Talk:Israel and the United Nations/Archive 5

Archive 1

←

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

What I mean by poor sourcing

Section on the 1940s. This is one section that could be spun off, actually, because, as the article says, there is an important story to be told about the UN and the formation of Israel, but from 1950 to 1967 there was a hiatus in activity. If people want it kept in, we will need to ensure that this important period in international history is related with reference to the best relevant texts. At the moment, this is far from being the case. Sources 4 to 21 in the article supposedly reference this section. Of these, sources in notes 4, 5, 10, 13, 14, 16, 20 and 21 seem to be primary sources. Sources 6, 7, 8, 18, and 19 don't seem to be appropriate or are unreliable - none of them are articles or books by historians anyway. In 9 the Janowsky book was published 1933 so not likely to be useful for events of the 1940s. In 12 the Cattan book may be OK although the author is described as a jurist rather than a historian; the publisher and date of publication should be added. In 15 Goodwin-Gill and Talman is probably good, but the second part of the reference seems to be garbled. 17 is probably fine. I'm minded to delete whole chunks of this section, for the time being, anyway.Itsmejudith (talk) 10:32, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

I'm noticing a trend: sub-sections will include primary source material that might relate to the sub-section's title but doesn't include any secondary sources that actually relate it to the sub-sections title. For example "5.4 Claims that the Commission on the Status of Women is anti-Israel" doesn't actually reference anyone saying that it's anti-Israeli, it's implied that the concentration on Israel must be anti-Israeli. That might well be true but we need someone saying it. Sol Goldstone (talk) 16:35, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

This article is a work in progress. I used lots of primary sources because they were a lot easier to find in the web (namely, www.un.org) than history books. The plan was that, someday, someone will supplement the text. So yes Judith, find & quote more secondary sources. But I will resist the removal of primary sources; in my opinion, a quote from the original text is the proper starting point to a discussion on a UN decision. I also cringe at your apparent veneration of historians and disdain of jurists. Regardless of the background, any published author is a reliable secondary source; neutrality is achieved by the juxtaposition of contrary opinions (WP:ASF) in proportion to their prominence (WP:WEIGHT).

By the way, you should know that refs # 9, 10, 13, 14 and 15 were put there by Harlan. Emmanuelm (talk) 01:25, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for your explanation. Policy on primary sources is to use them as a supplement and to derive the main factual information from the most reliable secondary sources. If we're telling history we should be using the work of historians. In law articles jurists are better sources (scientists for science articles etc.). "Any published author" is definitely not reliable, please refer to policy. What do you think are the best secondary histories of the period? Itsmejudith (talk) 07:16, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

If sections of an article are based mainly on primary sources, my view would be that the correct way forward would be to truncate that section and tag it as needing expansion. Using primary sources creates a risk of WP:OR when used incorrectly, and creates patchy text when used correctly. --Dailycare (talk) 16:32, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

What prominence should we give to legal opinions?

Cut & pasted from above:

If we're telling history we should be using the work of historians. In law articles jurists are better sources (scientists for science articles etc.). (...) Itsmejudith (talk) 07:16, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

This article is entirely about the U.N.. The U.N. is, before all else, a legal body, albeit a unique form of legal body. It's decisions are worded like laws; most of the delegates are trained lawyers; it is the world authority on human rights, war crimes and international law. Therefore, the most reliable secondary sources of comments about U.N. decisions are, in my opinion, jurists, not historians.

I will credit Harlan for recently injecting a good dose of legal comments in the article. His text was biased but, interestingly, was quickly complemented by an anonymous editor with contrarian opinions on Sept 9th. As usual, this attempt at restoring balance was immediately followed by an edit squirmish between Nableezy, Igor and Sol. It now seems to have calmed down and I think the article is now a bit more complete and a bit more neutral.

I thought of creating a "Legal opinions on U.N. decisions" section but I quickly changed my mind because they cover most of the subtopics in the article and would constitute a physical separation between the decision and its criticism, not recommended in the NPOV style. Emmanuelm (talk) 11:48, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

Don't worry, I'm not going to make a big deal out of this. It's just that it seems logical for the sections structured chronologically to be sourced principally to historical texts. Of course jurists are uniquely qualified to comment on international law. Itsmejudith (talk) 18:19, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

Secondary sources

Does anyone have any views on the suitability of the following, just for the 1940s section:

• William Roger Louis, The British Empire in the Middle East, 1945-1951: Arab Nationalism, the United States, and Postwar Imperialism

• Joseph Heller, The birth of Israel, 1945-1949: Ben-Gurion and his critics, University Press of Florida, 2000

• Zvi Ganin, Truman, American Jewry, and Israel, 1945-1948, Holmes & Meier Publishers, 1979

And Benny Morris.

Any other suggestions?

Itsmejudith (talk) 21:30, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

On primary sources

It was suggested at WP:RS/N that I comment here. Wikipedia is an encyclopaedia, a tertiary source. We report on the current state of scholarly research. We therefore write from the best available secondary sources: scholarly publications. This article covers a topic which ought to have received significant attention from scholars. It should therefore be written from the narratives and perspectives suggested in the scholarly resources. Where these do not completely exhaust the topic (for instance, where they gesture at other secondary sources, without fully exploring) other reliable secondary sources ought to be used. Primary sources should only be used to illustrate points of opinion, or the exact expression of an original document which is of interest. thanks. Fifelfoo (talk) 02:09, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

This is also my interpretation. The primary sources for this article are mainly available online, which is an extra resource we can give to the reader. We can either link to them throughout, notably when they are mentioned by the secondary sources, or we can provide them as external links at the end. Itsmejudith (talk) 08:14, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

Deletion of "Claims that the 2001 Durban conference was antisemitic"

I reverted Sol Goldstone's deletion of this whole section without discussion. Please discuss here before re-deleting. Emmanuelm (talk) 13:13, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

O_o I did discuss it above. With a week between challenging the relevance of both sections and then a final notice of intent. Unless you have something to discuss I can't see why we'd re-extended a discussion that didn't generate much interest or address why the UN should be held accountable for its members' actions. Sol (talk) 14:58, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

It wasn't "members' actions", particularly. It's that no restraint or oversight was supplied by the United Nations to prevent so-called "NGOs"[sic] from running amok and turning the conference into a fetid swamp of bigoted racist hatemongering. This had been happening at UN conferences on and off ever since the Mexico City women's conference of 1975, so it's not like the UN had any excuse for being taken by surprise, or couldn't have reasonably foreseen the coming trainwreck -- however, the UN authorities chose to do absolutely nothing whatsoever about it, until Mary Robinson issued an ineffectual 11th-hour mealy-mouthed hypocritical bleating pro forma protest (far too late to prevent the United States from withdrawing from the conference). A number of people feel that the UN bureaucratic hierarchy would have acted quite differently if the bigoted racist hatemongering had been directed at any group other than Jews -- which is why the Durban conference is in this article. AnonMoos (talk) 10:25, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

Durban I's NGO forum was vile, no question, but the article isn't presenting information about how the UN's failure to curb Anti-Semitic rhetoric went beyond negligence to tacit approval. It's presenting information about how Durban was vile. Same with the Durban II section. There might be sources you could use to present that, I don't know. The current sources seem focused on criticizing the NGO forum which was held concurrently (but seems to have been run by an NGO and not the UN) but wasn't the UN Durban conference and had no official function. Sol (talk) 15:51, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

I'm sure that you're motivated by a laudable impulse to stick strictly to the facts, but such purely technicalistic-formalistic reasoning doesn't do anything to explain why the 2001 Durban conference was actually and substantively a major controversy and source of antagonism between Israel and the United Nations, and between Jewish groups and the United Nations. Your line of reasoning would be a good defense strategy in a court of law to defend against a legal suit -- but out in the broader world, people take note of things such as that the 2001 Durban NGO forum was NOT some kind of unsanctioned and unaffiliated anti-UN protest movement, but was effectively summoned and called into being by the UN itself as an adjunct to the governmental conference. That being the case, the NGO forum dirt sticks to the UN itself -- so the UN can't simply wash its hands, Pilate-like, and emerge unscathed. Whether fairly or not, many have wondered why it is that Mary Robinson and her coterie didn't actively take some measures to nip things in the bud before the worst excesses occurred, instead of merely ineffectually wringing their hands after everything had already spiralled out of control -- and they are also not very impressed by the fact that anyone who had expressed similar blatant bigoted racist hatemongering against any other group except Jews would have probably found himself tossed out of the forum onto his ear so fast his head would spin... AnonMoos (talk) 15:25, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

