Talk:Israel and the United Nations/Archive 6

This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 1

←

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

Since July, this article is flagged as non-neutral and poorly sourced. We recently fixed (at least partially) the paragraph about Jean Ziegler and replaced a questionable source (Jeff Jacoby). I can find no other recent discussion on these two topics. I removed this flag. When you revert this, please discuss here; be as specific as possible. Emmanuelm (talk) 02:14, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

What the article needs now is a POV-check. And an influx of previously-uninvolved, capable editors. I've been engaged elsewhere in the encyclopedia, will perhaps turn my attention back to this article. Itsmejudith (talk) 12:51, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

Looking at the article again, I do despair with it. It does bear the hallmarks of authorship by a single editor, so what is needed is a joint effort at improvement - improvement towards NPOV it should go without saying. I propose to start that off boldly, by moving everything pre 2000 to the historical sections. After the historical sections should come the Current situation main section, split by organs and initiatives of the UN, not by the direction of perceived bias. In that way we can get rid of the "Claims that..." sections. Of course I will be listening to everyone's views on this. Itsmejudith (talk) 13:04, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

Judith, I'm fine with your edits except one under Regional Groups. As for the writing style, I agree it could be made more encyclopedic and readable. Emmanuelm (talk) 18:33, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

Oh, good. I thought the Regional Groups one just removed actual duplication of text. Would you be able to check that we haven't used the exact same words twice? As you saw, I am mainly moving things around. There are some grammatical errors. I don't think the sourcing is up to scratch but am leaving most of that for now, except where BLP is involved. Itsmejudith (talk) 18:44, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

There were ostensibly four sources for the section. Three were op-eds and the third, to the South African Dispatches, is only to the home page and the actual article cited isn't at the link. The fourth source, an op-ed in the Jerusalem Post was misrepresented; its general line of argument, optimistic about future Israel-UN relations wasn't reflected, and the quote cited to it is not in the source. Therefore I removed the whole section. It can go back in if reliable sources can be found - not only to verify the Kofi Annan quote, but to situate Annan's view within Israel-UN relations, i.e. a secondary source to say that it was a "claim that Israel doesn't recognise the UN". Itsmejudith (talk) 20:49, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

Thank you Judith for removing this section (and Sol for supporting). It was one of the few passages that made Israel look bad. I put it there for the sake of balance and neutrality, but if you want to reinforce the impression of a pro-Israel bias for this article, fine with me. Emmanuelm (talk) 00:42, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

For goodness sake. The aim is a neutral article. We're not engaged in a battleground. Itsmejudith (talk) 00:59, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

We are not? For a minute, I perceived your repeated dismissal of the Boston Globe (with is 1.8 million readers!) as a fierce and passionate battle. Emmanuelm (talk) 01:20, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

Emmanuelm - a personal opinion piece or editorial in any newspaper which is one of many on the same general topic is not in itself necessarily inherently reliable or noteworthy for Wikipedia purposes (without a connection to some particular context). AnonMoos (talk) 06:06, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

Agreed. The Boston Globe is an important mainstream paper and highly reliable for news. This isn't an article about a current event, though. Our best sources are surely academic books and articles on international relations, history and law. Itsmejudith (talk) 16:46, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

You two sound as if a newspaper will publish in their op-ed page just any letter that is sent to them. Wrong. Op-eds are paid for by the newspaper, and they do not pay for anything.

WP:RS states When taking information from opinion pieces, the identity of the author may be a strong factor in determining reliability. Jeff Jacoby has been a columnist for The Boston Globe since February 1994. You can find the numerous article he published with them in his web site; there are more than a hundred of them. I argue that an author published by a large newspaper for 16 years cannot be flippantly dismissed as an unreliable source. I also argue that your stubborn removal of this source looks odd.

But none of this matters. I found two entirely non-Jacoby sources for that statement. Happy now? Emmanuelm (talk) 02:14, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

Not to denigrate him, but how is Jacoby more notable than any of a dozen or two dozen or 50 other commentators on the mid-east? He's not world-famous for his commentary, the way Paul Krugman or Thomas L. Friedman are; he doesn't constantly create news by his remarks, the way Richard Pipes or Juan Cole do; and there's no evidence that the U.N. or the State Department paid any special attention to his remarks. However, I don't necessarily agree with Judith that non-primary sources are always to be strongly preferred -- the fact is that UN involvement in the mideast started to take a very different direction than before in 1975, and it's not clear that the post-1975 period has been uniformly reduced to fully factually "neutral" history in a useful way... AnonMoos (talk) 22:45, 23 January 2011 (UTC)

Preference for secondary sources is from WP:IRS, not just from me. Itsmejudith (talk) 18:45, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

I just added the currently working reference to an Amnesty International report on the treatment of Palestinians in Lebanon. This is a useful source for this article and others on Middle East politics. I hope editors will check it out and use it as appropriate. Itsmejudith (talk) 15:01, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

Judith, Criticism of Amnesty International documents numerous accusations of anti-Israel bias by AI, proving that AI is no better (or worse) than other sources. Here, your deletion of all sources except AI appears suspicious. Could you please explain why you judged the following four sources to be inadequate? Emmanuelm (talk) 15:56, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

• Forced Migration Online provides online access to a diverse range of resources concerning the situation of forced migrants worldwide. The website is coordinated by a small team, based at the Refugee Studies Centre, Department of International Development, University of Oxford.
• The International Federation for Human Rights, a federation of 164 Human Rights organizations around the world.
• The Palestine Center, the educational program of the Jerusalem Fund, gives voice to the Palestinian narrative through policy briefings, lecture series, conferences, symposia, scholarly research publications and an extensive research library.
• Martin Regg Cohn, A foreign correspondent for the Toronto Star for 11 years, he was chief of the Middle East and Asia bureaus, then Foreign Editor, and most recently a world affairs columnist. He has reported from more than 40 countries, from Afghanistan to Yemen.

AI was already referenced, it was just that the link had gone dead. AI is RS, that has been established on numerous occasions. Any perceived bias can be addressed by adding other RS. The others were all dead links. If you can find live links for them, then I will look at them properly. Itsmejudith (talk) 15:59, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

I took out a reference to a New York Times article that was inside a direct quotation from someone from UN Watch. It makes no sense to have unrelated references within quoted speech. Moreover, the New York Times article contradicts the speech from the UN Watch person (it says that no-one knows who carried out the bombing, while the UN Watch speech is convinced it was Hamas).

And EmmanuelM readded text that not only doesn't have a good source but also is in barely comprehensible English.

And someone took out the UN portal, why was that?

Thanks. Itsmejudith (talk) 20:12, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

If no one objects I will revert all three. Itsmejudith (talk) 13:25, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

I do object, but it is 2AM here and I am still very angry about the RSN thing. Emmanuelm (talk) 06:01, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

This is what it says on the packet: a magazine of commentary, not news. It's unlikely that it will provide many reliable sources for this article, but I'm seeking further views on RSN. In the meantime, can we refrain from adding material drawn from it. Thanks. Itsmejudith (talk) 17:40, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

My understanding of WP:RS is that news are secondary sources, commentaries and other analyses are tertiary sources. It also says that sources must be judged by judging the author: Khaled Abu Toameh is a prolific, award-winning, long time writer on this topic. Finally, stop attacking all my sources. Instead, be constructive, teach me what's a worthy source by finding one and inserting it in the text. Emmanuelm (talk) 17:57, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

Let's see what they say on RSN. I found scholarly sources on the earlier sections. On recent events that historians haven't yet covered, best to use AP, Reuters, AFP, BBC, New York Times, Le Monde, Ha'aretz etc. Itsmejudith (talk) 18:17, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

RSN commentator also thought it was comment rather than news. And it is actually a weird article because it's clear that the UN did actually speak out about the attack on the refugee camp. See this. The Security Counci, the human rights chief, and the secretary general all made statements. Reading between the lines of the article you cite, it seems that the author backs a group that our article calls "al-Qaeda inspired" rather than the Lebanese army. So we're left with something that is at best one person's view, at worst an extremist source. Let's please leave such things out and stick with the mainstream news organisations, and academic texts. Itsmejudith (talk) 19:08, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

Judith, I have no time to address your many questions, so I choose one. You say the UN did publish on Nahr al Bared's destruction. You are both right and wrong. Yes, there were press releases and a UNRWA report. But, at the UN, none of this matters. What matters are binding resolutions voted by member states representatives. And there have been none about this incident. This is a fact that anyone wih a computer can check in the UN website. I did; did you? Toameh's article is the only source I found that denounced this silence.

The lesson here is that, just like the UN, the mainstream media outlets you listed above are not interested when Arabs kill Arabs. But Toameh, an Arab himself, does. I do too. Do you? Emmanuelm (talk) 05:11, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

After I wrote the above, I looked up what Judith called "RSN" and found and entry called "Commentary Magazine" created by her in the WP:RSN noticeboard. For the sake of clarity and openness, I copy & pasted the whole discussion below. Emmanuelm (talk) 05:56, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

RSN discussion on this topic

Is this article in Commentary magazine reliable for the idea that the UN failed to condemn a Lebanese army attack on a Palestinian refugee camp? I believe it is op-ed rather than a news report. This is in Israel, Palestine and the United Nations. There is another Commentary article cited in that article, but that is by Anne Bayefsky, a scholar and activist, so perhaps counts as a notable viewpoint. Itsmejudith (talk) 18:13, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

The web site has editorial oversight so its not a blog but a magazine of sorts, but it states that it consists of a collection of editorials.[1] Therefore I would call it a reliable editorial with limited usage and should be used with caution, only if nothing better is available and only with an attribution, letting the reader know it is an editorial.-- — Keithbob • Talk • 18:39, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

I think it's a bit more than a "magazine of sorts", a regular political magazine, but carrying commentary rather than news. Which is true of most political magazines, actually. Thanks, will try to find better source. Itsmejudith (talk) 18:52, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

It is, as you have identified, an opinion piece and not a news report. Commentary is of course, a real magazine that's been around for over 65 years. It does have editorial review, and a political POV that dramatically shifted 40 some years ago, but I would regard it as a reliable source for reporting the opinions of its authors and editors. I would be inclined to allow the source, with attribution to the author. This is one instance where one could verify with a bit of digging the accuracy or inaccuracy of the factual claim by checking primary sources. If those sources confirmed that the claim was factually true, I'd then be inclined to remove the attribution. Fladrif (talk) 19:10, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

