Talk:Durban III

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

NPOV tag[edit]

I have tagged the article because:

  1. It includes only criticisms of Durban III. There must be people, groups, countries that view the event positively, as its attended by representatives from most of the world.
  2. An article on an international conference should not focus almost exclusively on North American views. Where are the views of the rest of the world? Tiamuttalk 20:33, 29 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I included everything I could find in the mainstream, English-language media that pertains to this conference. If you look and can show me mainstream sources presenting these alternative views that "must" exist, you can put the tag back. Or better yet, just add those views yourself. Jalapenos do exist (talk) 21:40, 29 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
It is Canada-centric at the moment - but why not contribute these alternative views yourself? 203.15.226.132 (talk) 04:18, 5 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I've just re-added the tag. This article presents a very one-sided view of this and the previous Durban conferences. Nick-D (talk) 04:44, 5 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
But is there another side to the Durban conferences? You don't mention any. Ampwright (talk) 05:03, 5 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Given that the conference attracted majority support when it was voted on by UN members, it obviously has its supporters. Nick-D (talk) 05:09, 5 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Fine, you hypothesize that there must be supporters. Show us the links. Yaush (talk) 05:54, 5 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
This article, which is currently being used as a source in the article, states that it was approved by a UN committee and is likely to win the support of a majority of countries when its voted in in the UN General Assembly (I struggle to regard the New York Sun as a reliable source though). Nick-D (talk) 06:13, 5 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
This article (another of the article's sources) says that it was approved by the General Assembly and this article (again another of the article's sources, though it seems to be more opinion than the 'news' category its filed under on its website) claims that 121 countries voted in favour of holding the conference, 19 voted to oppose it and 35 abstained. Nick-D (talk) 06:31, 5 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
And if you see their views expressed in mainstream English-language sources, please add them or show us the links. (As I said above, I scoured the sources and couldn't find any.) Meantime you're just being silly. Jalapenos do exist (talk) 22:48, 5 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
the tag explicitly mntions "examples and perspective in this article may not represent a worldwide view of the subject" which it doesnt. just because editors X/Y dont find any doesnt mean it doesnt exist and the content can t be globalized. Tags exist to get OTHER editors to improve it )hjence the colloborative nature of wikipedia), at the very least the tag should stay for a few weeeks.(Lihaas (talk) 14:47, 28 December 2010 (UTC)).[reply]
there may be other mainstream views out there, but at this point its an assumption. its unfair to tag an article based on assumption. i assume good faith about your specifically, Lihass, but unfortunately I frequently come across editors that place the tag on an article not because they want to "get [other] editors to improve it", but to deface the article because they just don't like it.--brewcrewer (yada, yada) 01:41, 31 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Removed the "not enough views" tag because we're in a different game now that the thing has actually started -- many of the sources about speculations before the conference will presumably be replaced by sources about how the actual conference unfolded... AnonMoos (talk) 19:13, 22 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Page move[edit]

Durban III is rather poor and media speculative. Something like World Conference against Racism, 2011 sounds more objective.(Lihaas (talk) 18:28, 27 December 2010 (UTC)).[reply]

Durban III is what it's called. "World Conference against Racism, 2011" receives zero Google hits. Jalapenos do exist (talk) 21:31, 27 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
And please read discussions before tagging articles. Jalapenos do exist (talk) 21:37, 27 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
see above(Lihaas (talk) 14:40, 28 December 2010 (UTC)).[reply]

Tags[edit]

I've added several tags for cleanup because frankly this page needs it. It doesn't explain at all what the conference actually is, but is instead full of criticism of it (and one-sided criticism, at that). It needs some real attention. —JeevanJones (talk) 15:48, 24 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

If you have any suggestions as to what should be added to the article and don't feel like adding those things yourself, I'll be happy to consider them. In the meantime I'm removing the tags because they don't reflect concrete suggestions and look like mere griping. We saw the same thing with Durban II. Jalapenos do exist (talk) 19:55, 2 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The preamble of the article is a lot better now, and definitely is clearer about what Durban III actually is. So in that regard, I'm happy. I have a little worry about the content of the article only containing a list of countries boycotting the event and criticisms of it (which gives it perhaps undue prominence), rather than the main content of the article actually explaining about the conference. That being said, it has yet to take place, so I suppose when it does there will be information a-plenty of what happens. The reason I could not give concrete suggestions (other than that it didn't explain what the conference is at all, and that it was 100% negative) is simply because I'm ignorant of the event. I'd only come across the article in trying to find out what it was through a mention somewhere else. As I said, the article is a lot better than what it was, but I'm going to add only one tag to point out the need to editors for any other points of view on the conference (as they must exist, 180+ countries are attending, compared to 9 boycotting). All the best. —JeevanJones (talk) 22:44, 4 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Countries Boycotting Durban III[edit]

I think this section is too big, and too full of reporting grandstanding by politicians of minor relevance saying "me too!". All we need is a list of countries that are boycotting the conference, together with a ref, and a brief summary of their reasons (which generally seems to be the same, anti-semitism) William M. Connolley (talk) 10:52, 1 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I did trim the list. I think it needs more trimming, though. We don't need a separate paragraph for every country that has said "me too", if they haven't said it in any very notable way. Australia and Germany are in the list of those who have said they will boycott, with a ref, and that seems sufficient William M. Connolley (talk) 09:35, 7 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
"You forgot Poland." Ten internets to the first one to guess who said that. :p Also, Poland really should be added. Sir William Matthew Flinders Petrie | Say Shalom! 02:11, 16 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Wrong title[edit]

The official website for the meeting is available here. It does not use the term Durban III which seems to be a nickname coined for it by its critics. What is going to take place September 22 is a one day high level meeting of the heads of states and governments to commemorate the 10th Anniversary of the The Durban Declaration and Programme of Action. The website says that the Durban document is "the international community's blueprint for action to fight racism, [and] was adopted by consensus at the 2001 UN World Conference against Racism, Racial Discrimination, Xenophobia and Related Intolerance," and that the theme of the 10th anniversary event is : "Victims of racism, racial discrimination, xenophobia and related intolerance: recognition, justice and development." This seems kind of like important or essential information which is nowhere represented in our article. If people are looking for information about this meeting under the name Durban III, they probably won't find this or other supportive information.