Sol, when both Robinson and Pillay bluntly qualify the NGOs' behaviour within the walls of the Durban conference as antisemitic, I think this accusation is clear, very well sourced and belongs in the article. You may judge that the content of this section (and of the Durban II section) should be moved to "Claims that the UN ignores antisemitism"; I will not argue with that. But this text should not be deleted. Emmanuelm (talk) 18:37, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

The article links to the UNESCO conferences run under the full auspices of the UN. That's not what it's talking about. It's referencing events held at a concurrent meeting run administrated by an NGO. That's misleading. Who is Mary Robinson? Why is she in this? (I know now) If ISC was in charge (per the quote) why is it the UN's fault? And AnonMoos, I see where you are coming from but could we at least get a source saying something to that effect? As it stands the section just doesn't make sense and seems like someone just set out to stuff as much innuendo into an article as possible. Sol (talk) 01:17, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

Because Mary Robinson was the publicly-visible face of the United Nations bureaucratic hierarchy at the 2001 Durban conference, and her public (in)actions there created friction between the UN and Israel, and between the UN and Jewish groups -- and a lot of people still hate her guts because of it (as seen in the Obama medal foofaraw last year). AnonMoos (talk) 12:12, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

I think this is still pretty thin but if you all want to keep the section could you include some of the information you've just given me? It makes a lot more sense than the current version. Maybe gut the other quotes and focus on Robinsons role in the affair. Are we ok with moving it to the "Ignores" subsection? Sol (talk) 21:41, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

I'm not too sure what you're requesting I add, unless perhaps an elaborately-worded point-counterpart non-disclaimer disclaimer, such as: "TECHNICALLY the forum was not under the immediate control of the UN itself, HOWEVER the UN couldn't avoid moral responsibility and political blame BECAUSE ... BUT ..." etc. Would this really improve the article? I'm not sure that it has major5 problems in this area now. AnonMoos (talk) 23:33, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

No, I'm saying that you should clarify the narrative of events the conference and the who exactly was in charge to match what you've put in here. Then it makes a lot more sense. I don't have the sources and you do. Sol (talk) 20:04, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

I moved the two blocs of text about the Durban conferences to the "tolerates antisemitism" section. I am glad something constructive came out of this. As for who exactly controls what is shown and what isn't, every official at the UN will always answer they were powerless to stop them. But no Jew supremacist, "Greater Israel"-type NGO was ever allowed to attend a UN conference. Somehow. Emmanuelm (talk) 19:46, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

Recent major edits without discussion

User Itsmejudith made several major edits, including large deletions, without any form of discussion. Although the WP:BOLD attitude is promoted elsewhere in Wikipedia, being bold in an article on a controversial subjects like the Israeli-Arab conflict will only engender anger and push people to write something they will later regret. I invite Judith to discuss her proposed edits here. Emmanuelm (talk) 19:27, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

I don't think any of my edits particularly affected NPOV. I'm not interested in whether editors get angry and write things they may regret. The important thing is the readers, and we should write to inform, not to persuade. I shortened the text a lot because in Wikipedia we can use internal linking to ensure that people can find their way around topics. The 1940s events are very interesting both in terms of UN history and Israeli history but they are kind of complete in themselves. 1950 was a turning point. Then there was the Suez crisis - shouldn't the article cover it? Then the Six-Day War. The present-day UN-Israeli relations issues date from then, I think historians say. That's why I think the 1940s period should only be covered briefly, with links to other articles. Itsmejudith (talk) 19:57, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

I did discuss it before, you know, see above, and I asked about some books but have had no comments on them. The present quality of sourcing in the section is unacceptable, and there are things like shouty capitals in a source title which makes some editors angry in the same way that bias makes others angry. This is not a blame thing. We need to work together for encyclopedicity, not allow the conflicts to bog us down. Itsmejudith (talk) 20:11, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

You reverted me without spelling out why. I won't simply revert back because I don't do that. I will carry on improving in the same way, explaining here at each point, but it will be more tedious for everyone in the long run. Itsmejudith (talk) 20:14, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

Respectfully, Emanuelm, I disagree. This article needs serious help to be readable. If Judith wants to be that editor then I wish her the best of luck. Reverting her changes because she didn't discuss is specious; if you have objections then it is your duty to raise them. No one owns this article and reverting an editor's hard work without solid reasons is deplorable and will be met with much pounding of shoes on podiums. Sol (talk) 20:26, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

I don't really want to be that editor, Sol. I am working in totally different areas of the encyclopedia at the same time. Looking back, Emmanuel, you will see that even if I didn't post here, I did give quite careful explanatory edit summaries, and I didn't make many edits per day. Now Sol's taken the 1940s section back to my shorter version, if you think it's too brief why don't you add back any sourced bits you think are useful? Itsmejudith (talk) 21:24, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

Judith, I do think it's too brief, and I did "add back sourced bits that I thought were useful", i.e. the whole original text. But Sol reverted my revert after anointing you editor-in-chief. This is starting to smell like an edit war.

Sol, the deletion of a major block of text is the prototype of "reverting an editor's hard work". In the name of Harlan and of the many others whose work you judged worthless, I am pounding my shoe here and now. NPOV is achieved by juxtaposing opposing arguments. By erasing an argument instead of balancing it, deletions always increase bias instead of decreasing it. Therefore, if you think the text is biased, add instead of deleting. If you think the text is too long and unreadable, too bad. That's the price of writing a neutral article on a controversial subject. Please restore all the text you deleted and discuss point by point here. Emmanuelm (talk) 17:24, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

Look, I came to this article because I wanted to try and make it a readable entry inline with WP:SS. I am just fine with conversation and opposition. That is what the talk pages are for. But when ample notice has been given of proposed changes with no objections and you come in and revert the changes due to no discussion (twice now) that really undermines good faith and starts to look like disruptive editing. No one is talking about deleting arguments but condensing them into a digestible form. Judith seemed to be doing it in a manner you didn't object to and making progress. You deleted her summary on the grounds of "no discussion"; that's specious. If you have policy objections you can raise them but no one has to justify every change to the satisfaction of observers. That's just increasing the work load for no reason and driving people away. I Sol (talk) 15:03, 9 October 2010 (UTC)

Sol, "Article too long and of poor quality" is not a topic of discussion, it is an unconstructive rant. To be effective, discussions should be clearly focused on one passage of the text, clearly identified under a specific heading in this talk page. See what I did below. If you want to add more discussion topics, go right ahead. Emmanuelm (talk) 13:10, 10 October 2010 (UTC)

Deletion of large text block from "1940s" chapter

Judith, just in this chapter, you deleted reference to i) the root cause of 800,000 Jewish refugees from Arab lands who are, to this day, a source of discord between Israel and the UN, ii) a legal discussion on the legality of the state of Israel (a minor subject in your mind, no doubt), and iii) the 1948 declaration of war against Israel that documented the opposition of Arab countries against the very existence of Israel even before its birth. Your POV is obvious in these deletions. If you truly want to inform readers, you should add, not delete. Please restore all the text you deleted and discuss point by point here. Emmanuelm (talk) 17:24, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

OK, we need to address these one by one. Please don't say things like "my POV is obvious". I am trying to create an article that is both NPOV and usable. Of course there will be many points where one's person's neutral is another person's biased. I have one way of working in those cases that you might find useful to know about. I always start from the sources. I try and get agreement about the disciplines that are relevant and which scholars from those disciplines have written about the topic. Then hopefully editors can agree on which sources to use. Then we can all work from those sources and build up the article. What do you think? Can we co-operate on that basis?