This particular article completely contradicts UN statements and also seems to support an extremist group. I thought perhaps the problem would be that the UN Security Council hadn't condemned the attacks within a particular timescale so wouldn't be reliable for whether it had done so since. But actually the UNSC did condemn the attacks (on civilians) at the time, but blamed an al-Qaeda affiliated group more than the Lebanese army. Itsmejudith (talk) 19:26, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

The November 3, 1948 front page of the Chicago Tribune cannot be cited as a reliable source that Dewey actually beat Truman. There were in fact UN Security Council resolutions condemning the fighting at the Nahr el-Bared refugee camp in 2007 well prior to the article, and decrying civilian casualties caused by either side in the fighting. [2] IMJ is correct - apart from the admonition to all sides that they are obligated to avoid civilian casualties, the resolutions blamed Fatah al-Islam for violating Lebanon's soverignty, and recognized Lebanon's right to deal with Fatah al-Islam. The most that the Commentary article might be sited for is the opinion of the author that the UN should have condemned the Lebanese army (instead? As well?), but not for the contra-factual assertion that there was no condemnation of the fighting at the refugee camp. Fladrif (talk) 20:28, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

I am the editor who inserted this Commentary Magazine source described above. My comments on the above discussion:

• I was not informed nor invited, neither by ItsMeJudith nor by this noticeboard, of this discussion. I find this very rude. As I write this, I am fuming.
• WP:RS states When taking information from opinion pieces, the identity of the author may be a strong factor in determining reliability. The opinions of specialists and recognized experts are more likely to be reliable and to reflect a significant viewpoint than the opinions of others. The author, Khaled Abu Toameh, is a senior, award-winning writer on the topic of Israeli-Palestinian relations, published in a variety of mainstream media.
• Fladrif, what you call a "UNSC resolution" is in fact a press release by the US delegate to the UNSC. Hum.
• Fladrif and ItsmeJudith, did you actually read Toameh's article? In the first paragraph, he clearly blames the UN for not condemning (i.e. not voting resolutions) the destruction of the camp by the Lebanese army. If the paragraph was too long for you, he neatly summarized it in the title, "Silence on Nahr al-Bared". I use it as a source for the following statement: "The UN has not condemned Lebanon for this attack." Please explain where I erred.
• This discussion should be held in Talk:Israel, Palestine, and the United Nations, not here where it is conveniently hidden from the scrutiny of the editors of this article. I copy & pasted the whole thing there to correct this situation. Emmanuelm (talk) 05:47, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

_______________________________________________________________________________________

OK, let me respond to your various points above. I didn't appreciate that you wouldn't know of the existence of the Reliable Sources Noticeboard. I thought that since issues in Israel-Palestine related articles are taken there on such a regular basis you would have visited it before. And as I have been regularly talking about quality of sourcing in this article I'm surprised that I didn't mention it before. Anyway, you did find your way there, and you did find the discussion that you've pasted above.

Now, as to whether to use this article at all, Fladrif, an uninvolved RSN regular, thinks definitely not. It is obviously a comment piece rather than news, so I doubt whether there will be much disagreement. If you really, really want, we can put it to Request for Comment.

Then, as to the content of the article. Really, it doesn't matter, because it is a commentary article and not a suitable source for facts in international relations. To me, it reads as if the author is arguing that the UN should have taken the side of the al-Qaeda linked paramilitary group rather than the Lebanese army. If so, it is an extremist source. Perhaps it isn't arguing that, but you cannot use this to argue that the UN "did not condemn" the violence, when in point of fact it did. You say "only resolutions voted by the Security Council count". I don't know about that. I don't know for whom only those resolutions count. What I do know is that statements made by the Secretary General of the UN represent the view of the UN, therefore the UN did condemn the violence. You accuse me of not caring about the fate of Arab civilians. That is incivil and uncalled for. I am not going to go into my own views here, and please do not ask me to do so, because that is called "trolling". I am just trying to help construct a neutral Wikipedia article, as we all are, so please assume good faith. Itsmejudith (talk) 17:09, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

Judith,

• This Fladrif you evoke as an impartial expert cannot tell the difference between a resolution and a press release. I'm not impressed.
• UN decisions are made up of resolutions adopted (i.e. voted by a majority of delegates) in the various UN bodies. In other words, every action, whether it is peace keeping mission or economic sanctions, are issued as resolutions. Resolutions have no author, they are the view of the body that issued them (UNGA, UNHRC, etc) and hence are the true "view of the UN". But press releases by UN personnel, be it the Secretary General or a delegate, contains the personal opinion of that person and are clearly identified as such. They do not represent the "view of the UN". So no, the UN has not blamed Lebanon for the calculated military destruction of this Palestinian refugee camp.
• Further clarification on this important point with two examples. In 2006, Annan said Meanwhile, we must realize the promise of the Human Rights Council, which so far has clearly not justified all the hopes that so many of us placed in it. Of course it's encouraging that the Council has now decided to hold a special session on Darfur next week. (...) But I am worried by its disproportionate focus on violations by Israel. Not that Israel should be given a free pass. Absolutely not. But the Council should give the same attention to grave violations committed by other states as well. He is not expressing the "view of the UN", he disapproves the work of the UNHRC and suggests that they a better job, knowing well that they will not listen --they did not-- because this is a personal and, therefore, whorthless opinion. One year later, different SG, same helplessness: But in today’s statement, Mr. Ban voiced disappointment at the Council decision to single out Israel as the only specific regional item on its agenda, “given the range and scope of allegations of human rights violations throughout the world.” They ignored him too. If the SG's opinion is worthless, imagine the opinion of the US delegate quoted by Fladriff.
• Back to Toameh's article. He is talking about the helpless Palestinian civilians, some 40,000 of them, the collateral casualties of the attack by the Lebanese army against the Fatah al-Islam terrorists entrenched in that camp. Civilian homes were destroyed and civilians expelled to neighboring, already crowded refugee camps with little concern for their well being (they are still there today). He is asking why the UN, usually quick to denounce violence against Palestinians refugees, remained silent (i.e. has not voted binding resolutions blaming Lebanon)? In other words, "Why the Silence on Nahr al Bared?". He also answers his own question.
• Your claim to "try to help construct a neutral Wikipedia article" is ironical. By erasing sources you do not like, you introduce your bias in the article. I have pointed out numerous times the WP policy pages stating that neutrality is achieved by the juxtaposition of opposing views; you should add, not remove.
• This source is reliable because the author is reputable (just look at his Wikipedia page) and it clearly support the short text attached to it. But, to make it even easier for you, I will replace my text by a direct quote from it. I sincerely hope this will mark the end of this sterile discussion. Emmanuelm (talk) 03:46, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

This is one person's analysis, not a notable analysis, off topic because not about Israel or Palestine, but about Lebanon, possibly extremist in its implied support for al-Qaeda (at least for its view that the UNSC should have stopped the Lebanese army clearing out an al-Qaeda backed armed group), and not usable in the article. If you disagree, please take it to RfC. Itsmejudith (talk) 10:07, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

I believe that editorial issues should be resolved in the talk page of the article. I did all I could to satisfy your complaints about this small paragraph on Nahr al Bared: I found an additional source and changed the text to clarify the relevance of this event. I also wrote two lengthy comments above. But you ignored all this and entirely deleted my text a second time. I just reverted your second deletion. Do what you want. Emmanuelm (talk) 19:35, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

Your original text, as well as newly edited, grossly misrepresent the facts and the available reliable sources, which is inevitable, because the Commentary Op-Ed on which you are relying grossly mispreresents the facts to support a point that the author is trying to score: that he thinks that the UNSC is picking on the IDF and giving the LDF a free pass. I've fixed the text and provided additional sources to accurately reflect what reliable sources actually say about the 2007 fighting, as well as accurately reflecting what the Commentary op-ed actually says. In proper context, the author's opinion is utterly devoid of relevance or notablity to the subject-matter of this article, and was properly removed by IMJ. But, to humor you, I've left it in and properly and accurately characterized what his complaint was. I'd also note, that by my count you've already directly violated the active sanctions in place here, and are improperly edit-warring. Fladrif (talk) 23:17, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

Fladrif, I edited your text, including reintroducing the UNRWA final report that you deleted and adding the two original UNSC statements for accuracy. I also shortened the text and removed one of your three sources to bring the focus back on the UN. Thank you for digging new sources and improving the article. Emmanuelm (talk) 04:27, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

Judith, please explain why you deleted the text about the exclusion in 1974 of Israel from UNESCO? I reintroduced it with modifications. Emmanuelm (talk) 20:01, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

I moved it. We need to agree the basic structure of the article. In my view, we should have the history first, in decades, finishing at 2000, then the post-2000 material under subheadings, issue by issue. What do others think of that. Itsmejudith (talk) 14:49, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

This is mainly a reminder to myself and a rap of my own knuckles, but WP:INCITE is where we find the preferred style for citations. Examples:

• <ref>Rawls, John. ''A Theory of Justice''. Harvard University Press, 1971, p. 1.</ref>
• <ref>Sanger, David E. [http://www.nytimes.com/2010/09/24/world/24prexy.html?_r=1&hp "With Warning, Obama Presses China on Currency"], ''The New York Times'', September 23, 2010, accessed October 31, 2010.</ref>

Author, article title, publication is the order. No "by" anywhere. Note the full stop at the end - pointless but there you go. Itsmejudith (talk) 12:47, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

Great initiative but I'll pass. Since I seem to be the only editor contributing new sources to this article, I request a waiver on this and other writing style policies. These templates are time-consuming and, since I spend all my WP time fighting every single contribution I make, I allow myself shortcuts on the non-essentials. Emmanuelm (talk) 15:37, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

That equates to saying: I will add whatever I want in the way that is most convenient to me and other less important people will clear up my crap after me. Sorry, no. Itsmejudith (talk) 15:42, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

I do not consider myself superior but I have little time and I already contribute a lot (too much?) to this article. In other words, I am asking for help. Emmanuelm (talk) 17:47, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

Please can we make a joint effort to eliminate all of these and not add any more. It is ruled out in the manual of style. I clear up one lot and then another lot reappears. Am I the only one here concerned about the appearance of the article? Itsmejudith (talk) 15:04, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

judith, I agree with you and would go even further by replacing most ( not all) quotes by text, with the direct quote hidden in the reference, for the sake of readability and the " encyclopedic" style.

