Talk:Ruud Lubbers

Untitled

Authenticity check: A search reveals that the phrase "regarded by many" appears in the text. Is the phrase a symptom of a dubious statement? Could a source be quoted instead? Perhaps the "many" could be identified? Might text be edited to more genuinely reflect specific facts?

Wetman

—Preceding undated comment added 01:44, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

Promotional Material

Following an article in the Australian press which referred to to the investigation of Ruud Lubbers on sexual harassment charges while he was High Commissioner for refugees,[4] I consulted the entry in WP and found that it was mainly promotional material as well as unreferenced statements. I edited out the promotional material, signposted unreferenced assertions, and added referenced facts about the sexual harassment case. Meanwhile an anonymous user at the IP address 84.104.54.237 added much of the previous promotional and unreferenced material that had been deleted and removed the referenced facts without any explanation. Looks like another attempt to rewrite an unfortunate history.--Joel Mc 21:58, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

Barbara Dixon

Hi Joel, You are obviously interested in this complaint against Lubbers, but you quote quite selective. Remarkable is that OIOS officer Barbara Dixon claims that she wrote the OIOS report herself.

The same Barbara Dixon handled the so-called West Africa Scandal. Dixon claimed that refugees were sexually abused by UNHCR-workers. This claim turned out to be not sustainable. The then High Commisioner Lubbers refused to do as if UNHCR-workers were culprits. After that Dixon behaved as if she had to settle an account with Lubbers. To start Dixon suggested a link between the Brzak case and the West Afrika Scandal in her leak to the New York Times.

If you read Dixon's report on Lubbers, you will notice that besides speculations, the report consists only two facts: the statements of the two witnesses present at the formal meeting in the UNHCR-office where the incident would have taken place. In Dixon's wording: one witness states that he did not see Lubbers touch Cynthia Brzak at all; the other witness states that Lubbers made an overly familiar gesture; but definitely not a gesture as meant by the sexual harassment claim of Cynthia Brzak.

Even worse: Before, during and after the investigation both Barbara Dixon and the former Chairman of OIOS Dileep Nair briefed the New York Times and Dutch media that Lubbers was quilty. Doing so, they suggested that there were a number of anonymous cases. But in reality, there was only one complaint, that of Mrs Brzak which proved to be not sustainable.

When subsequently UNHCR Staff urged the Inspector General to do an inquiry into these leaks OIOS instructed the Inspector general not to do so. In the analysis of Max van der Stoel you can read that OIOS used the Dutch journalist Bob Kroon to be instrumental in a witch-hunt in the Dutch media.

As former Executive Secretary of the SCHR you must know that both Barbara Dixon and Dileep Nair had to leave office because of abuse of authority. See also the article of Claudia Rosett of june 13, 2007. (http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,282014,00.html)

All in all it is not surprising that first Max van der Stoel, then Stephan Schwebel and finally Kofi Annan concluded that the complaint against Lubbers could not be substained.

User:Columbo85 14:34, 5 December 2007 (UTC) User:Columbo85 14:34, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

Welcome to the discussion, Colombo85 and welcome to Wikipedia as these seem to be your first edits. I am not sure what my previous professional life has to do with this discussion, particularly when I retired two and a half years ago. One of the nice things about this community is that you are judged on your edits and not your degrees or previous positions. I can say, however, that I had never heard of Barbara Dixon before I started to edit this page on 27 October 2007 and I am not in position to comment on your uncited accusations. If they add balance to the article then by all means add them with references. As to the number of "facts" in the report why not let others make their own judgement after reading the report. I have already explained elsewhere on this discussion page how I came to edit the entry on Mr. Lubbers. For some discussion points on how we might move forward please see below. Joel Mc (talk) 16:45, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

Rewriting History

Looking back in earlier versions of this page, I find that the same anonymous user at the IP address 84.104.54.237 also removed referenced material about the sexual harassment case on 1 October 2007. There is clearly a move to whitewash the issue. The IP address is linked to Multikabel QuickNet in the Netherlands. The same machine has been used to edit the NL page of Lubbers. I am unable to read Dutch to know if it is also promotional material.Joel Mc 22:58, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

BLP Policy Blocking Editing

I have been editing on Wikipedia for over a year. I am aware of BLP policy and accept its importance. In this case of a public figure, I am also guided by policy section:

Well known public figures

In the case of significant public figures, there will be a multitude of reliable, third-party published sources to take material from, and Wikipedia biographies should simply document what these sources say. If an allegation or incident is notable, relevant, and well-documented by reliable published sources, it belongs in the article — even if it's negative and the subject dislikes all mention of it. If it is not documented by reliable third-party sources, leave it out.

