Jump to content

Talk:Durban Review Conference

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


Speech

[edit]

As far as I remember to have seen it the UN delegates left the assembly hall protestingly when and after Ahmadinejad called Israel a racist regime. They didn´t leave in the beginning.13Ajan (talk) 22:12, 12 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Anti-racism or antisemitism

[edit]

I think this article belongs in both catalogies. The conference IS an anti-racism conference but there is an issue with the conference itself that related to antisemitism. Comments? Oboler (talk) 01:51, 8 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If you are referring to the wealth of allegations of antisemitism in the conference itself, it might be worthwhile to expand the boycotts section to one referring more generally to criticism and controversy. This section would then warrant discussion pertinent to these allegations and reports, such as this one [1]. masqueraid 18:11, 21 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with masqueraid. The Boycott is just the result of a series of criticism, not only antisemitism. The Dutch Foreign minister said he was worried over lack of mention of sexual orientation and there is worry that Islamic countries trying to ban criticism of religion, specifically Islam, could harm free speech at the summit. It should be expanded, with boycotts being a sub section of a wider Criticism section. Also, I always thought when a Critical section of the article becomes larger then the main portion itself, then there is this feeling of bias.Lemniwinks (talk) 03:07, 6 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]


It's not even strictly related to antisemitism. While Iran may have elements or hints to antisemitism, it's quite clear that giving more rights to Hebrews inside Israel, it's ethnoreligious discrimination. --AaThinker (talk) 09:25, 21 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

There are also the important issue of reparations for slavery, which the us opposed in 2001, and religious discrimination - which Israel practices (see law of return).93.96.148.42 (talk) 23:25, 21 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Is there anybody here who argues that this article is unfit to be included under "Category:Antisemitism?" Considering that a part of the conference was dedicated to promoting antisemitism and Holocaust denial and that nine countries boycotted the conference for that reason and that countless RS's described the content of the conference to be antisemitic, it would appear to be necessary to categorize it as such. --GHcool (talk) 00:21, 17 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

For the sake of accuracy, only three countries, Australia, Canada and Italy, boycotted the conference because of antisemitism. The other six had other reasons. Jalapenos do exist (talk) 01:01, 17 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Let's agree to disagree on that point, but that doesn't answer my question. I repeat: if a conference dedicated to promoting antisemitism and holocaust denial, doesn't it deserved to be included under "Category:Antisemitism?" --GHcool (talk) 17:00, 17 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Even those pro-Israeli, western nations that boycotted the conference did not allege that the conference itself is dedicated to promote anti-Semitism. They had a problem with the agenda(ie, criticism of Israel), thats it. In any case, it barely represents a worldview. Hence the answer would be "no". Zencv Lets discuss 17:57, 17 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Breaking: US to pull out of Durban II

[edit]

[2]

U.S. pulling out of ‘Durban II’ conference By Ron Kampeas · February 27, 2009

WASHINGTON (JTA) -- The Obama administration has decided to boycott the so-called Durban II conference out of concerns for anti-Semitism.

Multiple sources on a conference call with the White House on Friday told JTA that the Obama administration had opted not to attend any further preparatory meetings ahead of the planned U.N. conference against racism in Geneva in April. [con't] Tundrabuggy (talk) 21:29, 27 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I've expanded this section slightly and added additional references.(Hyperionsteel (talk) 00:21, 28 February 2009 (UTC))[reply]

According to the BBC, another stumbling point (besides the Zionism issue) was that the conference draft "call[s] for restrictions on the defamation of religions", which "could threaten free speech". --Delirium (talk) 03:54, 28 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well, then again

[edit]

Maybe not [3] .... Tundrabuggy (talk) 03:14, 2 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Boycott map

[edit]

Suggestion: reverse or change the colors signifying "considering boycott" and "boycotting". The current coloring is counter-intuitive, as burgundy appears "stronger" than red, and it looks like the burgundy colored countries are the ones who've actually announced a boycott, which is not the case. Jalapenos do exist (talk) 19:01, 7 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Done and Done boss Lemniwinks (talk) 21:18, 7 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep up the good work, young man  :) Jalapenos do exist (talk) 21:23, 7 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Just wanted to say nice work with the map :) Oboler (talk) 03:47, 8 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The map is a great addition. How did you create this and was it difficult? I can see this being used as a useful tool for a considerable number of wiki articles. (Hyperionsteel (talk) 06:13, 8 March 2009 (UTC))[reply]
It wasn't that difficult. If you have a paint program of some sort which most computers do it wouldn't be hard. If you ever want to use it I guess you could save this one on the article to your comp then put it in photoshop or a paint program of some kind and mess with the colour scheme. Lemniwinks (talk) 07:00, 8 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I noticed someone added Australia to the list of countries considering boycotts, so I did some research and found that not only Australia, but Denmark as well have stated they cannot accept the draft resolution as it is. So I added Denmark and Australia to the map. Lemniwinks (talk) 20:31, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I notice someone changed the map. Isn't it rathe rconfusing now to understand? We should make it simple, like, countries that are there, and those that aren't, and those that are boycotting. I can't find an attendance list or anything though. 72.140.80.212 (talk) 18:30, 20 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I'm working on a re vamped map. So far it's countries attending and countries boycotting. Should I make a separate grouping for those that walked out of the Iran President's speech? To my knowledge none of them have left the conference for good, except for the Czech Republic, and will still be participating. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Lemniwinks (talk • contribs) 19:46, 20 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
That sounds like a good idea, and I would also suggest making the colors more intuitive. Jalapenos do exist (talk) 20:02, 20 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The map just plain sucks since the colors and their names are not immediately obvious to the casual observer to what the difference between pink, indigo, and rose is. Couldn't someone have made a map based on more solidly different colors such as red, green, blue, yellow, purple? 134.50.203.72 (talk) 21:46, 20 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I agree in substance, but the harsh tone is unhelpful and unfair, as the situation is complex and several people have invested a lot of work in the map. Jalapenos do exist (talk) 21:49, 20 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I share the sentiment. I could have a map up in no time, but I need to know who is participating in the conference, because there does not seem to be a very definite list. Lemniwinks (talk) 21:58, 20 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Please don't be offended but I reverting the map to a previous version. The new version was too complex (to many colours for to many elements that are undetermined). Also, the lines connecting sections of countries that are discontinuous are unnecessary. They are not used in Wikipedia or on most maps. I realize a lot of work was put into this but I feel the earlier version is clearer, at least for the time being. When the conference is over, and all of the details are known, a new map can be created.(Hyperionsteel (talk) 22:08, 20 April 2009 (UTC))[reply]