Anyway, some info could be added from the UN page linked above to counter out the terrible bias still pervading this entire article. Perhaps some mention of the effect of lobby groups like the Simon Wiesenthal Center on governments' of Western countries seeking to attend (per [1], [2]) would be in order? And maybe a mention that the countries boycotting this time around are pretty much the same ones who boycotted prior meetings in this process (per Bayefsky, who as a critic, uses the Durban numbering system: "Australia, Canada, the Czech Republic, Germany, Israel, Italy, the Netherlands, New Zealand, Poland and the United States boycotted Durban II.")

Anyway, I'm going to restore the tags added by another editor. There are clear POV problems here that stem from framing this entire article based on the perspective of a few vocal opponents, rather than the will of the rest of the world who have sent representatives to meetings associated with the Durban process over the last ten years in an attempt "to prevent and combat racism and racial discrimination in all its manifestations." The problem begins with the name and doesn't seem to any end in site, despite the massive pruning of hyperbole carried out by William Connelly. So who's in for a rename to the event's official title, for starters? Tiamuttalk 16:18, 3 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

An anon IP erased the tags I restored [3], but I've already added the information I suggested above, so I won't restore them for the time being. There is still a weight issue here, with too much space given to criticism of the conference and not information on what it is about. Tiamuttalk 18:06, 3 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Well spotted. Since Durban Conference is just a redirect to World Conference against Racism 2001, this too should have its official title as the main page. I'm going to be bold and JFDI Aiee! No I'm not because I can't work out what it is really called. In fact, I'm not even sure it has a name - its just a meeting. "Tenth anniversary of the adoption of the Durban Declaration and Programme of Action" is the closest I can see, but that doesn't work William M. Connolley (talk) 18:25, 3 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, I guess the informal name is the best option for now. Tiamuttalk 07:04, 4 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • It looks like we're going to have to stick with Durban III as the title for now, at the very least until a clearer name becomes evident nearer to the event. —JeevanJones (talk) 22:38, 4 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

1RR[edit]

I've just noticed this is under 1RR. I wouldn't be surprised to see I've broken that, in a technical sense. Anyone who thinks I have, please let me know and I'll self-revert William M. Connolley (talk) 18:37, 3 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'm pretty sure you exceeded 1RR, because of this revert and then this removal. I reverted one of your edits, which wasn't accompanied by an explanation. Technically I could revert the other one as well, but I'll leave you time to self-revert to avoid ANEW.—Biosketch (talk) 09:23, 4 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Interesting perspectives not really reflected in our article[edit]

More info[edit]

Here's some more information that should be put in the article. I don't have time to do it properly at the moment.

UNGA resolution that decides that participation of NGO should be made on a "no-objection basis" of member states, ie any state can bar any NGO from participating.

list of participating NGOs.

Anne Bayefski on the low participation. Not sure this is RS but it should at least give an idea of what to look for. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 21:24, 18 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Belgian Participation[edit]

I remember Belgium saying they will participate in an effort to combat the antisemitism. I can't find the article though. :( Sir William Matthew Flinders Petrie | Say Shalom! 23:46, 22 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I presume http://www.ejpress.org/article/news/western_europe/53320 ... -- AnonMoos (talk)
I think I read it on YNet or JPost, but they must have gotten it from EJP. That's counted as an RS, yes? Sir William Matthew Flinders Petrie | Say Shalom! 02:26, 23 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

What happened at the conference?[edit]

This article effectively entirely consists of discussion of the events leading up to the conference - support, criticism and controversy, boycotts and counter-conferences. But there's no information about what happened at the conference itself. It states that it opened on 22 September, but then stops; there's absolutely nothing about what was discussed or decided there. Anyone else find this a glaring omission? It's now November, so presumably the conference is over by now; would anyone care to write up a summary of it and add it to the article? Robofish (talk) 12:33, 2 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I haven't seen a detailed account, but it seems that a few speeches were delivered and a document written before the conference was voted on and passed (as had been pre-arranged), and it was all over within a few hours. It's a pity that they insist on sticking with the "Durban" name, because that's permanently tainted in the eyes of some, and is guaranteed to attract controversy and boycotts (not to mention that each conference seems to be briefer and more tightly-controlled and per forma perfunctory than the previous one) -- while if they started over with a new non-"Durban" anti-racism process, then they could avoid most of the unnecessary drama and distractions.
In any case, this is far from being the only Wikipedia article which covers the run-up to the event more than the event itself -- many articles on various elections are faithfully updated before the election, but then there seems to be a sudden loss of interest once the election actually takes place (to the degree that in some cases an article contains a long listing of various polling survey numbers in the weeks before the election, but no indication of the actual numbers of votes cast on election day itself!)... AnonMoos (talk) 14:29, 2 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

2019[edit]

Agreed. Content of the conference is needed. Zezen (talk) 09:17, 29 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment[edit]

This is a pretty reasonable article now, but the DYK line was an epic win for POV. ASCIIn2Bme (talk) 21:46, 25 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

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

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

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

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

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 23:21, 14 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Durban_III&oldid=1201694598"