Talk:UNESCO

Incorporation request

could someone please incorporate this news item [1] into this article? :) Kingturtle 19:19 11 Jun 2003 (UTC)

List John Bowker as consultant?

The fact that John Bowker is a consultant to UNESCO doesn't seem like a terribly important fact to list on the UNESCO page. UNESCO has many consultants. (Googling for "consultant to UNESCO" returns 607 results; searching for "consultant to UNESCO" and "bowker" returns 14.) GGano 21:16, 1 Oct 2003 (UTC)

Regardless of your belief about the importance of this, Bowker is a consultant and thus belongs on a list of consultants. So Ill readd it. Lirath Q. Pynnor

Not every fact belongs in an encyclopedia, only relevant ones. The fact that one particular guy is a consultant to UNESCO is not really relevant to the UNESCO article, so it doesn't belong there. But, it's not particularly important enough to get into an edit war so I'll just leave it. GGano 14:49, 2 Oct 2003 (UTC)

I am not terribly interested in reading a list of UNESCO consultants. Is there really something most unusual about John Bowker that distinguishes him from the other "ordinary" consultants?

Article name

It was requested that this article be renamed but the procedure outlined at WP:RM#How to request a page move did not appear to be followed, and consensus could not be determined. Please request a move again with proper procedure if there is still a desire for the page to be moved. Thank you for time! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tariqabjotu (talk • contribs) 22:52, 1 August 2006

Per Wikipedia:Naming conventions, the most common name should be used for the article title. I very much doubt that "United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization" is more common than simply "UNESCO". Any objections if the article is moved?—Ëzhiki (erinaceus amurensis) 12:40, 17 October 2005 (UTC)

You should have kept reading for a rule more specific to this case. "Avoid the use of acronyms in page naming unless the term you are naming is almost exclusively known only by its acronym." Unlike laser, radar, and scuba, the United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization is certainly not only known by its acronym. Omnibus 21:02, 26 December 2005 (UTC)

But it is "almost exclusively known" by its acronym, which is what the guideline actually says. Jonathunder 21:41, 26 December 2005 (UTC)

I don't think so! 10% of links to the page are spelled out... 90% isn't "almost exclusively" in my book... but maybe it is in others'. Omnibus 04:12, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

Yes. News stories routinely refer to "UNESCO" without explaining what the acronym stands for... just go to http://news.google.com/news?hl=en&ned=us&q=UNESCO and you can see that almost no news stories in major news media expand the acronym. This is very similar to NASA, which is also at the non-acronym version, and also very similar to AIDS; perhaps not coincidentally, NASA and AIDS and UNESCO are all pronounced as words rather than spelled out as individual letters, and unlike "UN" or "WTO", there is no other "UNESCO" that could cause confusion or require disambiguation.

See also the "use common names section" of Wikipedia:Naming conventions: the most common name is indeed "UNESCO". We routinely use the most common name, thus for instance United Kingdom and not "United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland" (which probably exists but only as a redirect to United Kingdom).

The article seems to have been at "UNESCO" for a while, and you changed it to the full version only today. Given that there is some difference of opinion, I would suggest that the best course of action would be to leave it there for now and request a name change discussion at Wikipedia:Requested moves. -- Curps 22:27, 26 December 2005 (UTC)

There are also about 1700 incoming links from other Wikipedia articles, and the vast majority of them link to UNESCO or Unesco (more than 1500) and only a small fraction (maybe one tenth or less) link to expanded versions of the acronym ("Organization", "Organisation", etc). -- Curps 22:36, 26 December 2005 (UTC)

But one-tenth means that it isn't "almost exclusively" known by the acronym as the guideline says. I'm sure that the portions for laser or scuba would be less than one-hundredth. It's too bad that the guideline isn't more specific. Omnibus 04:12, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

My two cents This, like all other UN agencies, should have its longform name. -Justin (koavf), talk, mail 17:44, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

Language template poll

A poll as to whether or not the language template should be included in this article is being conducted at Talk:United_Nations_Commission_on_Human_Rights#Poll Raul654 19:41, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

opening statement of article

needs to be neutalized. Please don't revert this edit unless you can show this first statement as fact. Please see http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=United_Nations_Educational%2C_Scientific_and_Cultural_Organization&action=submit#Controversy_and_reform Twasmetrec 12:19, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

Can you then please state here the questionable opening statement, with your reasons, and perhaps proposed alternative? Jens Nielsen 07:41, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

UNESCO Courier

I've created a page on UNESCO Courier. Please review and help expand it. The magazine also may be noted in this article.