I'm not offended at all, it wasn't the map I originally created. The one you put up is a good stand by one until we can figure out each countries attendance. Lemniwinks (talk) 22:09, 20 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I appreciate your support. The map you originally created was an excellent idea (I figured I would try to expand on it). My concern about reverting it was that 23prootie, who created the subsequent version (and clearly put a lot of work into it), might be offended that I am reverted it. I want to make sure 23prootie understands why I took this course of action.(Hyperionsteel (talk) 22:13, 20 April 2009 (UTC))[reply]
There is a list (though it may lack a few details) here. The source is also cited in the article, currently reference #53. Jalapenos do exist (talk) 22:16, 20 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Also, may I suggest a two color system with small gradations within each color, e.g.:

  • Blue: boycotted
  • Light blue: government boycotted but sent low-level delegation (Sweden)
  • Red: Planning committee (attended)
  • Dark orange: attended
  • Orange: considered boycotting, but attended
  • Light orange: members of EU (which considered boycotting) who did not individually consider boycotting, and attended

Jalapenos do exist (talk) 22:34, 20 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Vatican support for the conference

[edit]

I noticed that Pope Benedict had given his support for the conference, which might be surprising to some given that the neighboring right-wing government of Italy has protested the conference. However, it happens at a time when Vatican-Israel relations are at a historic low point, and so it is maybe not surprising that the Vatican would want to protest the negative ethos it has with Israel. Conversely, the Vatican has comparatively good relations with neighboring Jordan, Lebanon, Syria and the Palestinian Authority. [4] ADM (talk) 12:12, 19 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Global

[edit]

I have added this tag, since the article gives unbalanced prominence to the views of the us, israel, and the eu. The tag should not be removed until this has been corrected.Mein Kopf (talk) 23:45, 20 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Could you please elaborate? Specifically, please state which views do you feel are inadequately represented in the article, and if possible provide reliable sources where those views are recorded. Jalapenos do exist (talk) 23:52, 20 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Please be more specific. Which views are not represented and do you have re around discusliable sources? If so, feel free to add the relevant information.(Hyperionsteel (talk) 00:07, 21 April 2009 (UTC))[reply]
I agree. Why are the views of a small number of countries who regularly boycott attempts at progression (see Kyoto, International Criminal Court, UN peacekeeping missions) considered so important that they take up the BULK of the article? Where are the statements from other equivalent countries like China and Russia or major contributors to UN missions like India? This article is biased.--Senor Freebie (talk) 03:47, 21 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Again, if you feel that strongly, please add citations containing the relevant information.(Hyperionsteel (talk) 04:07, 21 April 2009 (UTC))[reply]

Hey! There is a link missing to the speech transcript! This speech by the Iranian President is an integral core of this current event article and to this discussion page. I suggest that this link be posted in the main artical with out delay in order for informed discussion to proceed. How can we all sit around discussing the topic like intelligent idiots with out access to the info it contains? Answer is we can't objectively improve the quality of this article with out information thats the crux and catalyst of the artical aye. 121.44.235.100 (talk) 09:23, 21 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Since the tag's insertion has not been explained, I'm removing it. Jalapenos do exist (talk) 10:33, 21 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Please see discussion above - details of the disruptive views of a small number of states are given, and the views of the majority of the members of the United Nations are not represented. The Global tag expresses this. Unfortunately I do not have time to improve the article myself, that is why I have added the tag. I would like to add that the article gives very little attention to the issue of compensation for slavery, which is important to many participating countries, and a lot of attention to pro-Israeli sentiment. Please do not remove this tag.93.96.148.42 (talk) 23:05, 21 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
the tag displays the following text at the head of the article. It can be reinstated by adding it to the top of the article, if it is removed.

93.96.148.42 (talk) 23:30, 21 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I have read and participated in the discussion above. The views of a great many states are presented in the article. That their views are disruptive is merely your personal opinion and irrelevant in any case. Again, please state which countries have expressed views that are recorded in reliable sources and are not adequately represented in the article. If possible, provide some reliable sources. Jalapenos do exist (talk) 23:41, 21 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with the Anon, the views of the lose collective of nations we call "The West" are well documented but the only other view is that of Iran. Reading this article you would believe the views of Iran were unique as opposed to the real situation which is his views are supported by virtually all muslim states and most muslims in the west. Were are the references to the people clapping while he spoke? what are the positions of the OIC nations? China? Russia? This does not have a global perspective or conform to NPOV due to these absences. (Hypnosadist) 12:18, 22 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
There is a statement by Russia in the article. The OIC countries apparently haven't had anything to say yet, or what they've had to say hasn't interested the mainstream media, which is the only collection of reliable secondary sources we have at the moment. I would be happy to add views of OIC countries, as I added views of Iran and Russia, but I have not been able to find sources, and none of the tag-supporters have pointed to any. Jalapenos do exist (talk) 12:48, 22 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Useful source on NGO complaints about Blasphamy laws http://www.unwatch.org/site/apps/nlnet/content2.aspx?c=bdKKISNqEmG&b=1330815&ct=6859557. (Hypnosadist) 12:28, 22 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Source for China comment; http://english.aljazeera.net/news/europe/2009/04/2009421141350682809.html

Against this backdrop of renewed acrimony, China called for the international community to end its criticisms and focus on the conference's goals. "We hope relevant parties can step up dialogue, eliminate disputes and concentrate on a consensus so as to combat racism with one voice," Jiang Yu, the country's foreign ministry spokeswoman, said on Tuesday.