You are always starting from the sources? We all do, but there are thousands of sources. Which ones you chose is a reflection of your bias. A balanced article is achieved by the juxtaposition of your sources next to my sources. But you did not do that. Instead, you deleted my sources! And you have not reversed your deletion yet. This was not only rude, it introduces bias. Emmanuelm (talk) 14:10, 9 October 2010 (UTC)

Some of your other points. I definitely don't agree that "deletions always increase bias". A lot of the reduction of text I did was on the basis that the questions are covered elsewhere, or if they aren't, they ought to be.

If the questions are covered elsewhere, you may summarize the text by using lots of wikilinks, as was done in the original text that you deleted. If they are not, this is a strong evidence that this question belongs in this article and nowhere else. You may chose to split the article by creating a new WP article but this will most often result in a WP:FORK. An article split would constitute a major change that must be discussed first. Emmanuelm (talk) 14:10, 9 October 2010 (UTC)

Your i) The "root cause of the Jewish refugees". We mustn't try and retell the whole history of the Israel-Palestine conflict. We have to concentrate on the role of the UN. At the same time, we have to include enough context for people to understand UN/Israel/Palestinian actions. So what do you think we need to say, and what's an appropriate source for it?

What do I think? Gee, thank you for asking! I think you must re-instate the original text that you deleted. It was very short, in topic and used plenty of wikilinks to guide the reader. Emmanuelm (talk) 14:10, 9 October 2010 (UTC)

Your ii) "legality of the state of Israel". Are you absolutely sure you think we must cover it in this article? If so, where?

If not here, where? my point exactly. The legality of a country is decided at the UN. This topic is central to the article and cannot be discussed elsewhere. You deleted a text that cited multiple scholarly sources. Why? You may decide that it deserves a separate paragraph (under "Specific issues"?) but you must reinstate the text you deleted. Emmanuelm (talk) 14:10, 9 October 2010 (UTC)

In the historical narrative? iii) the declaration of war against Israel - I thought this was left in and/or can be easily found, because the war is linked to. Itsmejudith (talk) 17:46, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

The text, as you left it, goes from the declaration of the state of Israel to the attack by Arab neighbours. Why did the Arab states attack the one-day old Jewish state? In retaliation for attacks by Israeli forces, perhaps? Not.

Your deleted text erases a key historical document, both for Israel and the UN, and introduces a question where there is none. The "overlooking" of an embarrassing historical truth -- here, that Arabs vowed and attempted to violently destroy Israel long before Israel allegedly committed the alleged crimes that are currently evoked to justify the war that Arabs wage against Israel -- is the most common tactic to introduce bias in a scholarly text. By deleting a pro-Israel fact & source, you introduced anti-Israel bias. You must revert your deletion. Emmanuelm (talk) 14:10, 9 October 2010 (UTC)

Which is the key historical document you want mentioned? Do you have a secondary source for it? Itsmejudith (talk) 16:05, 9 October 2010 (UTC)

Which historical document? The statement from the Arab League on May 15, 1948, i.e. the clear rejection of the mere existence of a Jewish state and the declaration of war against the one-day old "unlawful successor authority". I do not have a secondary source. Once you revert the original text, we could start looking for one together.

But you are dragging me into your game and I do not like this. I will not be satisfied if you merely restore that part of the text. You must first re-instate all the parts you deleted -- a text that survived years and generations of nit-picking editors and countless edit wars -- and then discuss, point by point, using separate chapters in this talk page, the changes you want to make. Only then will your edits have a chance of sticking. It is a long, difficult process but this is the price to pay to edit a controversial political subject. Emmanuelm (talk) 13:03, 10 October 2010 (UTC)

Judith, here is a recent secondary source on the 1948 war, a book by a well published historian, Palestine 1948 by Yoav Gelber. I suggest you read the foreword by Lacquer and the introduction. You will, perhaps, understand that there is no such thing as "History" and that "reliable sources" are not what they claim to be. To achieve neutrality, one source must be balanced by another source arguing the opposite opinion. You start, I follow you. Emmanuelm (talk) 13:53, 10 October 2010 (UTC)

Happy to look at the book, especially since it has a foreword by Lacquer. I'm afraid to say, though, that I won't be referring to your idiosyncratic view of how to work with sources, but to WP:V and WP:NPOV. Itsmejudith (talk) 16:20, 10 October 2010 (UTC)

Just seen your comment earlier. Please do not tell me to reinstate everything I deleted. You block reverted me and I didn't object, even though I had worked not in a block but over a few days and always with an edit summary explaining what I was doing. It was Sol who reverted to my version, so now this is between you and Sol. Yes, I am OK to discuss point by point. Please do mention the Arab League statement, from the Gelber source perhaps, or from any history of the post-war period that covers it. Please don't block quote it. Itsmejudith (talk) 16:38, 10 October 2010 (UTC)

Good point Judith. I re-instated the text Sol deleted, leaving the text you added. Emmanuelm (talk) 02:43, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

Suez crisis

Judith, reference to this event is indeed missing from the article. I am eager to read your contribution on this subject. Remember that the article is, first and foremost, about the UN, not Israel, Egypt, England or France. I did not know that the UN played a key role in that crisis but am opened to new discoveries. Emmanuelm (talk) 17:24, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

Suez crisis. I brought in lots of detail from the article on it, but that's not good. I'll summarise it, but as I go through it, I'll keep a close eye on what the sources are. Itsmejudith (talk) 17:46, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

Take your time, but not too much. Remember that a Wikipedia article is not a private notebook. To work on a text prior to posting, create a subpage of your user page. Click on the red link User:Itsmejudith/Suez crisis and start working. This page works like all WP pages but is your own private working space. You can create as many subpages as you like. See WP:UP#SUB. When you are happy with the result, copy & paste in the article -- and be ready to fight when someone calls your text unreadable and deletes you without discussion! Right? Emmanuelm (talk) 13:17, 9 October 2010 (UTC)

I greatly shortened Judith's text, keeping the emphasis on the UN. Emmanuelm (talk) 03:17, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

Much better, thanks.Itsmejudith (talk) 11:41, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

1967 war

The text is very concise, talking about UNGA 242, little else. Every key concept is wikilinked so that the reader can read further. I guess we could flesh up this chapter but the emphasis of the article should remain the present, not the past. Emmanuelm (talk) 17:24, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

1967 war. Haven't looked at it at all yet, am working chronologically. Itsmejudith (talk) 17:46, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

New section on the legality of the state of Israel

Honestly, can someone tell me what the section actually means? Who said, and when, that Israel is legally established? Who said, and when, that Israel isn't? What is the link to the UN? Itsmejudith (talk) 15:45, 23 October 2010 (UTC)

The text was mainly just moved from another place in the article, as far as I can tell. The long paragraph appears to be a watered-down version of Harlan_wilkerson's usual pontifications... AnonMoos (talk) 05:01, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

Judith, you may not understand this issue (frankly, I am not sure I understand it completely myself) but, if you had carefully read this section, you would have found a rather balanced and well sourced text on this academic but important dispute, with the UN as a backdrop. Also, as stated by AnonMoos, the material is not new, I just moved it under a new heading. You had no reason to edit it as you did. I am reverting your changes to this section. Emmanuelm (talk) 01:51, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

Emmanualm, Igorb deleted well-sourced material from James Crawford and others regarding the criteria for termination of the Mandate regime and inserted a series of unsourced editorial comments and arguments about the British mandate "expiring", & etc. There isn't anything balanced about those edits. harlan (talk) 04:32, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

Itsmejudith-added "fact" tags

If an assertion is taken directly from a linked article which discusses the subject in much greater detail, and is adequately documented there, then I don't know that it's too important to have a reference for it here. We can save further discussion of regional groups for the United Nations Regional Groups article (specifically United_Nations_Regional_Groups#Israel), and I don't know that there's any need to go into great detail about it in this article, etc... AnonMoos (talk) 13:40, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

The sentences I tagged did all seem to be important enough to need referencing. I looked at the regional groups article, and didn't see that the pertinent point was adequately referenced there either. I'll look again. I'd like to see better linkage between articles in this series, so I am on the lookout for good sources that could be used more frequently. Itsmejudith (talk) 13:47, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

No, United_Nations_Regional_Groups#Israel is only referenced to two primary sources and a pdf paper that could well be fine but lacks bibliographic info. Itsmejudith (talk) 13:50, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

That's more of an issue for that article. As long as the basic fact is not in legitimate dispute, and we mention an issue only tangentially (which is discused more fully in an another article specifically devoted to the subject), then I don't really understand why we have to build up a bibliographic apparatus on this article. AnonMoos (talk) 19:34, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

Er, WP:V? Given that this is a contentious issue in recent history. It does seem a bit of a no-brainer, and it's a bit weird to be discussing this with an established user whose work on the ref desks I admire. Itsmejudith (talk) 20:05, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

What is contentious about the fact that Arab and Muslim nations blocked Israel's membership in the Asian United Nations Regional Group? It's part of a long-term consistent pattern affecting Israel's membership in a number of things, down to the Asian_Football_Confederation, and the Arabs are not not necessarily secretive about it...