My original additions and deletions can be seen at: [5]

• First of all I put in section headings, including "Sexual Harassment Charges". I am not sure why Mike removed this as it is factual heading statement whereas what replaced it: "Resignation After Negative Media Coverage Regarding an Unsubstantiated Complaint" reads more like a sensational headline and certainly contains a POV.
• I removed inappropriate promotion articles such as references to standing ovations and testimonials--they don't really belong in an encyclopedia.
• I flagged non-referenced statements such as the reference to the SG consulting Stephen Schwebel. I am unaware that the SG ever indicated who gave him legal advice--I can't find any reports in reliable third-party sources.
• I added references to everything that I put into the section on "Sexual Harassment Charges" including the link to the OIOS report. I am puzzled why Mike took that out as it gives the reader a chance to see for her/himself what the OIOS said. In any case, a summary of the conclusions can be found in the Independent article. I don't see any whiff of liability. I am not surprised that the subject does not like the paragraph, but an encyclopedia is not a place to rehabilitate reputations.
• There are referenced quotes by the SG that Lubbers was not guilty, or at least that there was insufficient evidence.
• The changes made by Mike to my 27 October text can be seen at [6]

It is hard to know where to start with all the changes. It could be summed up that referenced material pertinent to the piece has been removed and replaced it with material which does not include a single reference. Some of the material is misleading, i.e. it seems to imply that the US Supreme Court dismissal somehow relates to the facts of the case, where I understand that the dismissal had only to do with jusidiction issues. But if we had a reference we could check it. In the end the edit presents Lubbers POV with no countervailing forces. I am not suggesting a para by Cynthia Brzak to balance the article. A description and/or link to the OIOS report should be sufficient for an encyclopedia article. These comments about the changes are indicative, more could be said and more references given. I do hope that my time has not been wasted.

--Joel Mc 17:30, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

It been over five days since I last posted on this page. I have seen no response or explanation. I have been racking my brain why the link to the UNOIOS report was taken down. It is posted on a public website, even if the site is certainly not an objective one, the report is an official document of the UN. It is true that it originally was a confidential document, but after the British daily, The Independent, published details from the report on 19 February 2005 [7], [8], the UN distributed copies to the press corps in New York. The Spokesman for the UNSG said that the details in the Independent article "are an accurate reflection of the contents of the report." [9].

If the whole OIOS report is a problem, the office submitted its report to the UN General Assembly, which is a public document, stating:

"In May 2004, OIOS conducted an investigation into a report received from a female staff member of UNHCR who alleged that she had been sexually harassed by the High Commissioner and, in two separate but related incidents, had been subsequently harassed by a senior manager of UNHCR. OIOS submitted a report to the Secretary-General supporting the allegations and recommended that appropriate actions be taken accordingly. The Secretary-General reviewed the report and the responses of the High Commissioner and the senior manager to the report, and decided that the complaints could not be substantiated by the evidence and therefore closed the matter."A/59/359* Report of the Office of Internal Oversight Services to the UN General Assembly, p. 31.

When asked by the press about the report, the OIOS Director of Investigations stated: "The report speaks for itself. Every word in the report is true. I said what I have to say about Mr. Lubber’s conduct in that report and I stand by every word in that report.” She said that she had written the report. OIOS Press Conference, 18 October 2005

I don't see how linking to the OIOS report could be a problem. It was made public as an attachment to a request to the US president to lift the UN functional immunity for Ruud Lubbers, dated 4-10-2005. I've read the request and the report from a link on a public television website. (http://www.novatv.nl/uploaded/FILES/Onderzoeksrapport.pdf), but I assume there is a public record for the request as well. The report gives an in depth account of the allegations, the investigation and the conclusions. As the OIOS concludes the allegations where substantiated, I think it's a bit odd to read a heading on the subject stating that the allegations where unsubstantiated. To say the least, there seems to be a difference of opinion on this point.hbijloo (talk) 20:27, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

Finally, I have seen nothing to indicate that the newspaper reports I referenced from the New York Time, Washington Post, and AP were not an accurate reflection of what happened after The Independent article appeared.New York Times 2004-07-16, Washington Post 2005-02-21, NewsMax.com 2005-02-23 They seem to me to add balance to the article.--Joel Mc (talk) 16:02, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

Hi, Joel. I respect your questions and concerns. Unfortunately, I'm not always in the position of being able to disclose why we have taken certain actions regarding an entry. Also, I don't normally monitor Talk pages for every article I edit, nor do I monitor the own User Talk page frequently. The best way to contact me is through e-mail. MikeGodwin (talk) 15:06, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