Also mentions the split in reaction inside Iran.(Hypnosadist) 15:48, 22 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
This provides a source to the clapping. http://english.aljazeera.net/news/europe/2009/04/2009420182516689219.html (Hypnosadist) 15:49, 22 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the sources. I had already added the split reaction in Iran. I will integrate the other info in the sources presently. Jalapenos do exist (talk) 15:59, 22 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Done. I added the China statement, the applause (which was already in the article but inaccurate and not properly sourced), and the president of the conference's statement on the declaration. Jalapenos do exist (talk) 16:24, 22 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
So what else must we do to remove the 'does not represent global view' tag? Honestly, I've done a lot of research on this and you aren't going to find many statements about it. Lemniwinks (talk) 17:53, 22 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
At the moment about 10% of the article deals with the conference. The section on the conclusions is one short paragraph. This presumably represents world oppinion. Most the article, and the led,of it deals with boycotts, and negative reactions to a small part of the Iranian presidents speech - his condemnation of slavery, neo imperialism, and capitialism are not touched upon. Perhaps this should be sumarised briefly here,and the content moved to a seperate article. It is not sufficient to say that the article represents the views of the western media, given that this is a fraction of world opinion. It may be necessary to wait for reliable sources to appear in order to represent global opinion. There is no reason why the global tag should not remain indefinately if this is not possible.93.96.148.42 (talk) 18:11, 22 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Source for russia http://news.xinhuanet.com/english/2009-04/22/content_11228815.htm (Hypnosadist) 20:08, 22 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Russia was already in there. Jalapenos do exist (talk) 22:05, 22 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The global tag was removed without agreement. I have reinstated it, in line with the discussions on this page. As a first step to removing it, the failure to list those countries which DID participate should be rectified, as this omission, and concentration on western countries which refused to participate, is clearly geographically biased.93.96.148.42 (talk) 02:38, 6 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sexuality

[edit]

While this has been cited as a reason for the boycotts, I fail to understand how homosexuality relates to racism, which the conference is about, given that it occurs among all races. Religion tends to be linked to race.Mein Kopf (talk) 23:49, 20 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

A number of Western countries wanted to include a statement supporting the acceptance of homosexuality. However, many nations which have laws restricting or prohibiting homosexuality successfully prevented its inclusion. This certainly didn't help the conference's image.(Hyperionsteel (talk) 00:06, 21 April 2009 (UTC)) In fact, Sexual orientation was supposed to be one of the themes of the conference and its exclusion was unwelcome by many countries and groups.(Hyperionsteel (talk) 00:10, 21 April 2009 (UTC))[reply]
Acceptance or rejection of homosexuality has nothing to do with racism. The idea of including the subject in the agenda was as absurd as including (for example) abortion laws, or welfare plans, or health care projects. Sexual orientation is a private personal matter, as much as gastronomical orientation is, none of which has any relationship with racism whatsoever. I think that exclusion was a correct decision. --AVM (talk) 02:22, 21 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The purpose of the summit goes beyond fighting racism. If you haven't noticed, religious bigotry is also on the agenda, which isn't race based either. Lemniwinks (talk) 02:39, 21 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Some religions, eg Judaism, are racially based. I repeat that I am unaware of racial connexions to sexuality93.96.148.42 (talk) 23:07, 21 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Those religons are bunk. If that was true, there would be any black jews, would there? Race is something you're born into and cannot change; religion is something your indoctrinated into and can change. Race and religon are not the same thing and using religon as leverage to lable someone as a racist or masking religion as a race is meaningless. If the haplogroup where religion orginated and mutated from and spread unto all humans is found in the evolutionary history of humans, you'll have a case.--24.222.198.92 (talk) 02:03, 22 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, not every Jew I know is racially the same, and not every Christian or Muslim I know are racially the same either. It's not our place to discuss the merits of it's inclusion though at the conference. We can't do anything about it, and we sure aren't going to add anything in the article about how 'religions are based on race' or 'sexuality isn't racism'. This would be better suited for some politics discussion forum Lemniwinks (talk) 17:56, 22 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The connection between race, religion, and sexual orientation is the inability of wide parts of many societies to cope with those who are different in a reflected, non-hostile, non-harassing way. Should be obvious, IMHO. -- DevSolar (talk) 14:36, 22 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

My understanding is that the Iranians, and a large number of governments, and people, believe that the Jewish State is racist, because it discriminates in favour of Jews,and against arabs, philipinos, etc. At the moment this view point is not adequately represented within the article. The whole concept of race seems illogical to me, but I understand that the law of return is based on ancestry, not just religious practise, and that atheist jews are treated differently from atheist arabs.

I would like to return to the initial point, which is that the "reasons" given for the boycott should not be accepted per se. I would also like to point out that discrimination against hiv positive people was condemned by the conference.93.96.148.42 (talk) 18:21, 22 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

List of accredited NGOs

[edit]

Of the list of non-governmental organizations listed, why is the Indiana University School of Law in there? It's a school, not an organization in the same vein as the Blue Diamond Society or the MCLI. I have similar issues with the inclusion of the Church of the Brethren in that list. And incidentally, what does "accredited to attend" mean in the first place? --MicahBrwn (talk) 03:35, 21 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Boycott

[edit]

There is something wrong, on one hand they are shown as boycotting and other there are walking away from it. How can they be walking away when they weren't present. ? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 116.71.178.116 (talk) 04:54, 21 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

They were all informed, prepared, known that Israel was not singled out, that the holocuast was mentioned as an important (real) event, etc. They walked out on television as a stage act. It was symbolic.

-G —Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.32.141.8 (talk) 09:17, 22 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Your personal opinion, of course. Lemniwinks (talk) 17:57, 22 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
How was Israel NOT singled out??? Mahmoud "Annihilate Israel" Ahmadinejad (sp?) specifically called Israel a racist state set up by the west to oppress Palestinians!!! If he had mentioned other countries in his speech as racist states (maybe Sudan, the PRC, Morocco, Zimbabwe, I dunno, plenty of options) then it could be said that Israel wasn't singled out. The walkout was because the West (and some not so western countries like Cyprus) are fed up. Every time a racism conference comes up, the Middle Eastern countries use it to spout out anti-Semitic crap that is then legitimized because a President said it at a UN conference. I voted McCain, but I want to take this opportunity to say congrats to President Obama. You made the right call boycotting this. Ahmadinejad advocates mass murder and genocide every chance he gets. It's refreshing to know there are still some people who oppose his dangerous, hateful rhetoric. SpudHawg948 (talk) 21:05, 22 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
"Anti-Semitic" This is now a used phrase, no longer relevant, every criticism can't be termed as anti-Semitic. What you call the Israel actions. Where did Ahmadinejad advocated mass murder and genocide. Obama had to bow to Israeli pressure he didn't had any other options. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 119.152.52.159 (talk) 06:23, 23 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Missing reactions to the conference