All I'm saying is that it saves duplicative effort if there's a division of labor between articles, so that if one article makes only a very brief assertion about a topic while linking to another article which discusses the topic in much greater detail, then the work on finding supporting citations should be focused on the specific article. Of course all truly controversial and problematic assertions should be properly sourced... AnonMoos (talk) 04:30, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

Everything on the whole encyclopedia should be properly sourced, as you know. And anything related to Israel/Palestine could potentially be contentious. Itsmejudith (talk) 09:02, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

Everything should theoretically ultimately be sourced. However, in practice some things need sourcing much more than others, and I'm not sure whether the tag you added to the mention of the United Nations Regional Groups fact reflects a real priority at this time... AnonMoos (talk) 10:27, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

Taken it to RSN. Itsmejudith (talk) 10:54, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

Comment - Compliance with WP:V isn't inherited across articles by linking them nor is there a reason to believe that a statement that currently complies with policy in a linked article will remain that way and continue to provide support for a statement in another article. Articles are standalone per WP:CIRCULAR. Sean.hoyland - talk 11:14, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

• Comment - I came here from the RS/N. What Sean wrote is correct. You cannot use another Wikipedia article as a reference, and that means you also cannot justify the lack of references in one article through the existence of the other. If there are references there then use them here, if there aren't leave the fact tags up and find good sources.Griswaldo (talk) 11:54, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

AnonMoos has said on my talk page that he doesn't have a dispute with me about this. I have a query though about the reliability of one of the sources in the other article, and am coming back to RSN with it. Itsmejudith (talk) 12:06, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

I am coming late in this dispute and cannot believe how far it has gotten. You all calm down already!

I Googled the topic of Israel being blocked from the Asian Group and found, among lots of unreliable sources, two that look half reliable: an 2007 book by Mitchell Bard and a 1999 book which is a compilation of presentation to the US congress. Judith, would these sources satisfy you? If yes, please insert them instead of your flag and terminate this useless dispute. Emmanuelm (talk) 02:28, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

Hi Emmanuel. We had already calmed down. Thanks very much for looking up these sources. Bard, OK for now. It's with a scholarly publisher but I can't see what Bard's area of expertise is, the book looks a bit like a popularisation, and I can't find many scholarly reviews. Gilman, primary source, would prefer not to see it in. I know that may seem incredibly picky. What we really need is standard histories of Israel, standard histories of the UN and standard histories of Palestine/Palestinians. Or simply standard histories of international relations in the 20th century. If such works are thin on the ground then we need shorter articles. Itsmejudith (talk) 09:45, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

Judith, "standard history" never existed and will never exist. The closest you will ever get to this naive ideal is the juxtaposition of opposite views, as explained in WP:NPOV#Balance. Let's do it and move on. Emmanuelm (talk) 12:47, 30 October 2010 (UTC)

POV flag removed; discuss here

There seems to be no active discussion on the alleged bias of this article. If you restore the POV flag, explain why. Please be specific. Emmanuelm (talk) 03:15, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

Emmanuelm you yourself removed the material about Israel imposing martial law on its Arab citizens and said it had nothing to do with this article. In fact, Israel's violation of its initial minority rights obligations under the terms of the partition plan are the source of its long-running dispute with the United Nations. The United Nations and its subsidiary organs say that Israel has a binding legal obligation that flows from resolution 181(II) and that the United Nations has a permanent responsibility in that matter. See "Report Of The Committee On The Exercise Of The Inalienable Rights Of The Palestinian People", [1], United Nations doc. S/12090, 29 May 1976, paragraph 19 (pdf file page 7); United Nations General Assembly resolution 57/107 of 3 December 2002; and Legal Consequences of the Construction of a Wall in the Occupied Palestinian Territory, [2], The International Court of Justice, 2004, page 159 (pdf file 51 of 139)

I provided cites to:

• Anis F. Kassim, C. Mansour (eds), "The Palestine Yearbook of International Law 2000-2001, Martinus Nijhoff Publishers, 2002, ISBN: 9041118179, page 5 and especially footnote 13. That source says:
  • The absorption and settlement of Jewish immigrants during the first years of the new state might have been impossible without the homes and property of Palestinian Arab refugees.
  • Israel imposed martial law in 1948 to prevent the return of internally and externally displaced Palestinians to their villages and homes for demographic, security, and economic reasons.
  • That the decision to prevent the return of the refugees was confirmed in the Reply of the Provisional Government of Israel to the Proposal Regarding the Return of Arab Refugees. 1 August 1948, from Moshe Sharett, Progress Report of the United Nations Mediator on Palestine, U.N. GAOR, 3rd Sess., Supp. No. 11 at 51, U.N. Doc. A/648 (l948).

• John Quigley, "Apartheid Outside Africa: The Case of Israel", Indiana International & Comparative Law Review, vol. 2, 1991, page 225 mentions:
  • That the government instituted and maintained martial law in the Arab-populated areas until 1966.
  • The criticism from UN Mediator, Count Folke Bernadotte, in September 1948 that "It would be an offence against the principles of elemental justice, if these [Palestinian Arab] victims of the conflict were denied the right to return to their homes while Jewish immigrants flow into Palestine."

• The Minority rights treaty contained in resolution 181(II) which was discussed during the hearings on Israel's UN membership:
  • The representative of Lebanon, Mr Malik, raised the subject at the forty fifth meeting. He said "The United Nations had certainly not intended that the Jewish State should rid itself of its Arab citizens. On the contrary, section C of part I of the Assembly's 1947 resolution had explicitly provided guarantees of minority rights in each of the two States. For example, it had prohibited the expropriation of land owned by an Arab in the Jewish State except for public purposes, and then only upon payment of full compensation. Yet the fact was that 90 per cent of the Arab population of Israel had been driven outside its boundaries by military operations, had been forced to seek refuge in neighboring Arab territories, had been reduced to misery and destitution, and had been prevented by Israel from returning to their homes. Their homes and property had been seized and were being used by thousands of European Jewish immigrants." -- A/AC.24/SR.45, 5 May 1949

You were asked not to remove the POV tag until the dispute was settled. harlan (talk) 04:05, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

---

Harlan: 1) Israel certainly has minority-rights obligations, but the idea that their binding force is due specifically and solely due to UNGA resolution 181 (as opposed to obligations which were voluntarily assumed by Israel and/or due to general principles of modern international law) is rather controversial and speculative -- and also not very relevant to this article (as opposed to your personal perennial preoccupations), as far as I can see. 2) I notice that as usual you have no problems with Arab violations of minority rights (such as the 1967 pogrom which rendered Libya Judenrein, even though Jews had been Libya since centuries before there were any Arabs there); you certainly reflect UN biases in this, but the idea of this article is to discuss UN biases, not to echo them... AnonMoos (talk) 16:47, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