This has made its way into the Dutch media (haven't found anything on it (yet) in English language media), if you speak Dutch [10]. It basically says that Wikipedia (sic) Foundation has confirmed that Lubbers' lawyers have contacted them, after which the article has been changed and locked. The article quotes Mike Godwin as saying he finds the current version "more neutral and careful" ("neutraler en zorgvuldiger"). According to the article, Lubbers is "reasonably satisfied" ("betrekkelijk content") with the current version. Mtcv (talk) 16:31, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

More information in a more in-depth article from the same paper [11], in which Joel Mc is also quoted. More quotes from this second article: 1) Godwin appears to say that on the talk page (presumably, this page), the disagreement between users about Lubbers can be read. Which is quite funny, if you read the page above: it's only Joel Mc, no-one is arguing against him. 2) Lubbers himself appears to confirm that he asked someone to inquire about the matter to Wikipedia. He says someone informed him that his Wikipedia article was shortened substantially, and Lubbers thought it gave a too one-sided view. Mtcv (talk) 16:59, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

I find it alarming that the article has been changed and locked due to a complaint by Ruud Lubbers and his lawyers (according to the article in the newspaper NRC-Handelsblad), without any mention of it on the talk page. If the Wikipedia Foundation responds to such pressure without consulting the article authors, this is very bad news indeed for Wikipedia. Furthermore, I am of the opinion that the section name "Sexual Harassment Charges" is NPOV, while "Resignation After Negative Media Coverage Regarding an Unsubstantiated Complaint" certainly is not, no matter how unsubstantiated the complaint is. Mathijs Romans 15:06, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

Well, Mtcv, it seems to me that people are arguing here about the edits now, which is precisely what I expected to happen, and, in fact, I hoped it would happen. As to the press coverage, what happened is this: the reporter asked why the current content was "more neutral and more cautious" -- his words -- and then quoted me quoting him. It's a fairly common trick of journalists, and its use in this instance is not the sort of the thing that raises my blood pressure. In a fairly short period of time, I expect the article will be unlocked, so that neither Lubbers and his supporters nor his professional critics will be the ones who dominate the overall content and tone of the article. I hope those of you who are interested enough in this article to post criticisms here also will be present to help ensure that the final article is both NPOV and as factually accurate as possible. MikeGodwin 18:14, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

I certainly shared with Mikegodwin the hope that people would argue here about the edits. However, so far the argument seems missing. Until Mikegodwin or anybody else, for that matter, explains the reason for the massive edits he made under the guise of implementing BLP policy it is difficult to have any discussion. Did my edits break BLP policy and if so where? If the edits raised legal issues which cannot be discussed, which ones are they? It can't be the case that all the edits did so. Finally, as I am the one who made the edits, I must assume that the innuendo "professional critics" applies to me, even though I am at a loss to know on what basis. Until my edit, I had never written nor spoken publicly criticizing Lubbers. This is my first edit of a BLP. However my experience with the implementation of BLP policy is that it needs to be improved. I found a rather murky corner of power which seems out of sync with other Wikipedia policies. Joel Mc 10:49, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

I think what we are seeing here is a case of "he, another person complaining". No one in wikipedia still very much cares for that, where the press only relatively recently caught up with such complaints and has now taken to "rubberstamping" all of them with big "this is news" stamps. Hopefully the press will also soon start to no longer care. Saying that, being Dutch, I will take a good look at this tomorrow and voice my opinion here afterwards, because no one else seems to be and I do think its important to carefully review all of this. --TheDJ (talk • contribs) 02:31, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

News coverage about this article

There has been some news coverage about modifications to this article in the Dutch media lately. (Only in Dutch, I'm afraid.)

• NRC. "Wikipedia-biografie van Lubbers op slot." [12]
• NRC. "Wikipedia herstelt ook reputaties." [13] Sjeng (talk) 23:37, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

See also my contributions above. ;-) Mtcv (talk) 23:57, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

• Elsevier "Ruud Lubbers eiste aanpassing Wikipedia-tekst" [14]

And several secondary reports:

• nu.nl planet.nl ZDNet.nl Aktueel.nu Weblog/column article of the original publishing newspaper a dutch lawyer organization

Future Edits

I expect that the block will be lifted sometime and I would like to initiate discussion about future edits after the block is lifted.

At the moment there are no references at all in the whole article. However, the controversial part clearly focuses on the sexual harassment case and the resignation of the High Commissioner.

The facts seem to me to be straight forward:

• A complaint was brought by a UNHCR staff member against Mr. Lubbers for sexual harassment.
• The complaint was investigated by the UN Office of Internal Oversight Services which concluded that the allegation was substantiated.
• The UN SG disagreed with the confidential OIOS report, concluding that the complaint against Mr. Lubbers could not be sustained by the evidence. At the same time, he is reported to have sent Mr. Lubbers "a tough message" admonishing him for his behavior during the course of the investigation which is mentioned in the report.
• The conclusions of the report and the SG's decision were made public when they were transmitted to the UN GA in the OIOS Annual Report, 27 October 2004.
• In Feb 2005, after the British newspaper, The Independent, reported details in the OIOS report, Mr. Lubbers met with the SG and then resigned. Both he and the SG indicated that resignation should not be seen as an admission of guilt.