[edit]

I see reactions of nations before the conference, and reactions to the boycotts, and reactions against the Iran speech, but there is no section on general reaction to events that took place at the conference itself. For example, the fact that US attorney Alan Dershowitz said that the anti-apartheid activist Desmond Tutu was a "racist and bigot" and that he is "blind, deaf and dumb when it comes to issues of Israel" is certainly newsworthy, but I don't know where to put it in the article. Dershowitz also made comments about Norway, after the Norwegian delegate condemned the Iran speech but did not walk out during it, saying of Norway that it was "one of the biggest offenders against Israel." [5]. I think there should be a section with comments and reaction that came during or after the conference, related to events at the conference, in addition to the existing section about the comments that took place before the conference. -- leuce (talk) 11:06, 22 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I think a good idea would be to have a "Protests" section. Protests and an alternate conference were held in Geneva. I think Dershowitz spoke at one of them. Jalapenos do exist (talk) 12:39, 22 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The Al Jazeera links posted above by me also cover the protests in more detail. (Hypnosadist) 15:52, 22 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sweden

[edit]

For some reason I cannot quite grasp, some user(s) consistently single out Sweden. Once more, 4 EU countries boycotted the conference, the 23 others sent lower-level delegations. All 23 of those walked out during the speech by the Iranian president. Mentioning France and the UK may make sense as these two were two out of the four "big" EU-countries that attended. Mentioning those two and Sweden looks more like misguided nationalism. Sweden did the same thing as every other EU country, including bigger EU countries such as Spain, Romania, Greece, Hungary etc. If there is any reason to deal with Sweden's delegation in particular, as opposed to the Maltese delegation, the Finnish delegation, the Spanish delegation or any other delegation that were part of the common EU policy on the conference, then please present it.JdeJ (talk) 19:27, 22 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sweden was originally singled out because its government defined its sending a low-level delegation as a boycott of the conference. Jalapenos do exist (talk) 20:59, 22 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Sweden is the third biggest country in the EU. I guess it's been added because its been sourced well, it's singled out under the "Partial boycotts" section for example. But I have no opinion on its inclusion/exclusion in the text you removed it from chandler ··· 19:30, 22 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I think this is purely a content dispute and nobody is wrong here. In any event, I took out England and France too. I think just saying "23 countries" in the intro and specifying them in the body of the article is fine. shirulashem (talk) 20:08, 22 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Shirulashem, I agree with that edit. Chandler, Sweden's population is less than 10 millions, placing it firmly in the middle of the EU, far from the top ten. Anyway, that's hardly relevant.JdeJ (talk) 20:59, 22 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I fully know what population Sweden has, still doesn't have an effect on the fact that Sweden is the third biggest country in the EU after France and Spain. It was relevant to the comment "Why Sweden? It's not one of the big or even middle-sized EU countries. Mentioning the two big that attended may make sense, or we could list all 23." chandler ··· 21:17, 22 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I vote ALL 23. This is an encyclopedia, its job is to contain information. (Hypnosadist) 22:03, 22 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
All 23 are mentioned in the "Speech" section. I think the discussion here is about the lede, which is supposed to be compact. Jalapenos do exist (talk) 22:09, 22 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with Jalapenos because it's the lead section. shirulashem (talk) 23:55, 22 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Ok i agree, Sweden should not be mentioned in the lead but the UK and France should because they are both G8 and UN Security Council Perminent members. (Hypnosadist) 00:46, 23 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Chandler, when people talk about big countries or big economies, they usually mean population and/or economic strength. The "big four" of the EU are Germany, France, the UK and Italy.JdeJ (talk) 07:25, 23 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Well when you write "...not even middle-sized" size would usually refer the the size of the country? chandler ··· 10:51, 23 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Themes

[edit]

I had to remove the "Themes" section, because the only reference was to the website of ICARE, an obscure organization. The section was basically copied from a section of a page on their website, where there was no further reference or any other elaboration. I checked the UN site for the conference and could not find an exposition of the themes. Can anyone find a reliable source that lists the conference's themes? Jalapenos do exist (talk) 23:18, 25 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

See also and categories

[edit]