POV-check might be a more appropriate template, and could bring extra eyes onto the article. AnonMoos you might want to refactor the above comment, which is lacking in AGF. Of course we should not echo biases in the UN or any other actors in international relations, but also we are not here to debunk or to Right Great Wrongs. Itsmejudith (talk) 20:55, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, but I've seen abundant evidence for Harlan's particular way of doing things during hundreds of thousands of bytes of discussions now on the "United Nations Partition Plan" article talk archives, and one of the reasons I have this article on my watch-list is to head off any attempt by Harlan to add his innovative personal legal speculations here. The fact that the UN almost never condemns post-WW2 human rights violations against Jews is relevant to this article.... AnonMoos (talk) 23:52, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

Harlan, insert this concept as a short paragraph in the article and remove the flag. Emmanuelm (talk) 21:35, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

Major undiscussed edits by User:Yceren Loq

User:Yceren Loq, a newcomer to Wikipedia and this article (but with much editing savvy, I think this is a new name for an old editor) has made major edits, including changing the name of the article and splitting it into two. I left Yceren a note on his talk page, I undid everything he did (except the name change, too complicated), I blanked Alleged United Nations bias in Israel-Palestine issues and flagged it for deletion. Emmanuelm (talk) 00:20, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

What is wrong in splitting in two? The topic ic clearly defined and the article was, like, 200K long. If you have actual objections, please state them. Otherwise please don't. BTW, as I said below, I don't object renaming the page back. Yceren Loq (talk) 15:37, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

Emmanuelm, I reviewed the history of the article and was really fascinated with your work on this tough subject. But at the same time I see you have been acting a bit strong-handed at times. Please see less drama in other people's editing, unless it is really disruptive. Yceren Loq (talk) 15:57, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

name change?

What does "United Nations on Israel and Palestine" even really mean? -- AnonMoos (talk) 01:43, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

I guess it clarifies the scope of the article a bit. Either title seems ok to me. Sol (talk) 02:45, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

I prefer the old name due to Emmanuelm. It should be moved back. "United Nations on Israel and Palestine", like the other bad title this article has had "Israel, Palestinians, and the United Nations" is strange English.John Z (talk) 03:41, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

I understand the name change, and have no problem with BOLD either, but the naming convention on other similar pages in the cat is the original name. --Shuki (talk) 06:55, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

=== Hallo everyone. Could I please try to help you? ===

Hallo everyone

I would be happy to try to help AnonMoos declaration in suggesting that talks could start defining the meaning of United Nations, Israel and Palestine using the simple english wikipedia definitions (the three hyperlinks take there).

Once these simple english definitions are kinda settled we could move to try to clarify the english language wikipedia ones.

Or, whatever, if someone doesn't like the title of this wikipedia article it will be nice to welcome new name proposals.

I hope this could be of some help.

Thanks you for your attention.

Maurice Carbonaro (talk) 08:27, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

What does "on" mean in this context?? You can have a report on a subject, but it's difficult to know what having the United Nations being "on" something is supposed to mean... AnonMoos (talk) 08:40, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

While my inglesh may be badd, there is nothing wronn on "on" IMO. You can see newspaper titles, kind of "George Bush on Birth Control". It is customary to compress grammar in titles. If you prefer full grammar, please consider someting like "UN actions related to I & P" or something. But a title like " I & P & UN" places wrong focus and opens article to an unnecessarily broad scope. Not that is bad, but the article is huge already. Yceren Loq (talk) 15:37, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

At the same time I agree that [:Category:United Nations relations]] has an established tradition of naming. So I would not object to renaming the article back to the previous title. Yceren Loq (talk) 15:43, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

"George Bush on birth control" means a summary of his opinions on the particular subject (the same as "a book report on Moby Dick"). This construction cannot be usefully used to describe the diverse aspects of the 63-years-plus of the history of UN involvement in the middle-east situation. AnonMoos (talk) 17:34, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

What about "On United Nations about Palestine and Israel"? The "On" at the beginning will look like the "De" in Latin. Please compare "De Rerum Natura". Thanks for your attention. Maurice Carbonaro (talk) 08:19, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

However, such a title would sound rather pretentious in the current context, and it would also be redundant, since every Wikipedia article is understood as being "on" the subject-matter indicated in its title. AnonMoos (talk) 11:24, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

Everyone, please be civil. The current title follows the WP unwritten rule evident in list of article listed in United Nations#See also. The rule is Country X and the United Nations, a format used in 17 of the 18 article titles. Therefore, I think the title should not be changed. Emmanuelm (talk) 12:34, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

Article scope

While I would not object to renaming back now, I would suggest to seriously reconsider the scope of the article. Category:United Nations relations mostly contains bilateral relations. Terefore I would suggest you to consider a careful splitting of the aticle in three: Israel and the United Nations, Palestine and the United Nations Palestinian territories and the United Nations, and Israel-Palestine conflict and the United Nations. Clearly, Israel had issues with UN before IP-conflict. Yceren Loq (talk) 15:52, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

P.S. My edit here was via an accidental chain of reading/editing. I am not interested in this topic, and I will no longer work here. Sorry for the commotion. I only hope it will stir the subject a bit to put it in a better shape. (See about an optimization technique called simulated annealing, which basically says that often a way from a good to a better solution is via worse ones :-) Yceren Loq (talk) 16:04, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

Unfortunately, that doesn't make all that much sense, since UN statements and actions on the Palestinian issue inevitably end up impacting on UN-Israel relations. There are a number of aspects of the overall situation which are not necessarily closely analogous to other situations in which the UN has a role. AnonMoos (talk) 17:26, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

Yceren, various aspects of the article title and scope were covered in discussions in October 2007, May 2008 and August 2009. Often, the argument was that the article is too long and should be split. I argue that a NPOV is achieved by the juxtaposition of opposite opinions. To achieve this, all editors must work on the same article (the opposite is called a fork) and articles on controversial political subjects will inevitably be long.

Another argument was to split the article into Israel and the United Nations and Palestine and the United Nations. I argue that these two articles would greatly overlap and that a split would constitute a fork, with pro-Israel editors and pro-Palestine editors never confronting each other. Which is exactly why I love this article as it is.

Therefore, I am against a split. Emmanuelm (talk) 13:09, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

Another point. Yceren writes "Clearly, Israel had issues with UN before IP-conflict." True Israeli-Palestinian conflict started with the first intifada but everyone understands it as just another battle in the 63 year-long Israeli-Arab conflict. Jewish-Arab fighting started before May 14 1948 and overt Israeli-Arab war started the day after. The term "Palestinian" was made official by the UN in the following months. Therefore, Israel could not have had issues with the UN before the IP conflict because Israel did not exist then. Emmanuelm (talk) 13:00, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

Should we get rid of primary (i.e. UN) sources?

In my personal page, Judith wrote "I think there are too many refs to the UN documents, which are primary sources. Could we use Benny Morris more?".

She's got a point. For some reason, WP founders decided that tertiary sources are preferable over secondary sources and that primary sources should be used with caution only (see WP:PRIMARY). This policy against primary sources strikes me as condescending of the reader. UNGA 3379, which Determines that Zionism is a form of racism and racial discrimination, is rather self-evident. But if, like me, you understand that the UN accused Israel of being a racist state, WP is saying you might be mistaken and must not trust your own judgment. Yeah, right.

I think a quote from a UN document is the best starting point to a balanced discussion. The article currently contains many primary sources without secondary opinions because I could not find any in 2007. For the sake of organization, I created the heading using the primary source, to be expanded later.

