This article is within the scope of WikiProject Human rights, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Human rights on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Politics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of politics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
This article is substantially duplicated by a piece in an external publication. Please do not flag this article as a copyright violation of the following source:
Surhone, L. M., Tennoe, M. T., & Henssonow, S. F. (2010), United Nations Stabilisation Mission in Haiti: United Nations, 2010 Haiti earthquake, 2010 Haitian cholera outbreak, 2004 Haitian coup d'état, 2004 Haitian rebellion, Betascript Publishing
The basic definition of the UN included here is that it is an inter-governmental organisation. However the UN largely included NGOs as well, and are even allowed to address the General Assembly. The UN does not specifically define itself as an INGO either.
The following discussion is an archived record of a request for comment. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.
There is no consensus in this discussion, it is evenly split. Having said that, as a side note, there are problems with the arguments against inclusion. One is we dont do that in other articles, but that is a variation of WP:OSE. The other is WP:UNDUE, which says to give the appropriate coverage and placement to viewpoints in proportion to the coverage in RS. A single sentence buried in a paragraph in the lower half of the page does not appear to be overweighted or placed in a prominent position. But those are only opinions, one based on an essay. Though if this RFC is restarted, I expect others will point them out if there is more participation. AlbinoFerret 17:00, 29 October 2015 (UTC)
“UN peacekeepers have also been accused of child rape, soliciting prostitutes, and sexual abuse”—oh, that’s nice… We have an article on physicians—should we include a line in that article stating that physicians have been accused of child rape too? After all, a quick Google search reveals that it happens quite often. Complete with references and all.
The fact that “UN peacekeepers have also been accused of child rape, soliciting prostitutes, and sexual abuse” has nothing to do with those accused having been UN peacekeepers. I propose that this sentence be removed from the article. Pfftallofthemaretaken (talk) 14:44, 20 September 2015 (UTC)
If you read any of the citations, you can see that these accusations are in fact tied in with the perpetrators being UN peacekeepers. To use your example, if there were notable sources specifically talking about child rape, etc. among physicians, then yes, the article on physicians could mention that. Korny O'Near (talk) 02:21, 21 September 2015 (UTC)
I've looked through the first two stories referenced, and I think what you're saying is that the sentence should stay because UN peacekeepers used their positions as UN peacekeepers to commit those crimes. I say it should go, since these people committed their crimes because they wanted to, because they were there, and because they had access to resources that those abused needed. Not because they were UN peacekeepers. If physicians were responsible for more cases of sexual abuse than other groups (I'm not saying they are, but as an example), it would be because they have an easier access to people's bodies, not because they are physicians. Pfftallofthemaretaken (talk) 09:46, 21 September 2015 (UTC)
If I can paraphrase you, I think basically what you're saying is that, in any situation with a massive imbalance of power, abuses (including sexual abuse) are inevitable, and the UN can't be faulted for it. Which may be true - and it's even possible that, if regular militaries were being sent to keep the peace instead of UN forces, there would be even more abuse. Nonetheless, there are people quoted in reliable sources who do in fact blame the UN. Given that you disagree, I think your best course of action is to find people in reliable sources who agree with you, and add in their opinions to the article as counterarguments. Korny O'Near (talk) 14:43, 21 September 2015 (UTC)
That's exactly what I mean—abuse happens in these situations, UN or no UN. The fact that somebody blames somebody isn't really an argument at all, as that's what people do. Doing what you suggest would be counterproductive to one of the aims I'm trying to achieve here—decluttering the article (not cluttering it further). And really, how much does this criticism directed at a negligibly small part of the work that the UN does have to do with the big picture? With all the countless and well-documented deficiencies of this mammoth of an organization, this part of the article goes all Trump on the UN saying—"and they're also rapists". How grown-up is that? There are many things wrong with the UN, and it would do the organization justice to describe those problems frankly and openly, keeping in mind the scope of the work that the UN does. This sentence that we're talking about, on the other hand, looks like a person biased against the organization trying to portray people working for the UN as rapists. How is that fair and balanced? Pfftallofthemaretaken (talk) 16:09, 21 September 2015 (UTC)
I don't know if "clutter" is the right word to describe this - we're talking about a single sentence in the article. And I also don't understand "negligibly small" - are you saying that on-the-ground peacekeeping is a tiny part of what the UN does? Anyway, for better or worse, there's an array of reliable sources who seem to disagree with you about the importance of these allegations. Korny O'Near (talk) 17:23, 21 September 2015 (UTC)
If we take the route you propose then there's going to be a minimum of 2 sentences—one detailing the accusations, the other disputing them, and the whole dispute would be completely irrelevant to the topic of the article, which is the UN. I haven't seen any sources at all that claimed these allegations to be important when it comes to judging the effectiveness of the work that the UN does. Important to the victims and their relatives? Sure. But that's irrelevant to the topic of the article, which is the UN. Pfftallofthemaretaken (talk) 17:38, 21 September 2015 (UTC)
You seem to be unfamiliar with how criticism is usually handled in Wikipedia articles. If, say, Pablo Picasso (to pick a random famous person) had committed murder, do you think that information should be kept out of his article, given that it's irrelevant to his work? Korny O'Near (talk) 18:18, 21 September 2015 (UTC)
I am quite familiar with Wikipedia and its articles, having been making anonymous edits for god knows how long. But about a month ago, for better or worse, I got an account to track my edits on Wiktionary. And now I find myself on Wikipedia talk pages, which I didn't expect at all.