Unfortunately we are witnessing a familiar pattern - plethora of anti-Semitism related and holocaust denial related wiki links and categorisations, trivially placed in any article where Israel is mentioned. I have removed them for some good reason - it is POV pushing to hint that the conference was all about ant-Semitism(though only Israel and some of its "staunch allies" thought that way). Zencv Lets discuss 20:49, 28 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, Israel did not mention antisemitism among its reasons for boycotting the conference, nor did the US, the only country ever described as a "staunch ally" of Israel. In fact, neither of the two countries even brought up the issue of antisemitism at all, except indirectly, by expressing fear that the conference would end up like Durban I, which was widely considered - including by UNHCHR Mary Robinson - to contain antisemitic content. However, the governments of Canada, Australia and Italy explicitly cited the expectation of antisemitism among their reasons for boycotting the conference, and the UK delegate called Ahmadinejad's speech antisemitic. As for Holocaust denial, it is difficult to find an RS for this article's topic that does not mention that Ahmadinejad is an alleged Holocaust denier, and that this is one of the main problems westerners have with him. The conference was not all about antisemitism and Holocaust denial, but both were very relevant to the way it was perceived, and were central in the RS coverage of the topic; this weight should be reflected in the article. Jalapenos do exist (talk) 23:01, 28 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Is this perception a global one?93.96.148.42 (talk) 00:58, 29 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The perception of the conference in which antisemitism and Holocaust denial featured strongly was probably limited mainly to western liberal democracies, but (a) theirs is a significant point of view, and (b) their point of view was the one talked about the most in the reliable sources (for whatever reason), and Wikipedia articles should follow the reliable sources in assigning weight. Jalapenos do exist (talk) 05:24, 29 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
That perception was not "probably", but was indeed limited to some countries with their own rich history of racism and apartheid. Nevertheless, my objection is that the article is about a racism conference. A speaker who is unpopular in certain circles made some statements and created controversy. That is widely discussed in the article, which is fine. But tagging it into category "anti-Semitism" and then placing few links under "See also" is purely to push a perception that this conference is all about this. Israels and its allies' perceptions can remain in the article, so long as it is sourced, but that doesn't guarantee that the nature of the conference and thus that of the article can be trivialized Zencv Lets discuss 20:30, 29 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
This article reflects the reliable sources in the weight it gives to different POVs. Like it or not, the reliable sources focused overwhelmingly on the controversial aspects of the conference. There was a conscious and sustained attempt, including by me, to find RS coverage of other aspects of the conference in order to broaden the article's scope (even though that would make it less reflective of the trends in the reliable sources), but little was found. If you can find material, please add it, but try to keep out your personal opinions on the history of "some countries", which are irrelevant to this article. That being said, I don't think the artcle should be included in the Antisemitism category, but I certainly do think that the "see also"s are appropriate and helpful to the reader, and I can't help but wonder at the fervor you're showing to remove them considering that you have done very little work on this article until now. Jalapenos do exist (talk) 22:41, 29 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
You may continue your conscious and sustained effort, but my objection to having "See also" section full of antiSemitism related material is well explained in my first post. As I have contributed to many articles of similar nature, its irrelevant whether I had edited this article per se or not. I find it rather hypocritical from your side of asking me to keep my personal opinion out of even a talk page when the article itself contains synthesised materials such as mentioning Ahmedinajad's holocaust denial speech(which I wonder why mention in this article other than to construct an OR) inorder to demonize him, rather than concentrate on the objectivity of his allegations made in the conference. Zencv Lets discuss 22:20, 30 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
You're just repeating your previous assertion, which I have just refuted and which was unfounded and implausible to begin with. The article reflects the reliable sources. If you don't like the things they concentrate on, take it up with them. Jalapenos do exist (talk) 00:08, 1 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
As the article itself does not reflect a "worldview", populating "See also" section with links like this makes things even worse. Sometimes the so-called "reliable sources" such as Jerusalem Post or FOX News are biased and pure joke. If you want to add antisemitism links, I would take care to see that the same section also include Israel and the apartheid_analogy and related articles, so that an unbiased reader can understand the context in which Ahmedinajad made the speech. I think that could bring atleast a bit of fairness, atleast to that section Zencv Lets discuss 10:53, 1 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
If you have a problem with the Jerusalem Post and FOX News as reliable sources, take it up at the RS noticeboard. I have no objection to adding Israel and the apartheid analogy to the "see also"s. Jalapenos do exist (talk) 12:05, 1 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
As per current interpretation, JPost, and junks like FOX easily qualifies as RS, as RS does not necessarily mean "unbiased" or "representing all views". Unfortunately that is why most Israel/Zionism related articles are easily prone to manipulation Zencv Lets discuss 17:54, 1 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If you believe a POV is being pushed, work to change it. Add information about the conference (other than the controversial info) and make it less one sided. Don't add more links that help to push the POV you have said exists. Wikilinks to antisemitism and holocaust denial isnt really serving your purpose. Thanks, Ono (talk) 23:13, 29 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Are you talking to me or to Zencv? Jalapenos do exist (talk) 00:21, 30 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Whoever is arguing that someone is POV pushing, and that the information is slanted toward the negatives of the conference, and who then readded information that may add to the slanted argument (and that is already wikilinked in the article.) Thanks, Ono (talk) 01:29, 30 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Holocaust denial, and the content of the President's speech

[edit]

The Iranian president's speech started with a prayer, covered the slave trade, neo-colonialism, and the collapse of the current economic order. This is currently ignored, at the expense of discussion of subtexts. The text of the presidents speech refers to the use of the holocaust as a justification for the establishment of a Jewish state in Palestine. Holocaust denial refers to claims that it "did not occur at all, or in the manner or to the extent as historically recognized. Key elements of this claim are the rejection of any of the following: that the Nazi government had a policy of deliberately targeting Jews and people of Jewish ancestry for extermination as a people; that over five million Jews were systematically killed by the Nazis and their allies; and that genocide was carried out at extermination camps using tools of mass murder, such as gas chambers. I am not convinced that the current selective quotation from his draft speech that the Allies had created the state of Israel after World War II "on the pretext of the Jewish sufferings and the ambiguous and dubious question of the Holocaust" should wikilink to holocaust denial.93.96.148.42 (talk) 03:17, 29 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Holocaust Memorial Day = 27 January

[edit]

27 January is the UN international Day of Commemoration to honour the victims of the Holocaust. Other states and groups commemorate the victims on other days. Is it necessary to mention a coincidence of dates so prominently? I have not seen any claim that the president chose to speak on this particular day. It was also the first day of the Bahá'í Faith festival of Ridván.93.96.148.42 (talk) 04:20, 29 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Obviously it was a coincidence, but it was seen by many as an ironic coincidence. The fact needs to be explained in order for the reader to understand some of the comments on the speech. Jalapenos do exist (talk) 05:06, 29 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It was highlighted by the Israeli gov't, which had announced it's non attendance before the date was confirmed. Given that UN holocaust memorial day is different it should, if included, be qualified by this.93.96.148.42 (talk) 00:51, 11 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ahmedinajad

[edit]

I don't think there is a need to give a selected(read biased) introduction to Ahmedinajad, in this article as here. I have no problem with the sources, but the relevancy here is the problem. Also disparate sources are stitched together to make a point here, which I see as quite dodgy. We can't address the systematic bias in the article without addressing these kind of issues. There is no question of being apologetic here - its only a question of being fair. The counter attacks made by Israeli politicians and American and European Jewish leaders are also mentioned in the article. Should we also have a short introduction to their background as well, describing their supporting of violence against Palestinians and support for Zionism? Zencv Lets discuss 20:31, 5 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

