and this is well-established within English Wikipedia. However, I take your point on pronounciation, given that two exist: the one pronounced as single letters, and the one as a full word (less common). Perhaps it'd be worth to have both in parenthesis following the acronym as you suggested. Appreciate your feedback. Thanks. Pilaz (talk) 14:58, 26 October 2020 (UTC)

@Pilaz: I made the bold edit since it is very common to mispronounce it as an acronym. I would be okay with just adding something like "(/ˈɛmjuːˌɛn/)" right next to the acronym abbreviation. It might be a controversial edit without reliable sources to back this. But, I didn’t quite understand you, did you want to include its pronunciation as a single word (/mʌn/) as well? Idell (talk) 15:22, 26 October 2020 (UTC)

MUN is the correct way to write it, but giving both pronunications seems reasonable. It is, of course, almost always spoken as "mun" once something is added to it (most commonly conference names) Nosebagbear (talk) 15:42, 26 October 2020 (UTC)

If we decide to include both pronunciations, and if they can be cited, then we could also mention the pronunciation as individual letters to be the preferred version. Idell (talk) 18:35, 26 October 2020 (UTC)

Use MUN, per MOS:ABBR. Please read the applicable style guideslines before re-re-re-opening old style arguments.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  01:05, 16 October 2021 (UTC)

Crisis committees

Hello, I strongly agree with the point about splitting the general rules section into crisis and classic committees. Because crisis committees are an important, unique aspect of Model UN in their own right, I think it is fair to go ahead with editing that section without further delay. Hexlance (talk) 01:12, 23 November 2020 (UTC)

Update: I just completed writing a Crisis Committee subsection, this is my first time editing on Wikipedia so if anything is wrong, feel free to change it! Hexlance (talk) 01:43, 23 November 2020 (UTC)

@Hexlance: hi there. Since that section was 18 months old, I felt your addition warranted its own topic for discussion so it wasn't missed!

I think you're right - they're a significant part with significant coverage and are so different that it splitting it off does make sense. I've taken your content, trimmed some less needed detail and added a bit more from another source. If there are any changes you'd like to propose to my changes, happy to discuss them.

I stuck with your phrasings, but a look round at some other sources might suggest they're in the minority - on the European circuit, "staffers" and "directors" are substantially different (the latter run the backend and decide results of directives/plot changes, the former are more like literal runners, admin aids, and so on, assisting the directors) Nosebagbear (talk) 11:21, 23 November 2020 (UTC)

@Nosebagbear: Thanks for editing the section! I think it looks great. Also, please feel free to change the phrasing to whatever you think is best (I live in the United States and I have never attended a European conference). Hexlance (talk) 20:35, 23 November 2020 (UTC)

Capitalization?

Is it "model UN" or "Model UN"? If it's referring to just an activity, it should not be capitalized, as activities are not a proper noun. However, if "model" is part of the title, it should be capitalized. My sense is that grammatically, the weight leans toward uncapitalizing, as most conferences would talk about "the United Nations General Assembly" rather than "the Model United Nations General Assembly". However, usage tends to lean toward capitalization (whether that's for grammar reasons or for promotionalism reasons is another question). Thoughts, anyone? {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 17:05, 13 September 2021 (UTC)

@Sdkb: usage is definitely overwhelmingly towards its capitalisation. This is probably good, because around 1/3 of usage is with other words bolted to the front, most commonly conference names, and we'd be jumping in and out of capitalisation within sentences. I don't believe it's generally promotional, I think it's just because it's viewed as a title (by those who consider such) or just "the way things are" (by those who don't). Nosebagbear (talk) 18:13, 13 September 2021 (UTC)

To me "model UN", lowercased, would indicate a portrayal of the UN building made out of legos or balsawood (or a UN in a bottle). Randy Kryn (talk) 10:20, 25 September 2021 (UTC)

I mean, I do actually have the UN HQ lego model... Nosebagbear (talk)

"jumping in and out of capitalisation within sentences" is the right way to distinguish the proper names from the generic. Like in sources. Dicklyon (talk) 18:00, 16 October 2021 (UTC)