Downtownee 19:52, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

Access to ICT

Can someone please fix the link to ICT in this article? It now points to the disambiguation page. Ottergoose 16:01, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

Logo in Firefox

Hello all,

Are any other users of the Firefox browser having a hard time being able to see the UNESCO flag image? It loads fine when it is clicked on, however navigating to the article page usually has a blank space apparently; have tried disabling the firewall but the problem remains - this is Firefox 2.0.0.6. Thanks! -- D-Katana 08:32, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

I've just tried it in Firefox and three four other browsers: same result. --Old Moonraker 10:34, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

UNESCO logo composed of 3 parts

The use of the name and logo of UNESCO, the United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization, is subject to rules laid down by the governing bodies of the Organization.

The UNESCO logo block is composed of three parts: 1. the emblem - the temple - including the UNESCO acronym; 2. the complete name (United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization) in one or several languages; 3. a dotted line in a logarithmic progression. These components cannot be disassociated.

Consult: http://www.unesco.org/en/logo —Preceding unsigned comment added by C nooij (talk • contribs) 10:19, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

Fixed, by user Tibetibet --Old Moonraker (talk) 15:56, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

• Those "rules" look to have been designed with use of the logo to imply association with UNESCO in mind. From the Basic Rules section: "This rule must be respected when the UNESCO logo block is used by all its stakeholders and partners."

I'm not trying to say that Wikipedia should not use the UNESCO logo graphics in the standard form. I am saying that the above comment by C nooij (officious tone with some sort of vague threat undercurrent) was not helpful. Chill, dude.

85.225.254.185 (talk) 01:38, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

As we seem to have agreed to use the standard form of the logo, may I just note that the display of the organization's six languages is also regulated? Details here. This edit reverted accordingly. --Old Moonraker (talk) 23:09, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

Practicalities

What is apparent as you travel in the third world is the immense good done by UNESCO in countries that lack higher-level education apparatus and lack cultural conservation institutions. The article seems to miss that. It's a significant oversight as it answers the question why UNESCO was worth reforming rather than simply disbanding. Gdt (talk) 06:46, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

Official languages in infobox

I cannot figure out how to make an attractive and functional hideable section for the other languages at the top of the infobox (like the one at United Nations, which is unfortunately based on a different template). I am going to remove them to this page until someone has a good idea. The problem is that the name is quite long in some of the languages, which upsets the formatting of the box. Most UN Org pages seem to have only the English name, with the exception of UNICEF, which has a short enough name not to cause trouble. Languages other than the official six have no place there at all, such as the Greek and Persian that were recently added.

Arabic: منظمة الأمم المتحدة للتربية والعلم والثقافة
Chinese: 联合国教育、科学及文化组织
French: L’Organisation des Nations unies pour l’éducation, la science et la culture
Russian: Организация Объединенных Наций по вопросам образования, науки и культуры
Spanish: La Organización de las Naciones Unidas para la Educación, la Ciencia y la Cultura

— ˈzɪzɨvə (talk) 20:42, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the fix. Is only having the one language a big problem? As pointed out by User:C nooij, above, the logo block should have the name in "in one or several languages". Just English, on the English Wikipedia, won't be a problem if you can't sort the image. --Old Moonraker (talk) 21:21, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

UNESCO template

Can we have a template linking the series of programs/listings under the administration of UNESCO? For starters, we can include links for the World Heritage, Biosphere Reserve, Memory of the World, Geoparks, and Intangible Heritage. Then, let's work our way from there if some other projects have extensive coverage in wikipedia. Joey80 (talk) 11:29, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

Secularism

I think UNESCO has a reputation for being an international center of secularism. For instance, it helps write civics courses in which value pluralism and cultural relativism are emphasized. [2] It also contributes to sexual education courses for children all over the world. [3]. ADM (talk) 01:13, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

Controversy

I think that election of Irina Bokova, a former communist leader from Bulgaria, marks a steady decline in UNESCO's implementation of own policies and guidelines.DemonX (talk) 23:10, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

Good luck getting a controversy section though. There's probably all sorts of questionable things UNESCO, like many other UN organs... SoulBrotherKab (talk) 05:35, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