1. You are assuming, with no justification, that there is systematic bias in the article. There is none, unless it reflects systematic bias in the reliable sources, in which case it is not bias as far as Wikipedia policy is concerned. 2. The article certainly uses different sources - that's how Wikipedia articles work - but there is no "point" in the article that is not made by the sources themselves. 3. It would not make sense to begin a section describing the walkout of all European Union delegates from Ahmadinejad's speech, without saying why those delegates find the speaker controversial. Yet that is exactly what you tried to do. Besides leaving the section without any sort of context, you also left it stylistically incoherent, where the first paragraph referred to unexplained issues (that were explained in the formerly first paragraph, which you erased). 4. You will have to accept eventually that the reliable sources focused overwhelmingly on the controversial aspects of the conference, and that the article reflects that focus. If you don't like it, you can either wait for history books to be written that deal with this conference, and hope they have a different focus, or you can work on an encyclopedia whose policies do not require exclusive use of reliable sources. Jalapenos do exist (talk) 21:04, 5 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
1. The concern about bias is already reflected in many other comments in the talk page and a big template lying at the beginning of the article. 2. Sadly, you don't address any of the real concern apart from offering some incongruent Wikilawyering. Finding reliable source is not a reason to have something included in the article - it has to make sense in this context. Why do you think we have to treat Ahmedinajad differently from any other person by giving him a biased introduction of him? If cherrypicked reliable sources focused on certain aspects, fine - but that should not be a reason to further use the article as a soapbox Zencv Lets discuss 21:17, 5 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Also please dont use the pretext of reliable source to introduce other factual errors. Many of my edits have been reverted in one go without giving any meaningful explanation. Ban Ki Moon never condemned the speech(only deplored). Please go through all the source, before changing in bulk. Also it is unacceptable to make otherwise hotly contested statements within the article such as Iran's support to Hamas and Hamas' labelling as a militant organization Zencv Lets discuss 21:44, 5 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
If you make a bunch of changes and most of them violate policy, it's not my job to sift through them to find the ones that don't. In any case, the fact that Hamas is a militant organization and "backed by Iran" is not contested by serious observers. What is contested is whether Hamas is a terrorist organization and the precise level and character of its support by Iran. Jalapenos do exist (talk) 10:46, 6 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Is is exactly the non-neutrality of these "serious observers" that brings the bias. Anyways, that is not the focus of this article. Hamas' article refers to it as a socio-political org. with a separate militant wing. I dont think there is a need to give a detailed explanation of Hamas in this article. So the best that can be done is to stick with neutrality. Also, if you think it is imperative to have an introduction to Ahmedinajad with his past speech mentioned, it makes sense that we also mention the context in which he made the statement(ie, aparthied policy of Israel and illegal occupation). Zencv Lets discuss 19:21, 7 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
You seem to be saying that the reliable sources used in the article are not neutral, and that we should fix the non-neutrality by introducing issues that they don't speak of. This is directly contrary to WP:NPOV. Jalapenos do exist (talk) 06:45, 11 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
In the first part of my previous comment, I was referring to your comments about Hamas(not Ahmedinajad). In case of Ahmedinajad, I find it rather odd(buy you seem keen to keep) to have an introduction about him, given that this article is not about foreign relation of Iran, not even about Israeli-Palestine conflict. Here you have isolated a specific person who is demonized in Israel and West and want to depict a picture of him that is not necessarily shared by the wider international community. Countries all the way from India to Brazil to UAE have received him as a guest and are capable of mentioning his name without making apologetic statements towards Israel. If we do feel a need to mention his Holocaust denial speech in this article for the sake of clarity, it does make sense also to mention the background of such a speech, which he may have had given several months or years ago in a completely different context. Zencv Lets discuss 21:00, 11 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
In order to understand the walkouts, it is necessary to describe the guilt European states feel for colluding in the holocaust, and the military relationship between Israel and the US, including the role of aipac. In order to understand the ad hominem criticisms of the president, it is necessary to consider the strategic aims of the us in the persian gulf, the occupations of Afganistan and Iraq, etc. It is not an adequate defence of bias to source references from media outlets that support US and Israeli policies.93.96.148.42 (talk) 02:03, 6 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The need to balance description of the protests/boycotts with the achievements of the conference

[edit]

Most of this article deals with protests and boycotts of the conference. The buisness, and achievements of the conference are hardly covered. The majority of countries attended the conference, and a minority boycotted. I suggest that this articles coverage of the conference is expanded, and that coverage of protests is reduced, or moved to a new page.93.96.148.42 (talk) 02:16, 6 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This point has been brought up before. The article reflects the reliable sources, which focused overwhelmingly on the controversial aspects of the conference. If you can find information in reliable sources (see WP:RS) on other aspects of the conference, you are welcome to add it to the article. Jalapenos do exist (talk) 10:34, 6 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
This article reflects the reliable sources about protests and "boycotts" accurately, but that is different from accurately reflecting the information available about the conference itself.93.96.148.42 (talk) 00:47, 11 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
If you can find information in reliable sources (see WP:RS) on other aspects of the conference, you are welcome to add it to the article. Jalapenos do exist (talk) 06:41, 11 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I had a content posted this morning which was removed although, it gave useful additional and balance information. I used additional secondary sources. It is unclear to me how my editions constitute POVstuffing.Moskito123 (talk) 14:27, 22 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Despite the well-organized and wide-ranging campaign in North America, Western Europe and Australia to press states to boycott the review conference... What you did was insert a rambling exposition of your personal opinion, into the lede no less, punctuated by some quotes from people who aren't notable enough to be quoted in the lede anyway. Jalapenos do exist (talk) 16:23, 22 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I thought necessary to add some content in an article which is tagged as unbalanced, reflecting overwelmingly Israeli and US views (although in the US, the congressional Black Caucus was in favor of a full US participation to Durban ll, something, by the way, which is not currently reflected in the content of this article). Please, explain how do you decide on the legitimacy of the quotes I used? Are the New York Times, France-Culture and L'Hebdo not good enough for you? I might have little Wikipedia experience, but you need to give some careful explanation. I would also be glad to provide further secondary sources to back up what you reverted. Could you also explain why you didn't bother with some editorial help rather than an "undo" ? To back up, what I have written, look at this article from the Jewish Telegraphic Agency: Michael J. Jordan, "The Jewish conspiracy against Durban II (No, seriously", JTA, April 28, 2009 http://jta.org/news/article/2009/04/28/1004727/the-jewish-conspiracy-against-durban-ii-no-seriously

In spirit of conciliation, I suggest the following text to be inserted, replacing the text that Jalapenos do exist has deleted.