This doesn't seem to be a proper name. This is not about an organization named Model United Nations, it's about a common educational excercise called a model United Nations. Ergo, lower-case. The same sorts of sources that over-capitalize this are those that over-capitalize academic fields of study ("Computer Science" instead of "computer science", etc.), and many other things pertaining to education, so it is a WP:Specialized-style fallacy.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  01:08, 16 October 2021 (UTC)

There seem to be orgs named National Model United Nations and International Model United Nations (as well as state and country and school orgs) that account for the majority of the caps in sources. Lowercase dominates otherwise. Dicklyon (talk) 17:12, 16 October 2021 (UTC)

I disagree. The sources, including the most reputable (peer-reviewed academic papers, newspaper articles, and from the UN itself) point to uppercase usage.Pilaz (talk) 18:11, 17 October 2021 (UTC)

Thanks for that link; I hadn't seen that essay before. Per that and MOS:INSTITUTIONS, I think we're right to go with lowercase; I've added a hidden comment to the lead accordingly, and we could also add a short editnotice if someone wants to draft it. {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 18:08, 16 October 2021 (UTC)

I'm curious as to how MOS:INSTITUTIONS applies here. MUN seems to fall outside the guideline because it is neither an institution nor an output of an institution due to its decentralized nature: it is a conference format with common rules of debate. I would also argue that substantively a Model United Nations is not simply a simulation of the United Nations, since as some sources have reported, many simulate crisis situations which take place outside of the United Nations format. Some MUNs skew towards the simulation of UN committees (e.g. Harvard World Model United Nations), while others almost exclusively prefer simulations falling outside the scope of the United Nations (e.g. NCSC), but in practice most MUNs feature a combination of the two. To pick "model" over "Model" would in my opinion give undue weight to the former UN format, despite the rise of the latter to prominence in more recent years. The only application of MOS:INSTITUTIONS which seems suitable to me would be to have Model United Nations capitalized at all times, together with Model UN, but refer to it as "the model" in other instances, in the same way that the Chatham House Rule capitalizes "Rule" when used with the full, proper name, and to the "rule" with lowercase capitalization elsewhere. This would be in line with the last sentence of the MOS:INSTITUTIONS. Pilaz (talk) 19:01, 17 October 2021 (UTC)

Fixed. Dicklyon (talk) 18:00, 16 October 2021 (UTC)

@Dicklyon: It would have been useful if you had taken a look at the cited material and seen that every modern use of MUN refers to Model United Nations capitalized, including from authoritative sources such as the UN, a US embassy, | the New York Times or peer-reviewed academic papers. Pilaz (talk) 17:56, 17 October 2021 (UTC)

Also, I don't think consensus had been reached by the time you made the edits. It would have been better to keep the discussion here for the time being and to have engaged those who disagree with you. Pilaz (talk) 18:05, 17 October 2021 (UTC)

This is one of those things where we could legitimately go either way, and it's more important that we be consistent than that we choose the "correct" option. We haven't reached a particularly firm consensus here, but I don't mind that Dicklyon acted on the prevailing direction. Others are welcome to continue to weigh in, and we can always change the article if the consensus changes. I don't think it'd be worth the effort to escalate to something like an RfC, though. {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 18:13, 17 October 2021 (UTC)

That's fine by me. I just think we should let this discussion mature a little bit before editing the 8+ Wikipedia pages connected to this one in the future. Pilaz (talk) 18:31, 17 October 2021 (UTC)

• Not a proper noun. Tony (talk) 09:48, 17 November 2021 (UTC)

Incorrect conclusion, as Ngrams show. Pilaz (talk) 19:03, 5 January 2022 (UTC)

The capitalized form in that chart includes references to specific conferences, which are proper nouns, so it doesn't tell us all that much without a way to filter those out. And in any case, Ngrams doesn't dictate our grammatical choices—it's only one of several factors. {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 19:24, 5 January 2022 (UTC)

Regarding ngrams, that's a very good point, actually, and it certainly inconclusively murks the picture. As for grammatical choices, I'd call them style choices since we're only discussing capitalization, but WP:COMMONNAME still factors in, since what's most typically used in reliable sources is generally preferred. Would it be interesting to you (or others) if I made a comprehensive analysis of usage of model United Nations vs Model United Nations in academia, and reliable newspapers, and other categories, maybe? Pilaz (talk) 19:38, 5 January 2022 (UTC)