UNESCO's change in politics and their cozying up to industrialized nations', as well as a new-found political "correctness" in selecting their topics do get talked about. It might make sense to add a section on this somewhere in the article. 212.202.199.190 (talk) 19:43, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

History and UN status of UNESCO

Woefully inadequate. When was it actually founded? What is its precise UN role and formulation (agencies, funds, trusts, conferences, organisations, etc etc, all have different mandates, roles, governance). John Manoochehri 14:31, 21 June 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jmanooch (talk • contribs)

Non sequitur

'As a consequence of its entry into the United Nations, the People's Republic of China has been the only legitimate representative of China at UNESCO since 1971.' This statement not only isn't terribly relevant where it is placed in the article, but hints at a bias towards Mainland Chinese nationalism. The following sentence is also of rather dubious relevance to the whole of the article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.34.69.79 (talk) 18:54, 21 November 2010 (UTC)

U.S. funding and Palestinian state

This story in the Wall Street Journal, discusses the Palestinian request for UNESCO to recognize Palestine as a state:

Palestinians Make End Run for a U.N. Status Upgrade OCTOBER 29, 2011

"Two U.S. laws, passed in the early 1990s, require the U.S. to cease funding in any U.N.-affiliated body that accepts Palestinian membership. The U.S. accounts for 22% of Unesco's budget, by far its largest source, amounting to $71.8 million for 2011."

This issue probably belongs in the article. What are those two U.S. laws? --Nbauman (talk) 14:55, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

As it looks right now, the US is withdrawing funding because Palestine is recognized by UNESCO as a member. http://www.sueddeutsche.de/politik/umstrittener-un-antrag-unesco-nimmt-palaestina-als-vollmitglied-auf-1.1177506 It really is puzzling, because such a membership does not affect US policies at all, and does not even imply that Palestine can be full member of the United Nations. Other nations have joined UNESCO before without being a full member of the United Nations. And now in the aftermath of the "Arab spring" it seems even weirder, twisted, really. And who created these US laws that address UNESCO membership of other nations? 76.105.129.239 (talk) 21:56, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

I think you will find the following links helpful in answering that question:

• 101st Congress (1989-1990), H.R.2145.RFS
• H.R.2145 -- To provide for the withholding of United States contributions to the United Nations, any specialized agency of the United Nations, or any organization affiliated with the United Nations... DonaldRichardSands (talk 22:35, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

How can the US still be a member of UNESCO without funding it? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Deathmare (talk • contribs) 17:14, 18 April 2012 (UTC)

Israel

The "Israel" section of this article seems biased to me. I feel like we are only seeing the "pro-Israeli" side of the story here, not necessarily an analysis of the facts. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.15.14.71 (talk) 04:14, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

On first appearances the section does not look good. A controversy section tends to lend undue weight to negative aspects. Nev1 (talk) 00:18, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

There is no "pro" or "anti" section. There is only fact. The fact that UNESCO is being targeted for political purposes.

-G — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.67.113.9 (talk) 00:58, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

UNESCO observers, Palestine vote sources?

Can someone provide the following sources:

• voting breakdown in the 58-member sub-committee vote (we have the list, but I don't see a source for it)
• voting breakdown in the main UNESCO vote (we have the list, but I don't see a source for it)
• the text of the membership application - we have "presented by 24 states requesting that the State of Palestine be granted membership" - who are these 24 states and what wording is utilized in the application?
• the text of the membership decision

Also, here it's written that there are "3 Permanent Observers and 10 intergovernmental organizations with Permanent Observer Missions to UNESCO." - who are those 13 UNESCO observers?

This is posted also here. Japinderum (talk) 08:11, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

• Sean Lee has the full vote tally on his blog The Human Province: http://humanprovince.wordpress.com/2011/10/31/unesco-palestine/ DonaldRichardSands (talk) 00:03, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

US stops financial contribution to UNESCO after Palestine vote

This is not a newspaper, nor is it an Arab white paper. It is an encyclopedia. That does not belong first in the article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.83.4.75 (talk) 10:49, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

At the moment the article states

In 2011, Palestine became a UNESCO member following a vote in which 107 member states supported and 14 opposed.[36] Laws passed in the United States in 1990 and 1994 mean that it cannot contribute financially to any UN organisation that accepts Palestine as a full member. As a result, it will withdraw its funding which accounts for about 22% of UNESCO's budget.[37]

I think it is worth including because of how it could effect UNESCO's budget. Asif.seemab's reaction isn't what the article needs. Putting it in its own section and right at the start gives it far too much prominance. Nev1 (talk) 00:12, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

The survivability of UNESCO, and it being used by the US as a political tool is VERY relevant to the article.