About Morris, I have nothing against him but I will not accept him as the "official" source. After all, if he is considered one of the New Historians, it's because there are "old historians" (among many others) who disagree with him. Emmanuelm (talk) 01:45, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

Insofar as they're an official UN record of its actions (and explanation for its actions), I think it's fine to reference UN documents here. They also contain many official statements of positions by representatives of various governments. Obviously, however, UN documents are not the best source for sweeping interpretations of the grand overall meaning of history. (And many of the old URLs to UNISPAL documents no longer work, and need to be updated -- see my comment on Talk:United Nations Information System on the Question of Palestine, which nobody has replied to in over a month.) As for Benny Morris, he's always been a little bit controversial, and almost ten years ago he underwent a kind of change of heart -- he didn't really retract the factual conclusions of his earlier work, but he now attaches a different significance to many of them. It would probably be fine to include Benny Morris in the mix of opinions (specifying whether we're using "early Benny" or "late Benny"), but he should probably not be relied upon as a decisive authoritative source to establish controversial or disputed facts... AnonMoos (talk) 03:00, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for comments and helping to take this forward. I think we all need to refer back regularly to sourcing policy. Reliable secondary sources are what we need to use - primary and tertiary sources can only be used in certain circumstances. If consensus is to use Morris alongside other historians (presumably only where there is likely to be disagreement?), then that will be helpful. I am happy for us to provide the links to the UN documents, but not for them to be the main resource for the article. Is this article meant to contain a "sweeping interepretation of the grand overall meaning of history"? Itsmejudith (talk) 10:37, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

Not sure if it should, but if it does, then it certainly shouldn't be sourced to UN documents. But I think it's actually better to rely on the official UN source than a secondary source for the exact text of UN General Assembly resolution 3379 of 1975, etc. Of course, for an interpretation of the broader context and meaning of the resolution, we should go elsewhere... AnonMoos (talk) 11:15, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

The question then is whether we need to provide exact texts of resolutions. People should be able to find them from links, but even then we may only need to link to the UN site generally and then let people navigate from there. Inline we should avoid too many excerpts from original documents because it makes articles very hard to read. And it can lead to endemic accusations and counter-accusations of cherry-picking and synthesis. We know that this and related articles have been warred over in the past. It seems to me that the only solution is to try as far as possible to use "good" secondary sources. Perhaps in the first instance we should go to the most commonly used general histories of the second half of the 20th century and only after that to the specific texts on the history of Israel. Because it seems the situation is quite unusual in that no historian's work is universally agreed to be factually accurate on these events. If a secondary text misquoted a UN resolution in anything more than a minor textual way, that would be a pretty good reason to discard it from consideration, wouldn't it? Itsmejudith (talk) 11:39, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

We don't need to provide a lengthy quote from the text itself on this article, but on the UN General Assembly resolution 3379 of 1975 article, the resolution is quoted in full, and the best source for the text is the official URL http://unispal.un.org/UNISPAL.NSF/0/761C1063530766A7052566A2005B74D1 . You've hit upon an important issue -- in this area, it's sometimes difficult enough to find any good reliable sources at all, so that obsessing over primary vs. secondary vs. tertiary should be probably given lesser priority at the current moment. AnonMoos (talk) 12:08, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, but I think that's the exact opposite of what I would argue. If it's an area that is lacking in historical research that's widely agreed to be reliable as to facts (even if the conclusions are debated), then the last thing we should be doing is writing it up from primary sources. Surely that's guaranteed to result in synth? Itsmejudith (talk)

I meant sources widely-accepted as unbiased in interpretation. Anyway, the rigorous enforcement of strict bureaucratic provisions of sourcing rules has its place on Wikipedia -- especially when moving an article to Good or Featured status, or as a way of rejecting dubious material which someone insists on trying to include in an article -- but I don't think that strongly emphasizing rigid sourcing requirements would be a productive path to broadly improving this article at this time. It's something which is certainly always desirable in theory, but should not necessarily be considered a high practical priority right at this moment. AnonMoos (talk) 23:10, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

WP:V is fundamental and should surely be respected in articles dealing with major international conflict, especially when ArbCom has already had to intervene and set rules. Do you want me to ask ArbCom for guidance on it? Itsmejudith (talk) 23:56, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

I really don't understand why your first instinct is to enmesh the article in layers of bureaucratic processes whenever I dare to mention that something which is always theoretically desirable may not in fact be the main practical priority for the improvement of this article at this time. Can't you understand the difference between saying that "X is not important" and saying that obsessing over the detailed technical bureaucratic fine points of X may not be the best path to improving the article where it probably most needs improvement currently?? In any case, if you actually look at Wikipedia:Verifiability, then the primary/secondary/tertiary distinction is only mentioned in the third sub-sub-paragraph of sub-section 1.3 out of six policy sections, and even then it's made clear that primary sources are by no means absolutely forbidden. The primary/secondary/tertiary thing can be important in some contexts, but I don't see how making it the main issue now will usefully drive needed article improvements.. AnonMoos (talk) 05:47, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

The potential for WP:SYNTH is my concern here; please don't keep telling me it's bureaucracy to pursue that. I already asked at RSN whether it was appropriate to write the article up from primary sources and uninvolved editors said no. I see from the ArbCom sanctions that we are urged to use dispute resolution, so I am going to post on the ethnic conflicts noticeboard. Not bureaucracy, please note. Dispute resolution. This is a high importance article for two wikiprojects and is graded B, so we ought to do what we can to improve it. Itsmejudith (talk) 08:46, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

And so yet again when I say something is not the current highest priority for improving the article, you turn to bureaucratic processes to resolve a supposed "dispute" that doesn't even really exist (certainly not in the form you seem to claim that it does). I really wish you could read my statements that "X is not the current highest priority for improving this article", and not take it as me casting aspersions on your ancestry and personal grooming habits... AnonMoos (talk) 10:21, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

Let's just see if we get some useful outside input, shall we? Itsmejudith (talk) 10:47, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

Article split

Let me remind that Alleged United Nations bias in Israel-Palestine issues was created by splitting all sections about UN bias into a separate page. My split was immediately reverted and the new article [for deletion] under unexplained and IMO dubious accusation that it creates a POV fork. Now that the article was kept, I suggest to follow the Wikipedia:Summary style and create a small summary section about bias allegations and proceed with the split. Otherwise it is indeed a fork, POV or not. Yceren Loq (talk) 19:03, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

Yceren, accusations of bias by the UN is the heart of this article. With your fork, you are breaking apart a coherent text, the result of years of work by countless editors. About the allegedly excessive size of this article, there was a recent discussion. Since then, no one felt the need to revive this sterile argument. Why do you?

Note that this article is 133Mb long, technically longer than the 100Mb maximum recommended in WP:SIZE but there are more than 1,000 articles longer than it, including ‎Israel and the apartheid analogy and Violence in the Israeli–Palestinian conflict 2007. Why pick on this one? Emmanuelm (talk) 00:41, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

I fail to see how I am breaking a coherent text by cutting and pasting it in its completeteness. Please explain hat you mean when you say "accusations of bias by the UN is the heart of this article". Yes, you are right. So what. (By the way which article is "this"? IP&US or "Alleged UN bias"?)

Also please stop calling my article split "fork". It is not intended to be fork. It is split per wikipedia:Summary style. This split failed only because your revert, for which you fail to provide well-grounded reason besides "years of work by countless editors", which is clearly an exaggerration, but even if not, it is not a valid argument. I stand that split will improve readability, according to tradition established by "years of work by countless editors" and summarized in wikipedia:Summary style. The coherent text will not be broken apart, if a good summary section will be written, per wikipedia:Summary style. Please explain why the text will be "broken apart" . "Wikipedia is not paper". You don't have to have everything in one "book"/"webpage".