This being said, I want a clarification: for the passage about Julian Huxley & UNESCO, I did just that on feb 21 but someone undid it. Why? Emmanuelm (talk) 12:18, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

That's right; good article style means we have very few quotes in the text. One or two very illustrative quotes might go in boxes on the right-hand side, but including photographs would be a higher priority. In regard to Huxley, we should say in the 1970s section that he wrote to The Times, summarising his comment in reported speech. That's what I was trying to do; if it has got messed up, then please feel free to put it back. Itsmejudith (talk) 12:28, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

By the way, we don't have to always include a quote in the footnote. It's essential if we're using sources that aren't in English to include the original and translated quote. Otherwise, it is our job to summarise the text accurately. We must give a complete reference for verification and link to an online text if we know of one, but many sections are over-footnoted at the moment. Itsmejudith (talk) 12:32, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

Judith, you write "it is our job to summarise the text accurately". True but insufficient. Two points:

1. Some sources are not available online. Others cease to be available with time. By including a quote in the footnote, the key source text remains available to future editors for fact-checking and interpretation-checking.

2. Lately, Fladrif accused me of "grossly misrepresent the facts", of being "grossly misleading", and of "grossly misus[ing]" one source. My text survived (for now) but, considering this belligerent and rude climate, I feel compelled to include the quote that supports my text. I am willing to hide it in the reference for the sake of readability but I will revert every attempt to remove it. Emmanuelm (talk) 15:24, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

Editing climate is not a good reason for leaving the article in a less than satisfactory condition. Itsmejudith (talk) 15:35, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

By the way, Fladrif only came here as a non-involved editor in response to my post on WP:RSN. If his impression was that the source was used misleadingly, then it is at least worth considering the idea that he may have been right. I expect I will need to refer more questions to RSN or one of the other noticeboards. I know the noticeboards well, and have some tips about how to use them effectively. One is, that if you get a view that seems to be one-sided, post again to ask if there are any other views. I am not trying to turn this article into a battleground, as that is rarely conducive to encyclopedicity. Itsmejudith (talk) 15:41, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

Judith, this article is a battleground. To deny this is naive. Emmanuelm (talk) 17:33, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

Would rather be naive than an edit warrior. Hope you find my tips above useful, they are given in good faith. Itsmejudith (talk) 18:36, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

When we use a source we must properly represent what it says. There's a statement here by Peter Hansen, the former head of UNRWA. Biography of living persons policy applies. We must be really careful that we don't say anything that sources don't. I checked the CBC source and saw that half of Hansen's statement was left out, showing him in a poorer light than the source did. This is absolutely not allowed and must be reverted on sight by any editor. EmmanuelM reverted me, without coming to the talk page. He added sources. Levitt and Ross - academic publisher, not yet sure of the authors' qualifications, but on the face of it a good source. But it also is completely misrepresented, because these authors too include more of Hansen's statement. And their purpose is not to complain about Hansen in person but to say that Hamas has made itself difficult to untangle from UN operations. Again, source misrepresented in violation of WP:BLP. He also added Muravchik, which I can't verify at the moment, probably another good source, but this source too absolutely must not be misrepresented. Even if Muravchik quotes only half of Hansen and endorses the Israeli critique, the other half of Hansen has to go in per CBC and Levitt & Ross. No page numbers, essential for book sources. Quote in italics, not correct style. Can we please work on article improvement to encylopedicity and neutrality, rather than on POV-pushing and edit-warring. EmmanuelM, would you please self-revert; you can keep the book sources in, with p.95 for Levitt & Ross. Itsmejudith (talk) 18:29, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

Judith, you are welcomed to lengthen Hansen's quote in the text. But do not remove again the part where he says "and I don't see this as a crime" because that is the crux of the debate and the source of the outrage. For Canada, the US and most other Western countries, it is indeed a crime because any business with a terrorist organization is a crime. EmmanuelM, Feb 20th 2011.

We need not to extend, but to cut down on direct quotation in this article, or it becomes a WP:QUOTEFARM. I am not interested in your personal interpretations of "the crux of the matter" or what Western countries think (as if everyone in all those countries only have one opinion). Please keep this talk page for discussion of improvement to the article. Itsmejudith (talk) 10:01, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

I found sources emphasizing that what Hansen said was problematic. Therefore, my personal opinion does not matter here, the sources speak for themselves. And thank you for your valuable opinion on my behavior. Emmanuelm (talk) 19:13, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

But your sources are only opinions, and BLP policy trumps all that. Itsmejudith (talk) 21:07, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

I believe that the following text from UN Watch is a POV:

"the council has held, adopted and pronounced since its creation in June 2006: One single urgent debate — on Israel; Nine special sessions that criticized countries — with six of them being on Israel. (And another one that praised Sri Lanka after it killed 20,000 civilians); Out of 40-odd council resolutions that criticized countries, 35 were on Israel, Five "fact-finding" missions — all on Israel, all with the guilty verdict declared in advance."

It clearly belongs in this article but it should be either i) quoted without modification as per WP:ATTRIBUTEPOV or ii) summarized in a neutral and encyclopedic style. I favour the former but Judith repeatedly removed the quotation marks while leaving all the POV in place. Judith, your text is unacceptable and cannot stay; what option will you chose? Emmanuelm (talk) 20:13, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

What is non-neutral about that as a summary? It includes all the main points that UN Watch made. By the way, as I work through the article I find that it article relies a lot on advocacy sources such as UN Watch and Eye on the UN. I am thinking of taking that to the neutral point of view noticeboard. We need comments from non-involved editors, because I can see that Anne Bayefsky is a scholar, but most of what we are currently using is from her advocacy writing, not from her writing in scholarly sources. Itsmejudith (talk) 20:57, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

Emmanuel, do you actually understand what reported speech is and why we use it in WP? Because unless we can agree on the need to use reported speech rather than direct quotes wherever possible, we are unlikely to move forward in collaborative editing in this article. Itsmejudith (talk) 20:59, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia policy: "The tone of Wikipedia articles should be impartial, neither endorsing nor rejecting a particular point of view." Judith, with your text Wikipedia is endorsing that Sri Lanka killed 20,000 civilians, a very serious accusation. As you surely know, the distinction between civilians and fighters is strongly influenced by one's point of view. Your text therefore endorses one particular point of view, something unacceptable. You are not arguing with me, you are arguing with WP policy. Emmanuelm (talk) 21:35, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

It's clear from my text that this is part of UN Watch's statement but refactor if you need to while still keeping in reported speech. The obvious solution, of course, is to take the whole thing out. Israel's criticisms of the UN stance are notable and should be reported in the encyclopedia. But they don't have to be sourced to advocacy groups like UN Watch. The correct way to report Israel's complaint that the UN unfairly targets Israel is through the mainstream media quoting Israeli spokespeople. If no official statement reported in the media, not notable. Itsmejudith (talk) 21:45, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

Why are we interested in an op-ed from her? The article has to be based on fact, not interpretation. Itsmejudith (talk) 20:54, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

WP:ATTRIBUTE does not say that interpretations should not be used, it says "Biased statements of opinion can only be presented with attribution." That's what I did. WP:NPOV adds: "when reputable sources contradict one another and are relatively equal in prominence, describe both approaches and work for balance." She is a reputable author on this topic and so is the HRC. Since she contradicts the HRC decision, she must be quoted for balance as per WP policy. Emmanuelm (talk) 21:46, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

::This is going nowhere fast. I am going to Arbitration Enforcement because you seem to be determined to slant this article in a particular direction in total disregard of policy. Itsmejudith (talk) 21:51, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

That may be a bit hasty. I'm going to take some time away from the article. In the meantime, it would be much appreciated if you could read up on WP:NPOV, WP:IRS and other policy, and perhaps look at the Israel-Palestine ArbCom case, some cases on WP:RSN, WP:NPOVN etc., some RfCs, and other areas where disputes can be taken. At this point, I think what really needs to be resolved is whether we can use op-eds and advocacy groups at all in such an article. IMHO the field of study is international relations and modern history. Ideally we are looking for scholarly works by historians and experts in international relations, but for the most recent events we may have to use news sources. But not op-eds, please. Anyway, take some time to think about it, and see if you can improve the article in any way, whether minor or major. Best of luck. Itsmejudith (talk) 21:59, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

Judith -- Pure opinionated op-edding has a very limited place on this article at best (see my comment of "22:45, 23 January 2011" above), but from the current article version, it doesn't seem that this Melanie Philips person is being used in that way... AnonMoos (talk) 03:21, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

See Quotefarm below. Emmanuelm (talk) 22:10, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

WP:QUOTE, which includes WP:QUOTEFARM is an essay, not policy. But WP:NPOV, which includes WP:ATTRIBUTEPOV, is Wikipedia policy, one of the five pillars. This topic is far too controversial to threaten NPOV for the sake of a more elegant writing style. WP:QUOTE recommends to use quotations when "dealing with a potentially controversial statement." This applies to the whole article. I am willing, for the sake of readability, to hide quotes in the reference but the quotes should remain. Emmanuelm (talk) 22:10, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

The UN press release linked to doesn't contain the word "mandate". It is about the appointment of new people to the team. This is the wrong press release, can someone track the correct one? Itsmejudith (talk) 21:59, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

The source states:

Today’s appointment comes following the adoption of a resolution by the Human Rights Council at the conclusion of its Special Session on 9 and 12 January convened to address “the grave violations of human rights in the Occupied Palestinian Territory, particularly due to the recent Israeli military attacks against the occupied Gaza Strip”. “It is in the interest of all Palestinians and Israelis that the allegations of war crimes and serious human rights violations related to the recent conflict on all sides be investigated. It is my hope that the findings of this mission will make a meaningful contribution to the peace process in the Middle East and to providing justice for the victims”, Justice Goldstone stated upon his appointment.