Picasso was a person. If he'd murdered somebody, that deed would have had profoundly affected him as a person, and would have ramifications for all aspects of his life . That's just human nature. UN is an organization. UN peacekeepers are a small part of that organizations. And only a handful of people who worked for that small part were accused of the crimes mentioned in the article. To the organization, and its work, and its impact on the world, that's literally negligible. Furthermore, an organization doesn't have a conscience, as, say, Pablo Picasso did. Pfftallofthemaretaken (talk) 20:49, 21 September 2015 (UTC)
What if Picasso had gotten away with it, though? And what if, like the UN, he had no conscience? I should also note that this was more than a handful of people - reading through any of the cited articles gives the impression that this was at least hundreds of UN "peacekeepers, aid workers and teachers" (to quote the NYT article), and easily could have been more. Korny O'Near (talk) 01:47, 22 September 2015 (UTC)
Ah, yes, that could have been a very interesting conversation. I see where it could take us, though, and I don't want to go there. I'd like this thread to be specifically about the absurdly-out-of-place nature of the sentence I was talking about in my original post. We could do with more opinions, though. But alas, it seems that a third opinion in the largest edition of the largest online encyclopedia in the world is much more of a rare commodity than I'd imagined. Pfftallofthemaretaken (talk) 21:00, 22 September 2015 (UTC)
┌────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘Uninvolved editor, wishing to remain uninvolved - "... it seems that a third opinion in the largest edition of the largest online encyclopedia in the world is much more of a rare commodity than I'd imagined." Yep, cos no-one really wants to touch these kinds of disputes, even to try to help mediate, since it deals with pedophilia/ephebophilia, rape, sexual abuse, etc; which nobody really wants to touch (maybe put in a notice there are this RfC?). Also, this is an RfC (Request for Comment, not a request for a 3O (third opinion, but I'm sure both of you are aware of this since the names are completely different. Just letting you know, Drcrazy102 (talk) 04:00, 26 September 2015 (UTC)
Well, if people don't want to get involved with the topic of sexual abuse, why is there so much written about it on Wikipedia? (Even in places where such content clearly doesn't belong—like in this article.) Must be something else. (Although I'll admit to not understanding Westerners' logic when it comes to issues like this.) In any case, are you suggesting that this ridiculous part is probably doomed to stay as part of the article because no one would want to remove it for the fear of being seen as having sympathy for the criminals mentioned? Pfftallofthemaretaken (talk) 11:33, 26 September 2015 (UTC)
I'm still new and in responding for the majority using my general intuition, just so you're aware. In saying that though, there seems to be dedicated groups of editors that go around and deal with these kinds of incidents. Typically if it is not well-documented and/or blatantly obvious, there is contention and controversy which most try to avoid; add to that that people don't want to discuss such things generally and you get a systematic bias of silence around the issue. I would recommend leaving a notice on the pages I linked above asking for editors to lend their opinions since they edit topics that are based on such activities and know how to best deal with such issues as these. Just my opinion though.
As for "showing sympathy", that's a tricky one since you also have UN peacekeeper advocates and opponents, and you the general public's basic views. It's a lot trickier than it may seem since an editor would be showing "endorsement" either way for removing or supporting the addition. Again, more WP:OR by me. Anyway, have a good one, drop a note to the talk pages associated with the above links and I'm going to "un-watch" this page now (sorry). Ping me if you want anything else, Drcrazy102 (talk) 11:52, 26 September 2015 (UTC)
Support Inclusion of "Accusations of Rape" ... While Pfftallofthemaretaken makes a good point that we would not include similar charges in an article about physicians, I think we could include such a charge if it was a trend that had a material impact on the operation of the medical profession. In the case of UN peacekeepers, accusations of rape have been a contributing factor to national policy decisions in some cases, specifically, the erosion of confidence in the UMIH as a result of rape charges against Uruguayan and Pakistani troops has been cited as a contributing factor to Haiti's decision to remilitarize itself. LavaBaron (talk) 00:08, 7 October 2015 (UTC)
Remove Undue weight for accusations only. Many armed forces have been accused of many bad things. Martin Hogbin (talk) 15:26, 7 October 2015 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.