Talk:Israel and the United Nations

I removed "Claims that Israel doesn't recognise UN" section

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)

Neutrality & sources flag removed; please discuss here

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)

Treatment of Arab discrimination against Palestinians: rewriting

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)

Recent edits

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)

Commentary magazine (Nahr al Bared refugee camp)

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)

Representing sources properly

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)

Israel's exclusion from UNESCO

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)

Italics in quotes

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)

Citation styles

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)

UN Watch October 2010 quote

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)

Melanie Philips

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)

Op-eds

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)