Therefore, this release clearly documents that the purpose of the investigation was changed between the HRC resolution and Goldstone's accepting this job. And yes, Judith, you are entirely correct to point out that the word "mandate" is not spelled out in this release. I will promptly remove it from the article text. Thank you for your meticulous fact-checking. Emmanuelm (talk) 02:16, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

What changed to what? Don't get any of this, sorry. You will have to spell it out for the reader as well as me. Itsmejudith (talk) 02:59, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

From investigating one side to investigating all sides (i.e. two sides). Please reformulate to your liking but do not remove sources. Emmanuelm (talk) 13:28, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

I'm sorry it has come to this, but I need an opinion in arbitration enforcement as to whether EmmanuelM's behaviour on this article amounts to edit-warring in breach of the arbitration sanctions. I am going to post on the WP:AE page for advice. Anyone can comment there. Itsmejudith (talk) 12:24, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

this time, post a link here and in my talk page ASAP so that I can defend myself. Last time, I did not appreciate being declared guilty in absentia. Emmanuelm (talk) 12:43, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

Yes, of course I will make sure this time you know about it all. I explained that last time I assumed that you knew what RSN was. By the way, you were not "declared guilty in absentia". When I say that this is not a battleground, that is actually what I mean, naive though it may seem to you. The reliable sources noticeboard is what you might expect from its name. It is somewhere where you or I or anyone can go to get further opinions about sources. User conduct doesn't come under its remit, and I would never use it for that purpose. We have dispute resolution for that. I have worked really hard to avoid having to go through any of the forms of dispute resolution on this, relying instead on explaining my position to you on the talk page. I'm sure you will agree that I have always been willing to enter into discussions. It is only because this whole area is under ArbCom restrictions that I am going to take this to WP:AE now. Itsmejudith (talk) 15:45, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

The arbitration is found here. Emmanuelm (talk) 14:25, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

Nomo has filed a complaint against me at some Admin notice board here.

My understanding of the 3RR and 1RR is that it applies to one particular text or source in an article. My two edits above are on different subjects in this article: (1) Bayefski on Dugard and (2) Canadians + Costea on Costea. These three sources were deleted by two editors (Nomo and User:Passionless) without discussion. Also, my understanding is that the intent of these rules is to protect the work of editors. With these edits, I am not undoing someone's work, I am protecting this work from being undone without discussion. I use WP:NPOV#Achieving neutrality for guidance.

Instead of complaining to admin boards, it would be more productive to discuss the matter here. One discussion topic already exist on Canadians & Costea on Costea (see above); Passionless has so far not commented on his/her deletion. I am creating now another for Bayefski on Dugard. I trust Nomo will comment. Emmanuelm (talk) 13:49, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

This edit clearly misrepresents both of its sources, neither call the UN ant-israeli, Doru Costea did agree with GW Bush, but all Bush said was that the "Council focused too much attention on Israel and not enough on countries such as Cuba, Venezuela, North Korea and Iran." It would be no doubt OR to get that Bush thinks the UN is anti-israel out of that statement. You also misrepresented the Canadian quote which was against the METHOD the package was approved, NOT anything about the package, and the package was never even called anti-israeli and would take the same amount of OR to reach such a conclusion. Please remove both of these flagrant attempts to misrepresent sources immediately. Passionless -Talk 17:39, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

Passionless, how would you word the text about Costea and the Canadians to better represent these two sources? Can you find a better source for the incident described by the Canadians? Emmanuelm (talk) 03:40, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

The Canadians just seem unhappy that a vote they requested on the subject a few months before the final vote, never happened. You probably want a source on what the Canadians think of the package, rather than what they think about the voting on the package. "Former US President George W. Bush and HRC president, Doru Romulus Costea, both believe that the UNHRC concentrates too much time on Israel, and that the HRC should spend more time on other nations." <-better Passionless -Talk 04:27, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

Passionless, don't wait for me, go ahead, do it. Emmanuelm (talk) 04:50, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

I'm on sanctions, I don't think I can because it might count as a revert, and I have already been blocked twice this week for accidently breaking sanctions *facepalm*. That is also why I could not revert the meatpuppet attack on the UN gaza school bombings, thanks for re-adding that. Passionless -Talk 04:57, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

I'm patient, and I do not report users to Admins. I handle them right here. Emmanuelm (talk) 05:09, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

I've tried that before, but than I ran into too many puppets who only cared for inserting their POV not improving an article. Passionless -Talk 05:14, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

I haven't checked out those sources yet, or what they contain. But the whole paragraph reads very problematically. There are words in there presenting an unsourced interpretation of the actions of UN officials. And we lump together comments by the President of the USA, the EU, and advocacy groups, giving the impression of a coherence that was not necessarily found in the mainstream press. There are almost certainly BLP violations against Dugard (linked twice, yawn), Falk, and Costea. I am taking this to the biographies of living persons noticeboard for further opinions. Anyone can participate in the discussion there. Itsmejudith (talk) 08:54, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

No matter what you do Judith, do not delete sources as per WP:NPOV policy. Emmanuelm (talk) 21:37, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

I don't find that particular formulation in WP:NPOV. I wonder which paragraph you construe as containing it? Itsmejudith (talk) 21:48, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

WP:NPOV#Achieving neutrality:

As a general rule, do not remove sourced information from the encyclopedia solely on the grounds that it seems biased. Instead, try to rewrite the passage or section to achieve a more neutral tone. Biased information can usually be balanced with material cited to other sources to produce a more neutral perspective, so such problems should be fixed when possible through the normal editing process. Remove material only where you have good reason to believe it misinforms or misleads readers in ways that cannot be addressed by rewriting the passage. The sections below offer specific guidance on common problems.

Neutrality is not a writing style guideline, it is WP policy, one of the Wikipedia:Five pillars. Emmanuelm (talk) 22:14, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

Editors have every right to delete references which are used falsely, to back up information which is untrue. Next time make sure what you write is actually backed up by your references. Passionless -Talk 19:41, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

Passionless, WP:NPOV#Achieving neutrality implies that editors do not "have every right to delete references which are used falsely". It says you should instead try to rewrite the passage. As for backing up information which is untrue, WP:VERIFIABILITY says "The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth." That's exactly the opposite of what you say. Emmanuelm (talk) 05:02, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

Uh, if the references do not match the text, how is there any verifiability? And usually I find the text that would represent the references to be either non notable or not fitting the subsection, so I delete it all. In this case I would keep the Bush/Costea part and delete the Canadian part, and the reference per my previous sentence. Passionless -Talk 05:12, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

I rewrote the passage with a direct quote from Costea to address accusations of misinterpretation, and I removed the Canadian text & source. I cannot win every time. Emmanuelm (talk) 01:19, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

Nomo, please explain here why you deleted Bayefski's description of Dugard's mandate using direct quotes from him. Emmanuelm (talk) 13:49, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

Because it amounted to a violation of WP:RS, naturally. If you don't understand how op-ed articles can and can't be used, then don't use them. The manner in which you have restored the material is still inappropriate per RS. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 19:11, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

From WP:NPOV#Achieving neutrality, WP:ATTRIBUTEPOV, WP:RS#Statements of opinion and WP:WEIGHT, I understand that biased opinions, e.g. in op-eds, can be used as sources as long the opinion is clearly attributed to the author and the opinion balanced by other opinions, in proportion to their prominence. Where do you get that using op-eds is "a violation of WP:RS"? Emmanuelm (talk) 04:45, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

As my comment made perfectly clear, the issue is how they are used. The problem is stating things in Wikipedia's voice as if they were fact. I'm not going to spend time teaching you -- you've been here far too long to need that -- you're doing it incorrectly and I'm simply going to delete it. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 07:46, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

Nomo, I accept the limitations of Bayefski as unique source. So I looked around and found a second source, the Rapporteur's 2008 report (presumably by Dugard but it does not matter) that states on p.6 :

C. Palestinian human rights violations. 6. The mandate of the Special Rapporteur is concerned with violations of human rights and international humanitarian law that are a consequence of military occupation. Although military occupation is tolerated by international law it is not approved and must be brought to a speedy end. The mandate of the Special Rapporteur therefore requires him to report on human rights violations committed by the occupying Power and not by the occupied people. For this reason this report, like previous reports, will not address the violation of the human rights of Israelis by Palestinians. Nor will it address the conflict between Fatah and Hamas, and the human rights violations that this conflict has engendered. Similarly it will not consider the human rights record of the Palestinian Authority in the West Bank or of Hamas in Gaza. The Special Rapporteur is aware of the ongoing violations of human rights committed by Palestinians upon Palestinians and by Palestinians upon Israelis. He is deeply concerned and condemns such violations. However, they find no place in this report because the mandate requires that the report be limited to the consequences of the military occupation of the OPT by Israel.

The use of a primary source is not recommended by WP:RS but this text leaves little room for misinterpretation. Together with Bayesfki as secondary source, it should satisfy all neutral and reasonable editors that "The mandate of the Rapporteur is to investigate human rights violations by Israel only, not by Palestinians." This is the text I intend to insert, backed by these two sources. I trust you will accept it. Emmanuelm (talk) 15:02, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

Yes, I can agree that this is appropriate, though I insist that you leave that particular piece by Bayefsky out of it per WP:RS. The question I have now is -- why is it taking you so long to understand this? After more than five years on Wikipedia, you still don't understand that this use of a source like Bayefsky is unacceptable? It's not plausible and leads to questions about what is really going on, not to mention annoyance at time wasted. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 18:47, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

I disagree with you. WP:RS says a primary source is less reliable than a secondary source. I can use the UN report (primary source) only with Bayefski's interpretation (secondary source), not by itself. Therefore, contrary to what you say, I must include Bayefski as per WP:RS policy. Emmanuelm (talk) 23:27, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

Uh, I don't think any policy tells you you must do anything....Passionless -Talk 23:57, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

Very true, but in an article on a controversial political subject, is is best if we all agree to stick to WP policy. WP:RS#Primary, secondary, and tertiary sources states:

Wikipedia articles should be based mainly on reliable secondary sources.Tertiary sources such as compendia, encyclopedias, textbooks, and other summarizing sources may be used to give overviews or summaries, but should not be used in place of secondary sources (...)Primary sources are often difficult to use appropriately. While they can be both reliable and useful in certain situations, they must be used with caution in order to avoid original research.