The Durban review conference was attended by representatives of 141 countries from Africa, Asia, Europe, and the Americas. The conference gained notoriety because of two reasons: the pro-Israel lobby groups (Jewish Telegraphic Agency, http://jta.org/news/article/2009/04/28/1004727/the-jewish-conspiracy-against-durban-ii-no-seriously) campaign to press Western States to boycott the conference and the inflaming anti-Israel and anti-Western speech of the Iranian President at the opening of the conference. Between them, they succeeded in attracting much of the attention, but ultimately failed in their efforts to destroy the conference itself (New York Times, http://www.nytimes.com/2009/04/22/world/europe/22iht-race.html) + (Le Monde, http://www.lemonde.fr/cgi-bin/ACHATS/acheter.cgi?offre=ARCHIVES&type_item=ART_ARCH_30J&objet_id=1080028). The great majority of the world’s states, including 23 members of the European Union, in the end decided to participate in the Review Conference and 182 states agreed to its final product, the so-called ‘outcome document.’ Rama Yade, the French State Secretary for Human Rights defended French and European participation in the review conference, saying that “We need to remain in the conference and to fight for our values” (Liberation, http://www.liberation.fr/sortir-de-la-crise/0101557160-rama-yade-aller-a-durban-ii-pour-combattre). On 22 April, the second day of the review conference, the outcome document was adopted by consensus (that is 182 countries – see: http://www.un.org/durbanreview2009/coverage/pdf/Review_Conference_Press_Briefing_21_April.pdf -, the 141 countries attending the review conference and the 41 which didn’t raise any objection). The text was described as “a miracle” by the French Foreign Minister, Bernard Kouchner (Bernard Kouchner, France-Culture, 22-04-2009, http://sites.radiofrance.fr/chaines/france-culture2/emissions/matins/fiche.php?diffusion_id=72761&PHPSESSID=54420061a5722a6efac0af2652e05a78). On the whole, despite widespread fears that it would be derailed, most states, international NGOs and intergovernmental organizations considered the review conference to have been a success. The plight of indigenous people, migrants, women, the Roma and people of African descent is recognized by the document, which also makes specific reference to the Holocaust and condemns all demonstrations of racism, including anti-Semitism, Islamophobia and Negrophobia. The document calls on States to take measures to tackle continuing racism and related intolerance, though appropriate public policies and legislative reform. Announcing the unanimous adoption of the resolution by all the states present, the conference president said: “What we have decided shows the outcome when you remain engaged in the process. It shows that boycotts do not assist” (NYT, supra)Moskito123 (talk) 14:39, 23 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The article does not "overwhelmingly reflect Israeli and US views", and your new paragraph is just another exposition of your personal opinions. A quote from the American congressional black caucus could certainly have a place in the article, keeping WP:UNDUE in mind. I will be glad to cooperate with you instead of reverting you, as soon as you read WP:V, WP:RS, WP:NPOV and WP:DUE, familiarize yourself with articles before editing, and show that you're trying to actually contribute to building an encyclopedia instead of using Wikipedia as a soapbox for your opinions. Unless and until you do those things. I and other editors will probably revert you most of the time. Jalapenos do exist (talk) 18:27, 25 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The need to put this conference in context

[edit]

There should be a short introduction and history of previous conference.93.96.148.42 (talk) 00:47, 11 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Does the use of boycott conform to NPOV?

[edit]

Would it not be better to use some more neutral term, such as "refusal to participate"? Boycott is defined as "boycott is a form of consumer activism involving the act of voluntarily abstaining from using, buying, or dealing with someone or some other organization as an expression of protest, usually of political reasons." - which doesn't seem like the right term for the activities described.93.96.148.42 (talk) 02:42, 6 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Boycott is what the reliable sources called it. You do have a point regarding the "partial boycotts", where some countries sent low-level delegations. Only some of those countries (e.g. Sweden) spoke of that policy in terms of a boycott, while others (e.g. France) highlighted the fact that they were participating and did not view their policy vis-a-vis the conference as anything resembling a boycott. This needs to be changed, but carefully, so as not to create more inaccuracies than currently exist. Jalapenos do exist (talk) 10:41, 6 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
SOME of the sources described the actions as Boycotts, however many, including most gov't sources did not. Prevelance is not evidence of neutrality.93.96.148.42 (talk) 00:43, 11 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Neutrality for Wikipedia means presenting the significant viewpoints according to their weight in the reliable sources. Since this is a recent event, reliable sources in this case consist mainly of mainstream media articles. See WP:NPOV and WP:RS. Jalapenos do exist (talk) 06:36, 11 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The importance of previous Boycotts

[edit]

Chlili has removed this additon from the lede. If it is necessery to cover boycotts in such detail, why not reference previous behaviour at the same conference? |which the United States and Israeli delegations had withdrawn from.[1][2][3] The United States had previously failed to attend the 1978 and 1985 World Conferences Against Racism.[4]

Have reinstated, given lack of opposition.93.96.148.42 (talk) 02:05, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure what you meant by "lack of opposition", but I'm reverting you. While information on various countries' behavior at other conferences can be useful information for the article, the lede is not the place for it-- certainly not the first paragraph of the lede, which should be devoted to explaining simply what the conference in question was. I have already integrated the information into the "Boycotts" section, which is the proper place for it. Jalapenos do exist (talk) 07:49, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ Mark Klusener (2001-09-04). "Accusations Fly As US, Israel Walk Out Of "Bizarre" UN Conference". CNSNews.com. {{cite news}}: Check date values in: |date= (help)
  2. ^ "US abandons racism summit". BBC News. BBC. 2001-09-03. {{cite news}}: Check date values in: |date= (help)
  3. ^ "Racism summit turmoil: Reactions". BBC News. BBC. 2001-09-03. {{cite news}}: Check date values in: |date= (help)
  4. ^ U.S. Participation in the United Nations, Report by the President to the Congress for theYear 1977, Department of State, p. 172

What Ahmadinejad was referring to

[edit]

I'm removing the gloss according to which Ahmadinejad's statement that "the regime occupying Jerusalem must vanish from the pages of time" was referring to Israeli occupation of Palestine, which is seen as illegal by the international community, because it's doubly false:

  1. The Israeli "occupation of Palestine" (i.e., of the West Bank and Gaza Strip) is not seen as illegal by the international community. According to the source provided, the editor seems to have been referring to the UN General Assembly resolutions of 21 December 2000, while using "the international community" as a weasel-term for the UN General Assembly. However, those resolutions did not pertain to the West Bank-Gaza Strip or to Israeli occupation, but to East Jerusalem and the Golan Heights and to the Israeli application of civil law to those areas, which is a separate issue from occupation. It's a pretty basic fact that the UN does not see the Israeli occupation of the West Bank-Gaza Strip as illegal. Indeed, this is the basis for Security Council Resolution 242.
  2. None of the sources cited give any indication that Ahmadinejad was referring to the Israeli "occupation of Palestine". It's pretty obvious that he could not have been referring to that, because he explicitly said he was referring to a "regime": a regime and an occupation are two different things.