Answering to "Why pick on this one?", I say "Why not"? It caught my eye as a simple split. I didn't look into other you mentioned and will not, until we resolve the issue here. Yceren Loq (talk) 01:15, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

"Sidetrack One" By the way, I've just found a yet another page, Criticism of the United Nations, it is is forkish indeed, in the sense that the content overlaps without hierarchy suggested by wikipedia:summary style. The piece separated by me ("Alleged UN bias") may be used to remove some "forkness" of this one as well, improving the overall coverage. Yceren Loq (talk) 01:15, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

"Sidetrack Two" I am sure you may agree that whichever resolution UN produces, it draws criticism from the side unhappy with it and praise from the happy side, so in fact there is as much criticism as actual UN actions, or even more. Therefore IMO the ideal solution would be to dismantle the potentially endless article Criticism of the United Nations by moving the pieces of criticism into the corresponding subject articles, so that the coverage may be balanced. Optinally, the "Criticism of the UN" page may be a kind of "table of contents", listing all articles which reasonably cover criticism of particular UN actions. Yceren Loq (talk) 01:15, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

"Sidetrack Three" It suddenly comes to my mind that "[[Criticism of ..." articles are indeed creating an imbalance: if there is "Criticism of the UN" page then we have to have Praise of the United Nations article as well. If the latter article suggestion looks weird then why "criticism" not?. Yceren Loq (talk) 01:15, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

P.S. The argument "the result of years of work by countless editors" implies that these countless editors are smart and I am a moron who came to disrupt their opus magnum. I am a mellow-spirited person and don't take this as an insult, but please keep in mind that it is one. Please try to discuss the article content in terms of the merits of changes/agruments, not in terms of "blood, sweat and tears". Yceren Loq (talk) 01:19, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

P.P.S PPS I've just looked into Talk:Criticism_of_the_United_Nations and I think I better understand you position, and was pleased to see we have some very common points (As I see, you mentioned the title [[Praises of the United Nations, similar to mine :-) As you see, I agree that the article "Critisism of..." is not good. But I also see that we will not be allowed to delete it. In defence of my cut-out page "Allegations of UN bias in I/P issues" significantly differs from all-in-one "Criticisms of..."

• It has a very narrow focus;
• It allows for both allegations and countering these allegations;
• It shows the 4-prong nature of these allegations:
  • Pro/anti Israel
  • Pro/anti Palestine
• and as a result allows for a well-balanced exposition, which shows what kind of parties alleges what and why. I think after a careful work this may become a quite reasonable text, if we could manage to avoid turning it into a bunch of quotations. I am sure that there must be some ground rules for these "criticisms" and "allegations" pages. The very basic one being that any "allegations" must be well grounded, not just badmouthing by a disgruntled politician. Is there a wikipedia policy to this end? Yceren Loq (talk) 02:28, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

Yceren, I did not call you a moron or anything like that. My points in as few words as possible:

1. Your proposed article split is a major change that was done without discussion; I reverted it partly; Alleged United Nations bias in Israel-Palestine issues still exist as a duplication of this article.

2. Your split creates an additional article for us -- the editors of this article -- to watch, worry and fight for. Speaking for myself, I am tired of the endless attacks on the form, title, size and other technicalities. Having to watch a second article is too much for me.

3. Having two articles on the same subject will, I am afraid, end into an opinion fork, with each group of editor having "their" article. This is against the spirit of the NPOV that seeks balance through the juxtaposition of opposite opinions. The NPOV implies that everyone works on the same text. I noticed that, besides you, no recent editor has worked on both this article and your split article; the opinion schism is already taking place.

4. I happen to be a minor expert on the Summary style; see my experience with Pathology. This is a difficult style to master; for each major edit, one must work on two or more articles simultaneously, usually fighting the same fight in both places. In particular, most editors will not accept that a statement in a summary section does not require a source. After trying for one year, I learned that most editors do not like that style; one big article works better.

5. This article is already a sub-page of United Nations. Although there is no limit to the number of steps in a master-sub hierarchy, all other articles in the "Country X and the United Nations" group are unsplit. Why should this one be split?

6. Again, this article is not "huge"; there are more than 1,000 articles larger than it.

Emmanuelm (talk) 15:31, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

The article is just a big WP:COATRACK at this point. Sol (talk) 03:42, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

I think the only way to avoid bias and coatracking will be to call the article United Nations policy on Israel and Palestine. Then it can carry nuanced and complex assessments about UN policy as well as for-and-against statements. If structured chronologically it can cover the UN role in peace negotiations as well as the times when the UN's overtures were rejected, and thus be really informative to the the student of international relations. Itsmejudith (talk) 13:55, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

I really don't think that would be a good move, since there are many incidents which were controversial or created friction, but which did not really involve United Nations "policies" as such. AnonMoos (talk) 15:31, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

I like the policy idea or any separation that would explain the intricacies of UN involvement in the region without the long, long section detailing the times people have gotten mad at it or related organizations. That topic could be spun off per summary style but it's currently a list of incidents which substitutes a quote farm for any over-arching narrative. We could cut it down to a size readers might actually be interested in but that hasn't worked in the past. Sol (talk) 18:04, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

Unfortunately, "policy" is too narrow a word to usefully describe all the controversies which have swirled over the subject of "Israel, Palestine, and the United Nations"... AnonMoos (talk) 18:15, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

Canada-United States relations covers the good and the bad times, the grumpy comments and the substantive disagreements, as an article on international relations should. I hope we can use articles like that as models.Itsmejudith (talk) 18:14, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

• Accusation of "coatracking": can someone find one specific part in this article that is outside the scope as defined by the tittle?
• Narrowing scope to "UN policy": the UN does not have written policies. It acts on resolutions proposed and voted by member states; there are no rules about the content of resolutions; the majority always win, regardless of what the resolution contains. Emmanuelm (talk) 16:02, 18 December 2010 (UTC)

Surely the combined content of the resolutions constitutes policy? Perhaps not. It would be useful to have an opinion from an expert on international relations. I don't understand your second point. Of course if there is voting the majority wins. I do take on board that the views expressed by the General Assembly are not the same thing as the views expressed by the Security Council. Perhaps it can be said that together these represent the position of the UN. But again we need to be guided by the norms of academic study in international relations. Itsmejudith (talk) 16:17, 18 December 2010 (UTC)

One specific example of coatracking? Sure. We have six sections devoted to accusations against the UN, most of which focus on it being either anti-semitic or anti-Arab and only three on what it's actually done in the area. Bias is an issue that's worth a section and then an article per Summary Style guidelines but the issue of bias against the groups on either side is ancillary as its not the topic of the article. The article is largely devoid of information on how the UN is a key figure in the I-P conflict; there's one mention of SCR 242. Why is it important? You won't know from reading this. What does UNRWA do? The article devotes more space to criticism of it than describing it. Sol (talk) 16:58, 18 December 2010 (UTC)

Judith, the word "policies" is really too narrow to cover the whole range of controversial issues, which includes administrative nonsense (such as Israel being the only country in the world for decades which was excluded from UN regional groups, and is still excluded from regional groups in Europe, and so is uniquely at a disadvantage at the UN human rights council compared to every other country in the world etc. etc.), and also executive actions by particular bureaucrats at crucial moments (such as U Thant supinely withdrawing the Sinai force in 1967, thereby establishing the enduring principle that UN peacekeeping forces will often hinder but never help Israel's efforts at defense, or Mary Robinson refusing to exercise any meaningful supervision over the 2001 Durban NGO forum until it had already grown completely out of control, and she issued a perfunctory pro-forma 11th-hour handwringing statement under external coercion), etc. etc. magna ad nauseam. I really don't think that placing "policy" in the title of this article would do anything very immediately constructive to help organize and rationalize this article... AnonMoos (talk) 21:30, 18 December 2010 (UTC)

Moos, you rightly noted that the article is heavy on criticism. But WP:WEIGHT states that article should reflect opinions in proportion to the prominence of each viewpoint. A quick scan of the publications on this issue should convince you that this article is an accurate reflection of what's out there. But I may be wrong; find one RS that states that UN decisions are pro-Israel and insert it in the article.

You also rightly noted that the article is thin on UNSC 242 and on the operations of the UNRWA, both of which have their own article. I see this article as a summary of the many facets of this complex issue, with plenty of links to main articles. If you want to flesh up specific subjects, please do so. Again, balance is best achieved by adding, not removing. Emmanuelm (talk) 16:03, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

Not sure you're actually replying to me... AnonMoos (talk) 17:29, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

Maybe he meant me! I'll assume that as it carries on the discussion!

