Talk:Non-refoulement: Difference between revisions
SiobhanHansa (talk | contribs) External link |
No edit summary |
||
| Line 8: | Line 8: | ||
Seems to have been added by Redress.org's Director. This is against our [[WP:EL#ADV|guidelines]] since there is a clear concern about conflict of interest. And with Redress having a specific mission issues of neutrality should also be considered as well as whether it is on point enough for the article. So I've moved it here so that uninvolved editors can discuss its appropriateness for our external links section. -- [[User_Talk:SiobhanHansa|SiobhanHansa]] 19:19, 11 August 2008 (UTC) |
Seems to have been added by Redress.org's Director. This is against our [[WP:EL#ADV|guidelines]] since there is a clear concern about conflict of interest. And with Redress having a specific mission issues of neutrality should also be considered as well as whether it is on point enough for the article. So I've moved it here so that uninvolved editors can discuss its appropriateness for our external links section. -- [[User_Talk:SiobhanHansa|SiobhanHansa]] 19:19, 11 August 2008 (UTC) |
||
== Title == |
|||
I find it strange that this wiki should redirect refoulement to non-refoulement. At the very least a definition should be given at the beginning as to what refoulement is, and from which people can infer what is non-refoulement. |
|||
Revision as of 00:56, 5 November 2008
Template:WikiProject International law I removed the candidate for Wiktionary status, because this entry, if it were fully developed, would include the historical as well as legal background and justifications for the concept. Unfortunately, I have neither the time tonight, nor the legal expertise, to write this myself (I actually just stumbled on, and linked something to, the entry, on the very day it was marked for deletion/transfer). If anyone else wants to tackle this, by all means go ahead. Bruxism 02:06, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
I added the link to the convention, but much more needs to be done. I will return to it after more thought.Joel Mc 16:36, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
Link appropriateness
This link: http://www.redress.org/publications/Non-refoulementUnderThreat.pdf Non-Refoulement under Threat Proceedings of a Seminar held jointly by the Redress Trust (REDRESS) and the Immigration Law Practitioners’ Association (ILPA), (2006)
Seems to have been added by Redress.org's Director. This is against our guidelines since there is a clear concern about conflict of interest. And with Redress having a specific mission issues of neutrality should also be considered as well as whether it is on point enough for the article. So I've moved it here so that uninvolved editors can discuss its appropriateness for our external links section. -- SiobhanHansa 19:19, 11 August 2008 (UTC)
Title
I find it strange that this wiki should redirect refoulement to non-refoulement. At the very least a definition should be given at the beginning as to what refoulement is, and from which people can infer what is non-refoulement.