It would be nice if people could refrain from putting unambiguously false statements in the article, especially statements that pertain to the Arab-Israeli conflict, articles concerning which are under special Wikipedia sanctions. Thanks. Jalapenos do exist (talk) 23:13, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Onopearls, Please stop repeatedly reverting without discussion. That is edit warring. Jalapenos do exist (talk) 23:35, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Way to assume good faith. I explained my reasoning in my edit summary, if you bothered to read it. And if I'm not mistaken, you did it first, removing the info w/o discussion. So do you not consider that edit warring?
unambiguously false statements You accuse people of doing that (i didnt, I just reverted a more POV statement than was already there), yet you change it to something that, while not exactly false (neither was the other statement), but that wasn't mentioned in the sources. A double standard if I've ever seen one. Thanks, Ono (talk) 23:59, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I don't see what you're getting so mad about. I tried reading your edit summary, but it was incomprehensible (edit summaries are not meant to justify controversial edits - that's what the discussion page is for - merely to make it clear what the edit was). I said that repeatedly reverting without discussion is edit warring, because it is. I never said you added the unambiguously false statement - I don't know if it was you, and I don't particularly care - though you did effectively bring it back by reverting a third editor. I tweaked the paragraph a bit to make the text reflect the cited sources more strictly; this should address your concern. If there's anything in the paragraph that you think is still not supported by the cited sources, please say exactly what it is, and we can talk about it. Jalapenos do exist (talk) 00:14, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Context for criticism of israel as racist

[edit]

There is currently a lot of background material on the president, and very little on the history of zionism's equation to Racism. Are there any objections to me adding a section on this, with particuar reference to Israel's support to Aparteid South Africa, in contravention of the UN boycott, and subsequent UN condemnations.93.96.148.42 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 22:02, 7 June 2009 (UTC).[reply]

You seem to be in the wrong article. Israel's relations with South Africa (which you are inaccurately describing) have nothing to do with the Durban Review Conference. You may want to try contributing to the Israel-South Africa relations article (which is in bad shape), but keep in mind that everything you write must be verifiable by reliable sources per the WP:V policy. Jalapenos do exist (talk) 22:52, 7 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Where are the innaccuracies? There is a connexion -http://www.worldaffairsjournal.org/2009%20-%20Spring/full-Wedgwood.html- This article currently focusses on support for Israel, and attacking Iran, without reflecting the other points of view.93.96.148.42 (talk) 04:34, 10 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The link you included didn't work for me; perhaps one needs a subscription. The article currently focuses on the Durban Review Conference. Let's try to keep it that way. Jalapenos do exist (talk) 08:24, 10 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Interesting..Then why do you insist on including a handpicked bio of Ahmedinajad here? Zencv Lets discuss 09:20, 11 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I have no idea what you're talking about. Jalapenos do exist (talk) 10:03, 11 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
This article currently contains a lot of trivia, and partial information. There is more background on Ahmedinajad than on all the previous conferences.93.96.148.42 (talk) 04:58, 1 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
There was previously one sentence of background on Ahmadinejad, to explain to the reader why European countries "feared that he could start a new row over the Holocaust or Israel's right to exist", but that was removed. Jalapenos do exist (talk) 09:45, 1 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

A lot of the links have stopped working - eg Associated Press.93.96.148.42 (talk) 05:54, 1 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

So fix them. I hope you're not planning to remove content you don't like under the pretense that the links are dead. Jalapenos do exist (talk) 09:42, 1 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Be polite.93.96.148.42 (talk) 01:56, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Coatrack/split

[edit]

ok, so i looked at the wikipedia definition of a coatrack, and i don´t think that there was an intention to display a biased view. i do think that the article isn´t about the durban review conference. there´s two short sections on objectives and outcomes, and a long section for both Ahmadinejad´s speech and the boycotts (which contained a short section about the fact that the majority of the countries in the world attended). I don´t think that those aren´t significant, i haven´t done a survey of world news organizations to find out which were most notable. However, if, say Ahmadinejad´s speech was more notable, and it just happened to take place at a UN conference, that should be what the article should be about, with a title to match. Since it was UN conference though, Durban should probably have its own article (maybe smaller, if it wasn´t that notable). I propose: an article about the general goings on at durban review, which contains a review of boycotts and ahmadinejad´s sppech, while linking to main articles about those two subjects. Also, either the text or the map is currently wrong, of the listed countries that i looked at, nicaragua, guatamal, columbia, venezuela, the democratic republic of congo, and chad are listed as attending, but are not shown on the map ( i assume there´s more, but given the likelihood that this comment is going to get buried on the talk page and that i can´t seem to edit the map i ll stop there). 132.254.89.8 (talk) 23:26, 2 November 2009 (UTC)that was me, forgot to log inIowawindow (talk) 23:29, 2 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

German participation

[edit]

Almost everything I've seen says that Germany joined the boycott of the conference. However, they appear as a participant on the draft document:

http://daccess-dds-ny.un.org/doc/UNDOC/LTD/G09/129/48/PDF/G0912948.pdf?OpenElement

All other boycotters appropriately do not appear on the list. Does anybody know why the discrepancy? Kimpire (talk) 14:51, 20 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Durban Review Conference. 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 IITalk to my owner:Online 03:30, 26 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Durban Review Conference. 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:

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: 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.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 22:23, 17 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 14 external links on Durban Review Conference. 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:

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: 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.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 23:55, 9 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Durban_Review_Conference&oldid=1207063148"