-G — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.67.113.9 (talk) 00:56, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

At the time I commented, it was the first section in the article with a heading of its own, giving the matter undue weight, whatever your political agenda, unless you are some sort of rabid pro-Arab nutbar, which I contrive to think a Wikipedian is not for my own peace of mind. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.83.4.75 (talk) 15:49, 5 November 2011 (UTC)

Budget

I guess the infobox template does not allow a budget addition. Anyways, if I'm reading the data right UNESCO has an annual budget of 227 million USD or 419 million - page 293. Need some editors to check the document again to make sure the numbers are right. I could be wrong. So far the budget of UNESCO isn't mentioned anywhere in the article. Wikifan^{Be nice} 04:35, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

Wikileaks

This section, added today, seems to be an example of off-topic WP:RECENTISM, more suited to inclusion, if anywhere, on the WikiLeaks page itself (where it isn't discussed at all). Why is it here, please? --Old Moonraker (talk) 12:23, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

Agree and removed --Denics (talk) 12:28, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

That's a fix, thanks. --Old Moonraker (talk) 12:35, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

There is no discussion here. You just claim, that this is a case of WP:RECENTISM without giving any argument for it. It is relevant today and it will be relevant in 10 years time, that the UNESCO is holding a conference on Wikileaks and is excluding every speaker of that organization for that conference. Julian Assange is right: This is an Orwellian absurdity beyond words and it will still be 10 years in the future. --Raphael1 13:35, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

Well, yes, but you "just claim" that it will be relevant in 10 years time. The usual way forward is to find an independent, reliable source that asserts notability; it wouldn't specifically have to relate the conference to UNESCO's international scope and ninety-year history, but that's the theme of the article. In the meanwhile, I doubt that anybody would find this irrelevant on the WikiLeaks page, whence it's still absent.

Thanks for coming to join the discussion.

--Old Moonraker (talk) 15:57, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for your reply. Now that we both made our claims, why don't you need any evidence for your claim, that this controversy will not be relevant in 10 years time? And how is the Palestinian youth magazine controvercy more relevant, than holding a conference about Wikileaks while excluding all Wikileaks speakers? Please discuss any issues about the WikiLeaks page on its talk page. --Raphael1 16:54, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

Yeah, that one could be seen as a bit tenuous as well, but WP:OTHERSTUFF probably applies. As regards the Wikileaks addition, it is, after all, the contributor who brings the source to the party: see WP:BURDEN. I have no inclination whatsoever to comment on the Talk:WikiLeaks page, but thanks for the suggestion. --Old Moonraker (talk) 17:10, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

Here is my colletion of international news reports so far:

1. India: "The Hindu" http://www.thehindu.com/news/international/article2900422.ece
2. Italy: "La Republica" http://www.repubblica.it/tecnologia/2012/02/16/news/wikileaks_unesco_assange-29998442/?ref=HREC1-36
3. Spain: "ABC" http://www.abc.es/20120216/medios-redes/abci-wikileaks-asalta-unesco-201202161546.html and http://www.abc.es/agencias/noticia.asp?noticia=1105207
4. USA: "International Business Times" http://it.ibtimes.com/articles/27308/20120216/wikileaks-unesco-conferenza-portavoci-polemica.htm

Just in case you wonder, whether those newspapers are big enough: "The Hindu" has a higher circulation than the "New York Times". And yes, WP:NOENG states that sources in foreign languages are valid. Can you find that many sources for the Palestinian youth magazine controvercy? --Raphael1 19:57, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for those—isn't Google translate useful? The examples certainly allow an inference of notability, but an inference is akin to WP:NOR and we can't rely on that.

But luckily we don't have to: The guideline distinguishes between "established articles that are bloated with event-specific facts at the expense of longstanding content, … considered a Wikipedia fault" on the one hand and "producing encyclopedia-quality articles in real time about ongoing events" on the other. UNESCO is an article about a longstanding institution, whereas WikiLeaks is about a real-time ongoing event. The material seems fully acceptable in the context of that "real-time ongoing event" and my original question—why here and not on the WikiLeaks page—remains unanswered.