Here's the problem; these are opinions that provide almost zero context for what they are criticizing. "United Nations Commission on the Status of Women"? Nothing on what it does here, just it's problems. The "Durban Conference"? It's got antisemitism involved in the NGO portion, but what's the significance to the I-P conflict? What was the point of it? Etc, etc. It's just not a very helpful article if you want to understand the dynamics of three parties' relations. The suggestion was made to spin off the criticism section per summary style and I think that's a good idea; we keep a section on the issue and take the rest to a new article. Sol (talk) 19:59, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

This article is not the place to discuss in any detail the ordinary general functioning of UN bodies and agencies which do not have a specialized middle east focus, so I really don't know what a generalized background briefing on the United Nations Commission on the Status of Women would validly add here. And of course many things don't really become news until there's some dispute or controversy; whether this is good or bad, it's kind of the way things are. AnonMoos (talk) 22:53, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

Let's argue about the content, not the form

My opposition to Yceren's split in one short sentence: could we forget about the form of this article for a while and argue about the content instead? For example, we still have a double flag on top of it since July; what are we doing about it? Emmanuelm (talk) 02:37, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

I see from the above topic that we will continue to discuss form and form alone. Emmanuelm (talk) 16:04, 18 December 2010 (UTC)

Boston Globe quotes

Emmanuel reverted my removal of these. If you look, you'll see that they are from an op-ed. I can't see that verbatim material from an op-ed is of much value in an article like this. Itsmejudith (talk) 16:32, 18 December 2010 (UTC)

I've re-deleted the section. It's an op-ed on the subject of allegations of bias, something that already takes up half the article. Sol (talk) 17:10, 18 December 2010 (UTC)

It's an op-ed in the Boston Globe, a mainstream media source, an acceptable secondary source according to WP:RS.

Controversial subjects will generate biased opinions. By removing a biased opinion, you are introducing bias. The NPOV is achieved by the juxtaposition of opposite opinions; you should add, not remove. Also, Jacoby was the source for the sentence before, which is now unsourced. You are not improving the article. Emmanuelm (talk) 15:40, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

I actually lean a little towards Judith on this one -- the fact that the Boston Globe is struck by blatant U.N. hypocrisy, and the Bayevsky sub-quote, might be relevant, but I'm not sure whether several sentences of fairly pure opinionizing about how "contemptible" the U.N. is really adds very much. AnonMoos (talk) 17:37, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

Jean Ziegler

I'm concerned that the highly critical section here about Jean Ziegler, sourced only to UN Watch, and Ziegler's biography, long criticism from the same source, may be in breach of WP:BLP. I'm going to post on WP:BLPN for opinions. This is not to say that UN Watch is never RS, but we must be careful in biographies. Itsmejudith (talk) 16:43, 18 December 2010 (UTC)

Judith, this UN Watch report is is not a biography of Jean Ziegler, it only covers Ziegler's record as the Rapporteur on the right to food. The report is heavily quoted in the Jean Ziegler article. I see no problem quoting it in this article. If you find more opinions on him as the Rapporteur, please insert it. Again, balance is achieve by adding, not deleting. Emmanuelm (talk) 16:14, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

What's the logic of getting balance by adding not deleting? This article isn't too short, so we could do both. BLP policy applies in actual biographies and in all articles that mention living people, even talk and project pages. Another thing that is definitely the case in this article is we have too many direct quotes. These should hardly ever be needed. We should just summarise sources in reported speech. Actually, I think it is linked to the over-use of primary sources. People think the right way to build an article is to find primary material and copy it in. And then if someone points out it is biased, they invite editors from "the other side" to add more primary material. It's not conducive to readable and accessible articles, and of course not conducive to NPOV either. Itsmejudith (talk) 21:03, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

Indeed, "fighting-by-quotes" is not conducive to the encyclopedic style, but in an article on a controversial political subject, it is the only way to approach NPOV, as described in WP:NPOV under "Balance" and "Attributing biased statements". Note, is said "approach", not "attain".

Again, please find a source contradicting UN Watch's opinion on Ziegler and use it for balance. Add, do not delete, and forget about the length of the article. Emmanuelm (talk) 06:46, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

Emmanuel, you're not being very convincing here. Some things. First, BLP policy applies whenever a living person is mentioned, including in talk pages, in policy discussion etc. Second, UN Watch isn't a good source for comments about Ziegler; it's an advocacy group. Third, attributing isn't the same as quoting; we should attribute potentially controversial statements but avoid direct quoting. Four, it is up to the person adding material to show that it is useful; you haven't shown that we need to mention Ziegler at all, and you haven't given a reason why we should add rather than delete. Itsmejudith (talk) 12:50, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

---

Emmanuelm -- If there's a real controversy about Ziegler, then U.N. Watch could be included as one group that has something to say about him; but if the controversy is solely of U.N. Watch's making, and has not been taken up by anybody else, then it doesn't really deserve a place on this article. AnonMoos (talk) 16:34, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

Agree with that. Itsmejudith (talk) 20:50, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

I reverted the deletion made by Judith, only to be reverted again by Sol Goldstone. Ironically, I am being accused by Sol -- who systematically reverts all my edits -- of owning this article. Sol, I do not own this article, neither do you.

Back to Ziegler, I rewrote this topic with a new source (Al Jazeera). Before deleting, explain why this source is not RS. Also, please explain why the report by UN Watch, replete with statistics, facts and references, is not an reliable analysis.

I believe that balance is achieved by the juxtaposition of conflicting ideas. You will find here an article (an op-ed, published god knows where) describing Ziegler's record as Food Rapporteur in truly glowing terms: Wonderful Jean Ziegler. Same idea here: Jean Ziegler au secours des enfants palestiniens affamés, Israël conteste son rapport. You may wish to insert these sources (or any others on this topic). You see Sol and Judith, that's how gentlemen argue. Emmanuelm (talk) 20:39, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

Is how gentlemen argue meant to be good? Itsmejudith (talk) 21:23, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

Facetiousness aside, this clearly is an incident in UN-Israel relations that should be covered. The Reuters report picked up by Al Jazeera and/or other media is a good source. It could be better summarised. I have no interest in using this article to praise Ziegler's work. That isn't how we balance. We are trying to describe foreign relations, and keep personalities out of it as far as possible. Itsmejudith (talk) 21:36, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

Emmanuelm, I'd be much more inclined to accept some fault if you'd taken the time to address Judith's concerns before summarily reverting her edits. She actually tried to discuss this with you a month ago and you never addressed the concerns. The rewrite still contains some of the originals problems. If the Al Jazeera article mentioned either that Ziegler was called "Anti-Israeli" or accused them of starving children, you'd be on better grounds for this not being against BLP. As is, the Israeli spokesperson cites his membership in an Israeli NGO as evidence of Ziegler's lacking "the qualities of independence and impartiality necessary for the position of special rapporteur". "Anti-Israeli" is your accusation, and the report was on malnutrition which has now become "starving Palestinian children", also not in the article. It's a repackaging of UN Watch's accusations of bigotry against Ziegler. Sol (talk) 23:46, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

Sol, please rewrite my text to better reflect the sources. Or you could cite them verbatim (as I did before) and be told by Judith that this is not compatible with the encyclopedic style. Emmanuelm (talk) 00:47, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

It does need to be rewritten, to summarise the info in the article, without quoting directly. Itsmejudith (talk) 00:59, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

For what it's worth, the words of Jean Ziegler are in the report itself. The words of the Israeli delegate are found in HR/CN/1064 of 29 March 2004: "Israel viewed the report with serious concern, both in view of its substantive content and the politicised and one-sided tone and manner in which it was written, which attested that it was a purely political exercise." Emmanuelm (talk) 01:09, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

I didn't see much of an alternative but to go to AE. Feel free to disagree with me and/or leave hate mail on my talk page but I think we've gone past the limit. Sol (talk) 05:42, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

To everyone: Sol apparently got me suspended from all editing for 31 hours; I did not notice, I was away. And, to answer Sol's surprising accusation above, I never left a message on Sol's talk page, hateful or not, and have no intention to do so.

To Sol: stop wasting your time with arbitration. Judith and I are waiting for you to rewrite this passage to better reflect the new sources. Emmanuelm (talk) 02:30, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

This article has only one author!

And that would be me. I know I am exaggerating but I feel I am the only one adding sources and text to this article. Do me a favor: before you delete me again, first find a source, a single little nothing of a source, and insert it with an appropriate text. Just one. So that I can defend myself next time I am accused of owning this article. Emmanuelm (talk) 04:19, 20 January 2011 (UTC)