I interpret the above as: I can use Bayefski, a secondary source of questionable reliability because it is unique, but only if backed up by the UN report, a primary source that confirms Bayefski's direct quote of Dugard. Together, these two sources should satisfy every reasonable editor. Emmanuelm (talk) 00:32, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

No, we are looking to tell the story from a reliable secondary source, e.g. a news report. If Dugard's comments and Bayefski's comments have made news, then they can be reported from that news source. Otherwise, there is a serious risk that we make an original synthesis that tends to advance a particular position. Itsmejudith (talk) 18:43, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

Passionless added the word "Jewish" before Irwin Cotler to "warn of bias". I feel that a person cannot be described in this few words, which is why all sources should be wikilinked to the page describing them. I also find this label borderline antisemitic and I find it not helpful; some of the most virulent anti-Zionists are Jews, some of the most passionate Zionists are Christians. But more importantly, can someone find me a WP policy/guideline/recommendation/suggestion on whether we should describe sources to "warn of bias" and how? Emmanuelm (talk) 15:49, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

I agree entirely that this edit was thoroughly inappropriate, bordering on anti-Semitic. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 18:57, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

I agreem and the "explanation" given in the edit summary and below is actually worse, as it exposes an extremely bigoted ( and borderline racist) thought process, that a person's regligon or ethnicity "explains" why he acts a certain why. Not to mention the accusation of dual loyalit, a staple of antisemitic. Hate mongering. Rym torch (talk) 20:02, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

Hey torch how about you get off your mobile device and use your computer for that account too. Passionless -Talk 22:02, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

Isn't the fact that he is Jewish more relevant than the fact he's Canadian in this particular case? Besides the PM he is the only minister I can think of who is vehemently pro-israel and definitely seems more concerned with using his placement for Israeli interests than Canadian ones. If you leave out that he is Jewish readers will likely misunderstand and assume he is representative of Canadians, when he is only representative of Canadian Jews. Besides, it's not like I only label Jews, I recently labelled Ibrahim Sarsur an Arab, as you can see how that is appropriate, if that makes you feel better. Passionless -Talk 19:53, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

Passionless, if your point is that Cotler is a pro-Israel activist (he clearly is), label him as such. His religious beliefs are secondary. Again, do you have a WP guideline on labeling sources? Emmanuelm (talk) 00:18, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

Oh, well I'd be fine with adding pro-Israeli, though that would require a source, and there is no policy on refering to people, I think it just common sense, add the labels relative to the case. Like if notable person X was talking about fatherhood, you would mention whether he has children or not, but if you were talking about the same person about what they think of the I/P conflict you would only mention things important to that opinion, not that he has children. Anyways, shall we change it to pro-israeli than?Passionless -Talk 21:52, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

Passionless, the best thing would be to stop labeling people with "mini-CVs". A Wikilink to the author's page is all that's needed. It is fairer to the author and it makes the article easier to read. Emmanuelm (talk) 00:48, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

I also agree it's completely unacceptable. "Pro-Israeli" would also be against policy although not antisemitic in the way that the "Jewish" epithet is. It's called "well poisoning" in Wikipedia, there is something about it in guidelines, can't remember exactly where right now. Sometimes, a few words of description are useful ("Historian X stated....), {"Secretary of NGO Y said...). But only if the description is neutral or positive. Itsmejudith (talk) 01:09, 4 March 2011 (UTC)\

I think by labeling him Canadian adds a positive description, as it gives the impression that he is a neutral source...Passionless -Talk 01:18, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

I disagree, and from being more of a reader than an editor, I see what I did to be quite common, so many people must agree with me that relevant details about people/organizations should be revealed when their opinions are posted. You didn't really reposnd to my last two examples, do you think it was also wrong to point out that Ibrahim Sarsur is an Arab when giving his opinion, or should I leave it out and risk people misunderstanding that he is representative of the average Knesset member? It is also important to remember that many times it is inappropriate to link people's names as it should only be linked once per article per WP:OVERLINK. Passionless -Talk 01:14, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

Passionless, the "Arab Muslim" Abdul Hadi Palazzi is clearly pro-Zionist, but the "Jew" Noam Chomsky is anti-Zionist. Labels are misleading. Two words cannot accurately describe a person and therefore labels should not be used. Instead, the name of the author should be wikilinked to help readers judge the source.

As for WP:OVERLINK, it says nothing about this but the paragraph above it, Wikipedia:Manual of Style (linking)#What generally should be linked includes "proper names that are likely to be unfamiliar to readers." Exactly my point. Please remove all labels, including the "Arab" Sarsur. Emmanuelm (talk) 20:51, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

After writing the above, I looked up Ibrahim Sarsur: its a different story here, he is an Israeli Arab, a category of Israeli citizen defined by Israeli law (I think). So he can be labeled "Israeli Arab" in Wikipedia but to label him an "Arab" would be racist and unacceptable. Same idea but different country, you may label David Ahenakew a "Canadian first nations" because this status is defined in Canadian laws but you may not label him "antisemite", regardless of whether it is true or not. Bottom line, labels are too risky; I never use them. Emmanuelm (talk) 20:51, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

Mhhhh, No. I nor wikipedia have to change because of your opinions, and you don't seem to understand OVERLINK; it does not matter what you are linking, the rule still applies- do not link it twice. Also, I already accepted that I would change it to pro-israeli, so your point on rogues is overheard.

Haha, you did find a way that it is appropriate to label Arabs, but not Jews, NICE! I may even give you a barnstar for that one. Passionless -Talk 21:04, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

If we use an author as a source we don't add their ethnic identity. Ever. Anyone want to find an argument in policy against that? Itsmejudith (talk) 23:56, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

Uh, what you should be asking is, is there a policy which backs me up at all?? Policies are there to say what you CAN'T do, not outlining what you CAN do. Passionless -Talk 00:33, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

Passionless, you've got friends! The essay Wikipedia:Controversial articles (not a policy nor a guideline) says under Attribute assertions: "a text from conservative or liberal alternative media or a focus group may be cited, provided the source is accurately labeled in neutral terms. For example, The conservative American churchgroup..., The liberal anti-war group..."

"Neutral terms", what a joke. I personally hate this but that's all I could find. Judith, if you go edit that essay, I'll support you. Emmanuelm (talk) 03:00, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

You don't my friends do you? QQ Passionless -Talk 04:25, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

Following complaints by Nomoskedasticity, I have been suspended from editing on this article for two months; see here. I consider this suspension unjust. I am appealing. My argument, from WP:WAR: "Reverting to enforce certain overriding policies is not considered edit warring." I consider WP:NPOV#Achieving neutrality an overriding policy. Emmanuelm (talk) 04:07, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

Uh, well since you are topic banned from this article, you should probably not be editing here, even if you are not talking about the article...which is the sole purpose of this talk page. Oh, and I seriously don't think the part you quote helps you out as it's for undoing vandalism and protecting BLPs, cause really anyone could claim they are enforcing WP:NPOV when edit warring. Passionless -Talk 04:16, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

Thank you for your advice. In the meantime, here is my "to do" list for this article:

• • UN page The question of Palestine
  • Chronology from un.org
  • The question of Palestine and the UN

I'd love to see someone, anyone, contributing instead of deleting. Emmanuelm (talk) 04:30, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

Nomo deleted the text and source of Don A Habibi, University of North Carolina, an academic paper on the HRC published in the peer-reviewed Journal of Human Rights. I would like to know why. Emmanuelm (talk) 04:43, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

Nomo deleted the text and source of Peggy Hicks, Global Advocacy Director for Human Rights Watch, speaking about the HRC. The source was a Testimony Delivered to the US Senate Foreign Relations Committee. I would like to know why. Emmanuelm (talk) 04:43, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

Nomo deleted the following text about Miguel D'Escoto Brockman : "Evidence of his apparent anti-Israel bias was reviewed by Anne Bayefsky" The source is still there but the reader does not know that it is critical of D'Escoto. I would like to know why. Emmanuelm (talk) 04:48, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

Parts of this piece represtent a distortion (likely deliberate) of the source.

1) The source does not claim that several Palestinians that co-operated with the report were detained by Israel.

2) Muhammad Srour: Appears to deliberately omit the fact that Israel said his arrest had nothing to do with the report nor did his release appear to have anything to do with "UN intervention" as the author implies. Also omits that he was released on bail.

3) The author also juxtaposes the "anonymous calls and messages received on private phone numbers" to make it appear as though Israel is to blame for these, despite the fact that the report doesn't make these accusations against Israel.

Overall the omissions, conflations and clear distortions show that it was likey written in bad faith. Feel free to rewrite it honestly. Wikieditorpro (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 16:55, 19 September 2011 (UTC).

"Likely deliberate" and "likely written in bad faith" are not conducive to gaining consensus. Perhaps you would be prepared to retract them? Of course, sources have to be accurately reflected. I will have a quick look and try to make a good summary, proposing the wording here. I take it that there is no disagreement about the suitability of this source. Itsmejudith (talk) 17:04, 19 September 2011 (UTC)

I agree which is why I've never made this accusation against anyone before. However, reading the source proves my claims beyond reasonable doubt.Wikieditorpro (talk)

Doesn't justify deletion. Specific re-writes can be proposed and negotiated. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 17:10, 19 September 2011 (UTC)

It has to be completely and honestly rewritten. Wikieditorpro (talk)

I apologize for accidentally signing your post. Wikieditorpro (talk)

This is my summary of the source. I think it's an accurate summary but I've done it quickly and only from p.14. I will be happy to read comments. Israel did not co-operate with the Goldstone Mission, while the Palestinian authorities did. Access to the Gaza Strip was offered by Egypt through the Rafah crossing. A Palestinian was arrested on his way back to the West Bank after testifying at the Goldstone Mission in Geneva.<ref>http://www2.ohchr.org/english/bodies/hrcouncil/docs/12session/A-HRC-12-48.pdf ''Human rights in Palestine and other occupied Arab territories. Report of the United Nations Fact-Finding Mission on the Gaza Conflict'. p14.</ref> If you want to say anything about editor conduct there are forums for that. Here we are just discussing improvements to the content. Itsmejudith (talk) 17:39, 19 September 2011 (UTC)

Apparently the citation was slightly wrong as it missed page 40. This content appears to come from both p 14 and 40. Sean.hoyland - talk 18:06, 19 September 2011 (UTC)

You quoted from part of pg. 40 regarding the alleged threats to individuals. Wikieditorpro (talk)

Can you suggest alternative wording, Sean? The document takes an age to download and I won't do it again unless I need to. Thanks. Itsmejudith (talk) 18:09, 19 September 2011 (UTC)

<-Here's the relevant text from the document to save everyone time. It's the UN so I assume there are no copyright issues. I don't have any suggestions right now as it's past my bedtime. :) Sean.hoyland - talk 18:29, 19 September 2011 (UTC)

• page 14
  • 10. Subsequent to the public hearings in Geneva, the Mission was informed that a Palestinian participant, Mr. Muhammad Srour, had been detained by Israeli security forces when returning to the West Bank and became concerned that his detention may have been a consequence of his appearance before the Mission. The Mission is in contact with him and continues to monitor

developments.