Sure, I'd be interested to see that, just again with the caveat that "Model UN" being more common wouldn't alone persuade me that it's what we ought to use. {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 20:00, 5 January 2022 (UTC)

Sdkb: since you brought it up, could you point me to a policy or guideline that states "that Ngrams doesn't dictate our grammatical choices", or something along these lines? I'm involved on another discussion where Ngrams are brought up, and I'd be interested in reading more about this. Thank you! Pilaz (talk) 22:41, 27 January 2022 (UTC)

@Pilaz, WP:TITLE is the relevant policy. It notes that several factors go into decisions, so it's not just WP:COMMONNAMES, and Google Ngrams is only an imperfect proxy for what is the common name. Best, {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 23:17, 27 January 2022 (UTC)

Hey,

I just came across the article with sometimes it being capitalized and sometimes not. I changed it to capitalized, not knowing there was a discussion around it. In any case I feel consistency should be there and also I agree with that it is a name. Otherwise, it should be all lower case. But making the "m" lower case and the "U" and "N" upper case doesn't make much sense to me MUN Supernerd (talk) 19:32, 15 December 2022 (UTC)

Hi MUN Supernerd; glad you came across this discussion! It looks to me like the consensus was to lowercase, and that we implemented it, but that some editors in the interim weren't aware of and did not abide by it, leading to the inconsistency you found. I'm going to restore the consensus outcome and add an editnotice to help alert future editors. To reply to your specific query, the "U" and "N" would be uppercased even if the "m" is lowercased, because "United Nations" is still a proper noun, even if "model United Nations" is not. Best, {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 07:06, 13 January 2023 (UTC)

@Sdkb - as was noted above at that the time, there was definitely not a consensus in place when you chose to implement the changes, and a consideration of the discussion now reviewing editors who give a clear position either way still doesn't. Nosebagbear (talk) 10:23, 13 January 2023 (UTC)

@Nosebagbear, hmm, looking it over, I guess the consensus isn't all that strong. I do think we had to make a call one way or the other, and once we made the call we were right to adhere to it, but if you think this merits an RfC, feel free to start one and ping us. Cheers, {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 16:25, 13 January 2023 (UTC)

While I do think this debate is extremely absurd to begin with, let's add an something like an argument: The actual UN has a page on Model United Nations. There they write it all caps (MUN). https://www.un.org/en/mun/model-un-guide 80.187.103.150 (talk) 18:42, 13 January 2023 (UTC)

Israel subsection source review

Looking for some 3rd opinions on the recent changes to the Israel subsection (made by @Zvikorn:).

I'm not saying that they have a COI (assuming they're not the writer), I'm saying that since the source at diplomacy.co.il is written by the founder of Debate for Peace, there's a COI with the source and so it is non-independent. The latter sentence of the first paragraph is also sourced to a primary source and so should be removed. Nosebagbear (talk) 14:11, 24 January 2022 (UTC)

• @Nosebagbear: it seems to me that the three paragraphs are original research disguised as WP:V. The effort to create a comprehensive narrative for what happened at the country level is laudable, but it doesn't have its place on Wikipedia. As they currently read the three paragraphs about Israel have a promotional, link-farming undertone, and I think they undermine the article. The only two valid sources that are worthy of note are the Kan Ashkelon piece [1] and The Tower's piece [2]. Their reliability is unknown, from a rapid check at WP:RSN. I think inclusion of those MUNs is better suited in the List of Model United Nations conferences. To @Zvikorn: please consider inclusion of only material published in independent, secondary, reliable sources which cover the subject in depth. I am taking the liberty to revert again, and invite you to discuss which material you want to see included (per WP:ONUS), so that we can come to an agreement about what is fair to be included and what isn't. Beware of 3RR!
  • And just to add to my previous comment, the problem of all the other sources minus the two mentioned above is that they are likely not independent from the subject, like Nosebagbear has pointed out with respect to the founder of Debate for Peace. The MUNs linked are also non-receivable for the same reason, due to the fact that Wikipedia treats primary sources with a lot more caution (WP:PRIMARY). Pilaz (talk) 04:36, 25 January 2022 (UTC)