I'd be very happy to join you in looking at the Palestinian youth magazine material, at some stage, but I can't manage more that one thing at a time, these days. --Old Moonraker (talk) 21:26, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

Haven't you already conceded, that WP:OTHERSTUFF applies for the discussion about the WikiLeaks article? Please put your discussion about that article on its talk page, thank you. Regarding UNESCO, I don't see how adding the Wikileaks conference controversy would be at "expense of longstanding content". I don't plan to remove any longstanding content. WP:NOR certainly doesn't apply. Here is another article from the 2nd largest Spanish newspaper El Mundo: http://www.eluniversal.com.mx/notas/830601.html --Raphael1 10:10, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

As I've said on this talk page before, I feel that a controversy section places too much emphasis on a particular point of view; moreover it encourages further introduction of similar material as readers may see the section and feel that since that's the layout of the article then it should be encouraged. Not that controversies shouldn't be mentioned, but surely it should be worked into the narrative of a history' section or something similar where a balanced view of the organisation's history can be presented. That might help weighing up whether these individual incidents, such as the youth magazine mentioned above, is really worth including.

On this particular issue, it seems to be just another news story and not that significant (yet). Wikileaks makes good news stories and the subject of freedom of speech is guaranteed to generate interest among readers, but just because it's got coverage doesn't make it noteworthy and I support Denic's removal of the subsection. I feel that in any case there was far too much on the incident, which supports the argument that recentism is an issue, and it surely could have been summarised in a sentence or two. Perhaps it's worth mentioning in the Wikileaks article, but it doesn't seem that important in an article about UNESCO itself. Nev1 (talk) 21:58, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

How is it, that you consider that controversy "not that significant (yet)"? For the Wikileaks controversy we have "The Hindu", "La Republica" and "El Mundo" reporting, whereas the Palestinian youth magazine controversy is only sourced with a single "The Telegraph" article. If it's not coverage that makes something noteworthy, what would make it noteworthy? How do you decide?--Raphael1 10:19, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

As I said, wikileaks makes good news. A little distance might help to assess whether this incident is really worth noting. Nev1 (talk) 21:46, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

Here is another source ("The Independent") reporting on the controversy: http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/politics/wikileaks-takes-aim-at-an-unlikely-new-victim-unesco-6989034.html#disqus_thread How many sources do you need before you recognize, that it is notable? --Raphael1 12:23, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

There are no grounds for removing materials related to the UNESCO 'Wikileaks' Conference controversy as long as they are appropriately sectioned. prat (talk) 08:10, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

Would you care to expand, or is that just a vote?--Old Moonraker (talk) 10:06, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

I'm sorry Old Moonraker, but you lost the argument. There are now at least five major newspapers reporting that story, which does make it noteworthy. At least more noteworthy than the Palestinian youth magazine controversy. This shows an imbalance in the controversy section of UNESCO. We now either have to remove that controversy or we add the Wikileaks controversy in order to fix that.--Raphael1 19:22, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

Happy to see the back of the youth magazine funding story. No objection at all. --Old Moonraker (talk) 08:16, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

Why is that? Do you want the removed, because you don't want the Wikileaks controversy added? How about some honesty? --Raphael1 20:44, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

No: I always thought the addition insignificant and unworthy of inclusion, but I don't like editing on controversial Palestine/Israel topics. Please don't impugn my motives as dishonest—no personal attacks. --Old Moonraker (talk) 21:10, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

Ok, so why not remove the youth magazine controversy and nonetheless add the Wikileaks controversy? After all, it is far more significant.--Raphael1 22:26, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

I'm puzzled: notwithstanding several editors calling for this material to be included in the encyclopedia, it still hasn't been added to the Wikileaks page. It's beginning to look as though the purpose is to undermine UNESCO, rather that report on this item of news—instances of WP:POINT and POV pushing, in fact. --Old Moonraker (talk) 09:05, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

Huh?!? You reverted those changes!!--Raphael1 18:10, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

You are mistaken; I have not edited the WikiLeaks page. --Old Moonraker (talk) 19:56, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

Am I? So is there another User:Old Moonraker? https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=UNESCO&diff=477179782&oldid=477179323 Again: If you want to talk about Wikileaks please go to its talk page. See WP:OTHERSTUFF --Raphael1 17:43, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

Old Moonraker said they hadn't edited the WikiLeaks page, the diff you presented shows OM editing the UNESCO article. Nev1 (talk) 17:47, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

I say it the 4th time now. If you want to discuss the Wikileaks page, please do so on Talk:WikiLeaks. This is the place to discuss UNESCO. --Raphael1 20:42, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

Clutter?