• page 40,
  • 147. Subsequent to the public hearings in Geneva, the Mission was informed that a Palestinian participant, Mr. Muhammad Srour, had been detained by Israeli security forces when returning to the West Bank and became concerned that his detention may have been a consequence of his appearance before the Mission. The Mission wrote to the Permanent Representative of Israel in Geneva expressing its concern. In response, the Permanent Representative informed the Mission that the detention of the person concerned was unrelated to his appearance at the public hearing. Mr. Srour was subsequently released on bail. The Mission is in contact with him and continues to monitor developments.
  • 148. The Mission is also concerned about anonymous calls and messages received on private phone numbers and e-mail addresses by some of those who provided information to it or assisted in its work in the Gaza Strip. The contents seemed to imply that the originators of these anonymous calls and messages regarded those who cooperated with the Mission as potentially associated with armed groups. One of the recipients conveyed to the Mission apprehensions about personal safety and a feeling of intimidation. The Mission also wishes to record that there are others who have declined to appear before it or to provide information or, having cooperated with the Mission, have asked that their names should not be disclosed, for fear of reprisal.

Thank you. The particular paragraph written based on this is so misleading deceptive that it cannot be fixed and should be rewritten honestly. Wikieditorpro (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 19:56, 19 September 2011 (UTC).

On second thoughts, the paragraph should simply be deleted and not replaced. The first sentence is false and appears to have been pulled from thin air. The second sentence concerns a single not-well known individual, the circumstances are disputed and it therefore doesn't merit mention in regards to Israel's co-operation or lack thereof in general. The third sentence is entirely deceptive, as there is no evidence that it points to actions by Israel or any other specific person or persons. Wikieditorpro (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 21:43, 19 September 2011 (UTC).

I don't think they are suitable at all in this article which is on history and international law. Am looking for as many opinions as possible on this point, which seems to be crucial to the article. Itsmejudith (talk) 21:06, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

See comment about Phillips above and quotefarm below. Emmanuelm (talk) 22:10, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

I have input on op-eds. Often times, op-eds are written by serious, recognized academics and serve to communicate both an illustration of facts, but also a cultural context from a specific individual or even communicating a general consensus of an academic community that would otherwise be under represented on Wiki because original sources are not in English. This also helps bring the facts to the American Press & the presumably equal foreground of source integrity. With this subject I do not see a need or use to put preferential treatment on periodicals while excluding op-eds, largely because of the possibility of propaganda in other countries one can submit a host of verifiable sources that would not be held in the same confidence as op-eds vetted by acceptable publications. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.107.246.204 (talk) 02:27, 21 March 2012 (UTC)

There's some problems with the wording and sources of the recent twitter photo leak. The sources contradict one another on the issue of cause of death. One saying that it was 'most likely' not a result of military action and one saying it seems she fell of a swing. As it stands, I think it would be better suited to just state the facts that are consistent and that is that the photo was proven to be totally unrelated to the air strikes on Gaza. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.133.216.228 (talk) 06:13, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

"Capitalism Magazine: In Defense of Individual Rights"? An environmental paper? Evidently Abram was really desperate to publish somewhere since he couldn't get his "study" into an actually relevant or mainstream journal. Don't be ridiculous; if this article is ever to reach Wikipedia's standards of neutrality and sourcing, we have to be removing poor sources, not adding them. In the meantime, please undo your addition of POV phrasing. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 16:16, 10 May 2013 (UTC)

There is nothing despite several examples of documentation of the U.N bias against Israel because it is a Jewish majority. that should be the focus of this page. It is the only reason for the resolutions against Israel.MagicKirin11 (talk) 22:36, 1 December 2013 (UTC)

This appears to be something you personally believe rather than information that complies with Wikipedia policy and can therefore be considered for inclusion. Please read WP:V and WP:NPOV and WP:TALK. You need to provide some specific examples of specific resolutions which reliable sources explicitly say were only adopted because of antisemitism at the UN. Sean.hoyland - talk 04:49, 2 December 2013 (UTC)

Looks like this article is solely dublicating the article Israeli-Palestinian peace process and includes some copy-paste sections from List of United Nations resolutions concerning Israel. I'm quiet sure there is no special treatment by WP:RS of the issue "Israel, Palestine, and the United Nations", so apparently this article is WP:SYNTH. I wherewith propose its merger. Please vote.Greyshark09 (talk) 07:51, 4 October 2012 (UTC)

If the article in its current state is in fact a collection of information available elsewhere on Wikipedia, then there is a need to write a new one with this title, as the subject matter (the relations of the United Nations with Israel and Palestine) is not covered elsewhere. I do not see how merging anything would fix that. --${\displaystyle \color {Blue}{\mathcal {M}}}$${\displaystyle \color {Blue}{\vec {(e\ ,}}}$${\displaystyle \color {Blue}t)}$ = ? 17:26, 8 October 2012 (UTC)

• Merge. There are more than enough articles on IP history where this material could go. Itsmejudith (talk) 17:42, 8 October 2012 (UTC)

But this article is not supposed to be about the history of Israel and Palestine, it is supposed to be about the relations of the UN and these two entities, one UN member state and one observer. Let us cut down on the history and leave what really is relevant to the subject at hand. --${\displaystyle \color {Blue}{\mathcal {M}}}$${\displaystyle \color {Blue}{\vec {(e\ ,}}}$${\displaystyle \color {Blue}t)}$ = ? 19:25, 8 October 2012 (UTC)

• DO NOT MERGE information which is not duplicative, or does not have a natural place on other articles. This includes the long history of United Nations "special treatment" or "double standards" with respect to Israel, much of which does not have any particular relationship to an active ongoing peace process... AnonMoos (talk) 19:41, 8 October 2012 (UTC)

• Do Not Merge Need to show that true consensus of international community is Palestinians getting back confiscated land and having their own state. Given lack of interest in merge, I'll remove tag. CarolMooreDC 03:28, 24 November 2012 (UTC)

• Merge. This article is a silly attempt to avoid the NPOV standards of the Israeli-Palestinian peace process article and create an article that reflects the WP:FRINGE views of a few editors. Gouncbeatduke (talk) 20:43, 27 December 2014 (UTC)

The neutrality of this article is severely compromised by its heavy reliance on agenda-based sources for what are presented as statements of fact. Unless clearly presented as a position/opinion or quotation - and sometimes even if - we should not be using sources like UN Watch, Alabama Friends of Israel, the Israeli government, JCPA, etc. etc. (If there are similar agenda-based sources that are pro-Palestine, we similarly should not use those, but I didn't notice that as an issue in this article, which has a clear pro-Israel stance.) –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 01:25, 22 December 2012 (UTC)

Hear hear. Feel free to start naming them, or when particularly WP:UNDUE, removing them and I'll back you up. CarolMooreDC🗽 15:52, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

As for how this article looks today and for what it had became from 2012, it is clearly anti-Israel; so this message is no longer relevant and should be removed. Or it should be transfer to mean non-neutral article; from the anti-Israeli direction.--132.64.215.159 (talk) 08:33, 15 April 2015 (UTC)

Usually Zionists have better grammar, 132.64.215.159. If you want an identity that is not a number like you're some kind of android try getting a user page. Although I learned long ago it's not worth it to battle Likudniks in wikiwars the incessant whining of a 20 page Wikipedia article devoted entirely to how unfair the UN is and how the whole WORLD is antisemitic is just intolerable. Wikipedia's articles on Israel are a disgrace to Wikipedia. Every source cited showing "evidence" of bias against Israel is a propaganda outlet of one political party in one country on Earth. I guess if you live in New York or Tel Aviv the world revolves around Haaretz and the Wall Street Journal. And just because 1.2 billion Chinese or 250 million Indonesians or 1.1 billion Africans don't speak English and don't edit the English Language Wikipedia doesn't mean they have the same views of the region as an Israeli settler. Even in the midst of this verbose whine nowhere are all the UN resolutions against Israel even listed or described. If this execrable article can't be improved it should be deleted entirely.MarkB2 ^Chat 16:01, 15 April 2015 (UTC)

I think you two need to take a breath and also remember this is not a forum. - SantiLak (talk) 04:41, 16 April 2015 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 2 external links on Israel, Palestine, and the United Nations. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20080211234115/http://domino.un.org:80/UNISPAL.NSF/eed216406b50bf6485256ce10072f637/6c3b15b45ea6c761852568b80052bc01!OpenDocument to http://domino.un.org/UNISPAL.NSF/eed216406b50bf6485256ce10072f637/6c3b15b45ea6c761852568b80052bc01!OpenDocument
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20110718234438/http://documents-dds-ny.un.org/doc/UNDOC/GEN/N07/282/48/PDF/N0728248.pdf?OpenElement to http://documents-dds-ny.un.org/doc/UNDOC/GEN/N07/282/48/PDF/N0728248.pdf?OpenElement

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers. —^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 11:01, 19 October 2015 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Israel, Palestine, and the United Nations. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Attempted to fix sourcing for www.nad-plo.org/eye/news49.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 09:05, 9 February 2016 (UTC)