Creating new article on mymun

Hey everyone, I've been around MUN for a couple of years now and wanted to extend the knowledge on MUN out there. To me, mymun has often been an integral part in finding the conferences I ended up going to. I saw it is used as a source a lot both in this article and many others on MUN (especially the conference list article). I came across this book on MUN which was published a few weeks ago which again names mymun and would be yet another scientific source (I also found a few other ones) https://link.springer.com/book/10.1007/978-3-031-13524-8. What are your thoughts on creating such an article? Anyone in to write it together? Any tips on how to get started with that? MUN Supernerd (talk) 23:39, 6 February 2023 (UTC)

@MUN Supernerd - the key things to be aware of are likely i) the higher inclusion standards for organisations and ii) whether that source (and other comparable ones) each provides significant coverage (I tend to use 10+ lines as showing that, but others vary somewhat in the exact amount needed).

To me, Mymun came into existence during my active MUN years and the international chairing circuits in particular were small enough that I knew some of the founding team so I won't be writing about them, even though any COI is functionally muted at this stage. Nosebagbear (talk) 09:58, 7 February 2023 (UTC)

I'd love to contribute and think that an article would add value given that first time MUNers would have a way to double check if they are serious. I've never started an article and are not too familiar with the requirements for an article about an organization. What are your thoughts? MUN Supernerd (talk) 16:17, 11 November 2023 (UTC)

MUN Supernerd - what matters is whether WP:ORGCRIT is fulfilled, aka if MyMUN has received significant coverage by reliable, independent secondary sources. Usually organizations tend not to qualify. If you can find 2 or more, then you're good to proceed with creating your first article. Pilaz (talk) 20:34, 11 November 2023 (UTC)

Capitalization of MUN, part II

I believe the previous decision to remove the capitalization from MUN (from "Model UN" to "model UN") to go against the general trend in RS. From a small sample of reliable sources, if one excludes conference names, opinion pieces and announcements from reliable sources, one gets the following results:

	Model United Nations Excluding conference names	model United Nations Excluding conference names	Model UN	model UN	URLs
The Atlantic	4	3	17	4	"Model United Nations" site:www.theatlantic.com "Model UN" site:www.theatlantic.com
BBC	3	1	2	2	"Model United Nations" site:www.bbc.co.uk "Model UN" site:www.bbc.co.uk
Washington Post	43	30	52	17	"Model United Nations" site:www.washingtonpost.com "Model UN" site:www.washingtonpost.com
New York Times	29	33	20	15	"Model United Nations" site:www.nytimes.com "Model UN" site:www.nytimes.com

Institutions and organizations	Model United Nations/Model UN	model United Nations/model UN
Canada	UN Association in Canada	N/A
India	IFUNA	N/A
New Zealand	UN Association of New Zealand, youth branch	N/A
Singapore	UN Association - Singapore	N/A
United Kingdom	UN Association – UK	N/A
United Nations	United Nations Secretariat, UNIS - Vienna	N/A
United States	State Department, UN Association - United States (UNA-USA)	N/A

There seems to also be unanimity among institutions, including the UN, to use the capitalized version, too.

So, time for a change back to the capitalization? Pilaz (talk) 15:02, 9 August 2023 (UTC)

• Kudos for putting together the evidence, Pilaz. To me the removal of the capitalisation seems very odd, as it suggests that readers will find it more useful to have consistency with other Wikipedia articles than to have it as the actual usage in the MUN world would be. Nosebagbear (talk) 16:34, 9 August 2023 (UTC) (As always I have various MUN COIs, but I'm not sure any of them would invalidate my opinion over the capitalisation of letters).

  Thanks for the input, Nosebagbear. I haven't seen any other message related to this in a week, so I'll be WP:BOLD and restore the capitalization, and if it gets reverted I'll open an RfC on this. Hopefully this is fine by the consensus-building standards of en-wiki. Pilaz (talk) 10:46, 17 August 2023 (UTC)