Talk:Israel and the United Nations

Article split

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Let's argue about the content, not the form

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

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

Boston Globe quotes

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

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

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

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

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

Jean Ziegler

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

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

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

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

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

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

---

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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)