You are invited to join the discussion at Talk:List of state leaders in 2016#RfC: Inclusion of Palestine as a sub state of Israel. Could you please give your opinion on whether or not Palestine should be considered a separate sovereign entity from Israel? Many thanks Spirit Ethanol (talk) 18:07, 21 February 2016 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 41 external links on Israel, Palestine, and the United Nations. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140331101242/http://main.omanobserver.om/?p=17233 to http://main.omanobserver.om/?p=17233
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120524094913/http://domino.un.org:80/unispal.nsf/0/7f0af2bd897689b785256c330061d253 to http://domino.un.org/unispal.nsf/0/7f0af2bd897689b785256c330061d253
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140107030419/http://www.un.org:80/Docs/journal/asp/ws.asp?m=S/745 to http://www.un.org/Docs/journal/asp/ws.asp?m=S/745
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120922225732/http://daccess-dds-ny.un.org/doc/RESOLUTION/GEN/NR0/282/23/IMG/NR028223.pdf?OpenElement to http://daccess-dds-ny.un.org/doc/RESOLUTION/GEN/NR0/282/23/IMG/NR028223.pdf?OpenElement
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20141208154732/http://legal.un.org/repertory/art9/english/rep_supp6_vol2-art9_e_advance.pdf to http://legal.un.org/repertory/art9/english/rep_supp6_vol2-art9_e_advance.pdf
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110622050755/http://domino.un.org/unispal.nsf/0/146e6838d505833f852560d600471e25?OpenDocument to http://domino.un.org/unispal.nsf/0/146e6838d505833f852560d600471e25?OpenDocument
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080227202149/http://www.adl.org/international/2004-09_un_ant_israel_bias.pdf to http://www.adl.org/international/2004-09_un_ant_israel_bias.pdf
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090711152839/http://www.un.int/palestine//docs/res_es10_13.pdf to http://www.un.int/palestine/docs/res_es10_13.pdf
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110103101200/http://unispal.un.org/UNISPAL.NSF/0/72DA83FF10657C9985256BC2005B8D23 to http://unispal.un.org/UNISPAL.NSF/0/72DA83FF10657C9985256BC2005B8D23
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090911143157/http://www.un.org/peace/jenin/ to http://www.un.org/peace/jenin/
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130131073609/http://www.un.int/wcm/content/site/palestine/ to http://www.un.int/wcm/content/site/palestine/
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20121024041738/http://www.un.org/Docs/journal/asp/ws.asp?m=E/CN.4/367 to http://www.un.org/Docs/journal/asp/ws.asp?m=E/CN.4/367
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20101018151907/http://www.ottawacitizen.com:80/technology/Canada+stands+tall/3680976/story.html to http://www.ottawacitizen.com/technology/Canada+stands+tall/3680976/story.html#ixzz12g79BPdZ
• Added {{dead link}} tag to http://www.nationalpost.com/news/canada/Harper+says+Canada+will+stand+Israel/3794912/story.html#ixzz14n5E5YT2
• Added {{dead link}} tag to http://fr.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?apage=2&cid=1253198154087&pagename=JPost/JPArticle/ShowFull
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110109143548/http://data.unaids.org/pub/Manual/2009/jc1682_governancehandbook_lr_en.pdf to http://data.unaids.org/pub/Manual/2009/jc1682_governancehandbook_lr_en.pdf
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110917022247/http://fr.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?cid=1198517288600&pagename=JPost/JPArticle/ShowFull to http://fr.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?cid=1198517288600&pagename=JPost/JPArticle/ShowFull
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080127132341/http://www.oic-un.org:80/26icfm/c.html to http://www.oic-un.org/26icfm/c.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20081229043240/http://domino.un.org:80/unispal.NSF/5ba47a5c6cef541b802563e000493b8c/97bad2289146f58a852568e9006d99bd!OpenDocument to http://domino.un.org/unispal.NSF/5ba47a5c6cef541b802563e000493b8c/97bad2289146f58a852568e9006d99bd!OpenDocument
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080209222132/http://www2.ohchr.org:80/english/bodies/hrcouncil/specialsession/2/index.htm to http://www.ohchr.org/english/bodies/hrcouncil/specialsession/2/index.htm
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110728144308/http://daccess-dds-ny.un.org/doc/UNDOC/GEN/G08/402/29/PDF/G0840229.pdf?OpenElement to http://daccess-dds-ny.un.org/doc/UNDOC/GEN/G08/402/29/PDF/G0840229.pdf?OpenElement
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080219013704/http://www.zmag.org:80/content/showarticle.cfm?ItemID=13226 to http://www.zmag.org/content/showarticle.cfm?ItemID=13226
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100612201933/http://freedomhouse.org/uploads/special_report/84.pdf to http://www.freedomhouse.org/uploads/special_report/84.pdf
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20101227042913/http://www.freedomhouse.org/uploads/CanadSenateHRC022508.pdf to http://www.freedomhouse.org/uploads/CanadSenateHRC022508.pdf
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100612201933/http://freedomhouse.org/uploads/special_report/84.pdf to http://www.freedomhouse.org/uploads/special_report/84.pdf
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120112122855/http://www.dailytimes.com.pk/default.asp?page=2009\10\02\story_2-10-2009_pg7_8 to http://www.dailytimes.com.pk/default.asp?page=2009
• Added {{dead link}} tag to http://fr.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?cid=1246443832996&pagename=JPost/JPArticle/ShowFull
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090922170236/http://www.spectator.co.uk:80/melaniephillips/5334541/the-moral-inversion-of-richard-goldstone.thtml to http://www.spectator.co.uk/melaniephillips/5334541/the-moral-inversion-of-richard-goldstone.thtml
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120406100821/http://unispal.un.org/unispal.nsf/eed216406b50bf6485256ce10072f637/3082212d3c30703e85257640004d962a?OpenDocument to http://unispal.un.org/unispal.nsf/eed216406b50bf6485256ce10072f637/3082212d3c30703e85257640004d962a?OpenDocument
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100703002015/http://www2.ohchr.org/english/bodies/hrcouncil/specialsession/9/docs/HRCPressRelease29092009.doc to http://www2.ohchr.org/english/bodies/hrcouncil/specialsession/9/docs/HRCPressRelease29092009.doc
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.google.com/hostednews/afp/article/ALeqM5iAXwmnGEbQBBCvdn82UdbTFpnECA?docId=CNG.81e3f073a7ff60182e936e010de882cd.791
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120924033005/http://daccess-dds-ny.un.org/doc/UNDOC/GEN/G03/164/89/PDF/G0316489.pdf?OpenElement to http://daccess-dds-ny.un.org/doc/UNDOC/GEN/G03/164/89/PDF/G0316489.pdf?OpenElement
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20101205123437/https://www.amnesty.org/en/library/asset/MDE18/010/2007/en/34373bc5-d367-11dd-a329-2f46302a8cc6/mde180102007en.pdf to http://www.amnesty.org/en/library/asset/MDE18/010/2007/en/34373bc5-d367-11dd-a329-2f46302a8cc6/mde180102007en.pdf
• Added {{dead link}} tag to http://www.reliefweb.int/rw/RWFiles2009.nsf/FilesByRWDocUnidFilename/JBRN-7S8J9J-full_report.pdf/$File/full_report.pdf
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080216014820/http://www.fidh.org/magmoyen/rapport/2003/lb356a.pdf to http://www.fidh.org/magmoyen/rapport/2003/lb356a.pdf
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.un.org/Pubs/chronicle/2004/webArticles/062104_sg_remarks.asp
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20071102160642/http://www.wsws.org:80/articles/2001/sep2001/isr-s06_prn.shtml to http://www.wsws.org/articles/2001/sep2001/isr-s06_prn.shtml
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070212181133/http://domino.un.org:80/unispal.nsf/9a798adbf322aff38525617b006d88d7/75155d14e30f2c6a85256f6c005743a9!OpenDocument to http://domino.un.org/unispal.nsf/9a798adbf322aff38525617b006d88d7/75155d14e30f2c6a85256f6c005743a9!OpenDocument
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100522060415/http://www.amnesty.org:80/en/library/info/MDE02/033/2006 to http://www.amnesty.org/en/library/info/MDE02/033/2006
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080227202200/http://www.un.org/unrwa/publications/pubs07/UN&PR_en.pdf to http://www.un.org/unrwa/publications/pubs07/UN&PR_en.pdf
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130426020201/http://www2.ohchr.org:80/english/countries/ps/mandate/ to http://www2.ohchr.org/english/countries/ps/mandate/
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20071004211032/http://www.un.int/palestine// to http://www.un.int/palestine/
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20050402042752/http://www.un.org/Depts/dpa/qpalnew/dpr.htm to http://www.un.org/Depts/dpa/qpalnew/dpr.htm
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20051215181520/http://www.un.org:80/depts/dpa/qpalnew/committee.htm to http://www.un.org/Depts/dpa/qpalnew/committee.htm
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20051214030136/http://domino.un.org:80/UNISPAL.NSF/9a798adbf322aff38525617b006d88d7/18402612268cc414852570a4005a398c!OpenDocument to http://domino.un.org/UNISPAL.NSF/9a798adbf322aff38525617b006d88d7/18402612268cc414852570a4005a398c!OpenDocument

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

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 03:24, 10 November 2016 (UTC)