Does anyone agree with me that the underlining mark-up for every abbreviated title is clutter? NATO is a GA and has none of this. Spicemix (talk) 08:43, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

Agree. I couldn't find it in MOS:ABBR and I can't see any justification for it. Is someone using this article as a test-bed for some project? Should be reverted.--Old Moonraker (talk) 08:55, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for the fix. --Old Moonraker (talk) 16:59, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

Plenty left still to do! Spicemix (talk) 17:06, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

I think it was done so that when the reader hovers over the underlined UNESCO they see what the abbreviation means. It was added by KHS-Boab (talk · contribs) six weeks ago. In my opinion it's unnecessary because the abbreviation is spelled out in the article's very first sentence; explaining it once should be enough. Nev1 (talk) 17:12, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

Thanks. The way you put it, it's clearly clutter. It's similar to having a wikilink at every mention. Spicemix (talk) 17:19, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

Exactly. I reverted to the version before KHS-Boab made the edits and tried to ensure that subsequent changes were included. Hopefully that should sort it out. Nev1 (talk) 17:26, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

Director-General

This article UNESCO stated that "[Eight candidates] ran for the position, and 58 countries voted for them". But Irina Bokova article stated - "She defeated [nine candidates] at the election in Paris, with Farouk Hosny ultimately being defeated by 31-27 in the fifth and last round of voting".

I want to know -

• Eight/Nine candidates name.
• What's the actual figure? Can anybody explain it?

Have a nice day. - Subrata Roy (talk) 10:46, 4 May 2012 (UTC)

Protection from vandalism?

Hello. I just came by and am surprised to see this article not protected in order to prevent vandalism. Shouldn't such an important, UN-related article be protected or semi-protected? 114.94.119.199 (talk) 14:34, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

Assad Blanket Removal

There was no reason for Assad's removal of an entire section.

He writes - "per WP:UNDUE, WP:OR. Govt./blogs/advocacy sources unaccectpable. NP of Can. is only quoting Israel govt. sources. Rest is OR.)"

Firstly, there isn't any "original research." I'd like for him to cite what he thinks was original research, where this original research was, and then prove that I took it from there. It's highly unlikely he can find a website with all of those different links put together in research... What I did was not research, but rather a chronological order of appropriate references fora section.

Secondly, as for WP:Undue, if the editor feels this way then it would be appropriate to concise or edit some of it, but not a blanket removal. Whatever the edit feels specifically is undue, that can be discussed. However, removing the entire thing is silly - it is not as undue as any of the sections above relating to controversies, and this story has been making international and prominent headlines.

Thirdly, "gvt" sources unacceptable. The Foreign Ministry reference was used as a quote, not as facts. The quotes are also referenced in referenced media outlets.

"blogs" - no blogs were used as far as I remember...

"advocacy groups" - B'nai Brith Internaitonal wasn't used as a fact, but rather as a quote. There was no reference to its site either, but rather to an RS media organization with the quote. Across Wikipedia, there are quotes by groups such as "ADL" or "J Street" or "ATP" or "AAACP" or "NIAC" etc. It is used solely as a statement, and in this case, there was no link to the site, but rather to an RS media organization.

I would also add that statements by UNESCO were include and the Islamic University of Gaza.

If you do feel there is an issue with a specific part, then you should raise that part here instead of a blanket and unwarranted removal of an important and international news piece. It appears instead as an attempt to censor important information and push a PoV. --Activism1234 04:25, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

To state the obvious, this is an article about an organization with world-wide reach and a seventy-year history. Why, then, are five paragraphs devoted to the new Islamic University of Gaza? If there's a place for this at all (which I do not believe, given that the institution has its own page) coverage to this extent seems totally disproportionate.--Old Moonraker (talk) 07:22, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

I can see that as an issue, and in such a case, be bold and cut it down a bit. I'm actually going to do that myself right now, I just wanted to get the main ideas on the page. If you have a problem with the edit, then try to make it better, but don't blanket removal it (like that person did). Thanks.--Activism1234 13:14, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

I cut it down to two paragraphs, removed some quotes and paraphrased others. It should be better. --Activism1234 13:19, 16 July 2012 (UTC)