UN has just declared Israel a racist and Apartheid system.^[1][2]--Rævhuld (talk) 15:29, 19 March 2017 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 32 external links on Israel, Palestine, and the United Nations. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120806072438/http://unispal.un.org/UNISPAL.NSF/0/F5A49E57095C35B685256BCF0075D9C2 to http://unispal.un.org/UNISPAL.NSF/0/F5A49E57095C35B685256BCF0075D9C2
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120603150222/http://domino.un.org/unispal.nsf/9a798adbf322aff38525617b006d88d7/07175de9fa2de563852568d3006e10f3?OpenDocument to http://domino.un.org/unispal.nsf/9a798adbf322aff38525617b006d88d7/07175de9fa2de563852568d3006e10f3?OpenDocument
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://domino.un.org/unispal.nsf/0/7f0af2bd897689b785256c330061d253
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120321213130/http://www.mfa.gov.il/MFA/Peace%20Process/Guide%20to%20the%20Peace%20Process/Declaration%20of%20Establishment%20of%20State%20of%20Israel.htm to http://www.mfa.gov.il/MFA/Peace%20Process/Guide%20to%20the%20Peace%20Process/Declaration%20of%20Establishment%20of%20State%20of%20Israel.htm
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.un.org/Docs/journal/asp/ws.asp?m=S%2F745
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20160305050336/http://www.un.org/ga/search/view_doc.asp?symbol=A%2FPV.207&Lang=E to http://www.un.org/ga/search/view_doc.asp?symbol=A%2FPV.207&Lang=E
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://domino.un.org/UNISPAl.NSF/85255e950050831085255e95004fa9c3/3740e39487a5428a85256ecc005e157a%21OpenDocument
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://domino.un.org/UNISPAL.NSF/eed216406b50bf6485256ce10072f637/6c3b15b45ea6c761852568b80052bc01%21OpenDocument
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20121210160010/http://unispal.un.org/unispal.nsf/0080ef30efce525585256c38006eacae/181c72112f4d0e0685257ac500515c6c?OpenDocument to http://unispal.un.org/unispal.nsf/0080ef30efce525585256c38006eacae/181c72112f4d0e0685257ac500515c6c?OpenDocument
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.un.org/Docs/journal/asp/ws.asp?m=E%2FCN.4%2F367
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.ottawacitizen.com/technology/Canada%20stands%20tall/3680976/story.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20061012143118/http://www.unwatch.org/atf/cf/%7B6DEB65DA-BE5B-4CAE-8056-8BF0BEDF4D17%7D/una-uk_report.pdf to http://www.unwatch.org/atf/cf/%7B6DEB65DA-BE5B-4CAE-8056-8BF0BEDF4D17%7D/una-uk_report.pdf
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110606092743/http://www.un.int/wcm/content/site/palestine/cache/offonce/pid/11550%3Bjsessionid%3DDB37131DB27A165B6398469FFE4DB1FC to http://www.un.int/wcm/content/site/palestine/cache/offonce/pid/11550%3Bjsessionid%3DDB37131DB27A165B6398469FFE4DB1FC
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100613180649/http://unctad.org/Templates/Page.asp?intItemID=4966&lang=1 to http://www.unctad.org/templates/Page.asp?intItemID=4966&lang=1
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110522214702/http://www.undemocracy.com/A-RES-52-250.pdf to http://www.undemocracy.com/A-RES-52-250.pdf
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110606092759/http://www.un.int/wcm/webdav/site/gmun/shared/documents/GA_regionalgrps_Web.pdf to http://www.un.int/wcm/webdav/site/gmun/shared/documents/GA_regionalgrps_Web.pdf
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110515020458/http://www.unhabitat.org/downloads/docs/GRHS.2007.7.pdf to http://www.unhabitat.org/downloads/docs/GRHS.2007.7.pdf
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://fr.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?cid=1198517288600&pagename=JPost%2FJPArticle%2FShowFull
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://domino.un.org/unispal.NSF/5ba47a5c6cef541b802563e000493b8c/97bad2289146f58a852568e9006d99bd%21OpenDocument
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080317010910/http://www.globalpolicy.org/security/membship/veto/vetosubj.htm to http://www.globalpolicy.org/security/membship/veto/vetosubj.htm
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www2.ohchr.org/english/bodies/hrcouncil/specialsession/2/index.htm
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20091007093730/http://www2.ohchr.org/english/bodies/hrcouncil/specialsession/9/docs/UNFFMGC_Report.pdf to http://www2.ohchr.org/english/bodies/hrcouncil/specialsession/9/docs/UNFFMGC_Report.pdf
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20091115042550/http://www.nationalpost.com/news/story.html?id=2113471 to http://www.nationalpost.com/news/story.html?id=2113471
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.reliefweb.int/rw/RWFiles2009.nsf/FilesByRWDocUnidFilename/JBRN-7S8J9J-full_report.pdf/%24File/full_report.pdf
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://domino.un.org/unispal.nsf/9a798adbf322aff38525617b006d88d7/75155d14e30f2c6a85256f6c005743a9%21OpenDocument
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.amnesty.org/en/library/info/MDE02/033/2006
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070129121539/http://www.unodc.org/unodc/terrorism_definitions.html to http://www.unodc.org/unodc/terrorism_definitions.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080227202200/http://www.un.org/unrwa/publications/pubs07/UN%26PR_en.pdf to http://www.un.org/unrwa/publications/pubs07/UN%26PR_en.pdf
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110219083233/http://www2.ohchr.org/english/bodies/hrcouncil/specialsession/9/docs/A-HRC-S-91-L1.doc to http://www2.ohchr.org/english/bodies/hrcouncil/specialsession/9/docs/A-HRC-S-91-L1.doc
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www2.ohchr.org/english/countries/ps/mandate/
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.un.org/depts/dpa/qpalnew/committee.htm
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://domino.un.org/UNISPAL.NSF/9a798adbf322aff38525617b006d88d7/18402612268cc414852570a4005a398c%21OpenDocument

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

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 14:40, 15 April 2017 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 12 external links on Israel, Palestine, and the United Nations. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20121206052903/http://unispal.un.org/UNISPAL.NSF/0/761C1063530766A7052566A2005B74D1 to http://unispal.un.org/UNISPAL.NSF/0/761C1063530766A7052566A2005B74D1
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110629172136/http://www.mfa.gov.il/MFA/Foreign%20Relations/Israel%20and%20the%20UN/Issues/Israel%20introduces%20first%20draft%20resolution%20to%20the%20UN to http://www.mfa.gov.il/MFA/Foreign%20Relations/Israel%20and%20the%20UN/Issues/Israel%20introduces%20first%20draft%20resolution%20to%20the%20UN
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070115172923/http://www.ohchr.org/english/bodies/hrcouncil/docs/specialsession/A.HRC.3.2.pdf to http://www.ohchr.org/english/bodies/hrcouncil/docs/specialsession/A.HRC.3.2.pdf
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20091012170658/http://www.mfa.gov.il/GazaFacts/Goldstone/israel-gaza-faq-goldstone-mission-3.htm to http://www.mfa.gov.il/GazaFacts/Goldstone/israel-gaza-faq-goldstone-mission-3.htm
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20091011121721/http://www.mfa.gov.il/GazaFacts/Goldstone/israel-gaza-faq-goldstone-mission-1.htm to http://www.mfa.gov.il/GazaFacts/Goldstone/israel-gaza-faq-goldstone-mission-1.htm
• Corrected formatting/usage for https://www.google.com/hostednews/afp/article/ALeqM5iAXwmnGEbQBBCvdn82UdbTFpnECA?docId=CNG.81e3f073a7ff60182e936e010de882cd.791
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080213054043/http://www.mynews.in/fullstory.aspx?storyid=1981 to http://www.mynews.in/fullstory.aspx?storyid=1981
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20071012031912/http://www.un.org/Depts/dpko/dpko/co_mission/unefii.htm to http://www.un.org/Depts/dpko/dpko/co_mission/unefii.htm
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070129121539/http://www.unodc.org/unodc/terrorism_definitions.html to http://www.unodc.org/unodc/terrorism_definitions.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080227202200/http://www.un.org/unrwa/publications/pubs07/UN%26PR_en.pdf to http://www.un.org/unrwa/publications/pubs07/UN%26PR_en.pdf
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110219083233/http://www2.ohchr.org/english/bodies/hrcouncil/specialsession/9/docs/A-HRC-S-91-L1.doc to http://www2.ohchr.org/english/bodies/hrcouncil/specialsession/9/docs/A-HRC-S-91-L1.doc
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20051215234725/http://domino.un.org/unispal.nsf to http://domino.un.org/unispal.nsf

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

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 23:47, 19 May 2017 (UTC)

I am not a member of Wikipedia. Yesterday (April 27th 2017), a letter co-signed by all 100 US senators was sent to UN secretary general Guterres, asking him to stop anti-Israel bias at the UN and urging him to "ensure that Israel is treated neither better nor worse than any other UN member in good standing". Could someone mention this letter in this page? Thanks.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/all-100-senators-sign-letter-asking-for-equal-treatment-of-israel-at-the-un/2017/04/27/79f961fe-2b95-11e7-b605-33413c691853_story.html — Preceding unsigned comment added by 142.177.106.50 (talk) 13:11, 28 April 2017 (UTC)

I agree that the unanimous letter from 100 United States senators should be mentioned on the article... AnonMoos (talk) 20:08, 24 May 2017 (UTC)

UNGA 181 is an irrelevance. It was an abrogation of the Mandate and hence illegitimate. As a Chapter 6 resolution it was at best a recommendation with no standing. It was in any case rejected by the Arabs. That so many write about it as if it were international law or that it was important in creating the State of Israel is astonishing. Israel was created as a state under the Montivideo Conventions. Once so created the UN accepted Israel as a UN member. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.17.168.186 (talk) 08:03, 18 August 2017 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

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

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100706021237/http://www.icj-cij.org/docket/files/131/1671.pdf to http://www.icj-cij.org/docket/files/131/1671.pdf
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080215080501/http://africa.reuters.com/wire/news/usnN11501976.html to http://africa.reuters.com/wire/news/usnN11501976.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130116101529/http://www.adl.org/PresRele/UnitedNations_94/4368_94.htm to http://www.adl.org/PresRele/UnitedNations_94/4368_94.htm
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20081013083844/http://adl.org/PresRele/UnitedNations_94/5214_94.htm to http://www.adl.org/PresRele/UnitedNations_94/5214_94.htm
• Corrected formatting/usage for https://www.google.com/hostednews/afp/article/ALeqM5iAXwmnGEbQBBCvdn82UdbTFpnECA?docId=CNG.81e3f073a7ff60182e936e010de882cd.791
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20141209082302/http://www2.canada.com/components/print.aspx?id=96c43ca9-ec26-470a-adda-93476ff79799 to http://www2.canada.com/components/print.aspx?id=96c43ca9-ec26-470a-adda-93476ff79799
• Added {{dead link}} tag to http://portal.unesco.org/culture/es/ev.php-URL_ID%3D30913%26URL_DO%3DDO_PRINTPAGE%26URL_SECTION%3D201.html

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

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 16:55, 4 September 2017 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on Israel, Palestine, and the United Nations. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110714065746/http://www.mefacts.com/outgoing.asp?x_id=10111 to http://www.mefacts.com/outgoing.asp?x_id=10111
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20141011202654/http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/01/07/state-of-palestine_n_2425682.html to http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/01/07/state-of-palestine_n_2425682.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110718153445/http://www.eyeontheun.org/assets/attachments/documents/7958A_HRC_S12_L1.pdf to http://www.eyeontheun.org/assets/attachments/documents/7958A_HRC_S12_L1.pdf
• Added {{dead link}} tag to http://www.commentarymagazine.com/viewarticle.cfm/the-un-and-the-jews-9712?search=1
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120317121000/http://www.jpost.com/DiplomacyAndPolitics/Article.aspx?id=261757 to http://www.jpost.com/DiplomacyAndPolitics/Article.aspx?id=261757

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

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 15:21, 17 November 2017 (UTC)