All of the above can be referenced in UN documents and press reports from major international newspapers.

Issues to be discussed:

• Balance and a neutral point of view: I hope that we are all trying for that but surely the best approach is not to remove referenced facts, but to add other references if possible to restore the balance. Colombo85 complains of selective quotes, but having scoured the sources, I have found little else.
• Issues about the fairness of the investigation and the quality of the OIOS report seem to be POV issues. The Director of Investigations has said that every word in the report is true publicly in a press conference and one of the investigators has given his view of the process in a newspaper interview. A different POV is given by Max van der Stoel who was handed the confidential report by Mr. Lubbrs and asked to comment on it. Van der Stoel's comments should be linked to the article, but the best I could find was: Review of OIOS report by van der Stoel according to "The Volkskrant" (in Dutch) I have been unable to find an English copy of his comments. However in fairness we should also add the POV of the plaintiff which is extensively covered in her deposition to the US Supreme Court. I am unaware that the SG ever criticised the OIOS procedure or the contents of the report, if he did it would be useful to have a reference. We should have a reference about Stephen Schwebel's advice to the SG if it is referred to.
• Links to the OIOS report. A good way to resolve debates about the quality of the report would be to let people read it and judge for themelves. The link to the full report has been removed. Should it be put back? If there is a legal question since it was originally a confidential report, then that should be pointed out. In any case as mentionned above, the OIOS annual report to the UN GA is a public document and a link could be provided to that.
• Links to newspaper reports: three links to the press were also removed: 1) NYT in July 2004 reporting that the SG had cleared Lubbers; 2) Washington Post Feb 2005 reporting the resignation of Mr. Lubbers and 3) an AP report that the SG defended the resigned Mr. Lubbers. Should these be put back?
• Heading about the case and resignation. The section heading "Sexual Harrassment Charges" was replaced by "Resignation After Negative Media Coverage Regarding an Unsubstantiated Complaint". This seems to be clearly a POV heading besides being rather unwieldly. (i.e. negative to whom?) But if there is opposition to reverting to the former heading, perhaps it could just be called "Resignation".
• US Supreme Court case: the paragraph about the US courts is misleading. First of all only Mr. Lubbers was accused of sexual harassment and the others of retaliation. But most importantly the court rulings were not about the OIOS report nor its procedures, but were related to jurisdictional and diplomatic immunity questions. It doesn't seem to be relevant to the case, but if it is left in, then it needs to be clarified.

Joel Mc (talk) 16:45, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

I fully agree that we have to focus on the facts. There should be links to all four reports. Does somebody have a link to the the Schwebel Report?

1. The OIOS report, dated 2 June 2004 (http://www.novatv.nl/uploaded/FILES/Onderzoeksrapport.pdf) 2. - The Response of Lubbers, dated 21 June 2004 (http://www.novatv.nl/index.cfm?fuseaction=videoaudio.details&reportage_id=3793) 3.The Analysis of Max van der Stoel, dated 21 June 2004 (http://www.novatv.nl/index.cfm?fuseaction=videoaudio.details&reportage_id=3793) 4. The Schwebel Report, dated July 2004

Furthermore there is the article on Barbara Dixon by Claudia Rosett. I think it is necessary to look into that to have an opinion about the reliability of Barbara Dixon.

The citation of Barbara Dixon that the report written by herself was true was in response of the statement by Kofi Annan that the case against Mr. Lubbers was not substantiated and that his resignation was not because he had done something wrong but only because of ongoing media pressure.

(Columbo85 (talk) 13:40, 13 December 2007 (UTC))

Chronology

1. In her complaint dated 27 April 2004 Cynthia Brzak claims that at the end of a formal meeting on 18 December 2003 in the UNHCR-office where more people attended “ Mr. Lubbers placed his hand on Mrs. Brzak’s waist, pulled her back towards him, pushed his groin into her buttocks and held her briefly in that position before releasing her” (OIOS-report) 2. OIOS-officer Barbara Dixon investigates and writes the so-called OIOS report, dated 2 June 2004; signed by USG Dileep Nair 3. During the Investigation both Barbara Dixon and Dileep Nair leak to the media; and this is the reason that they instructed the Inspector General of UNHCR not to investigate the leaks as requested by UNHCR-Staff. This was obviously abuse of power. 4. The two witnesses present at this meeting state that Lubbers definitely did not make such a gesture. One witness states that Lubbers did not touch Brzak at all; the other witness states that Lubbers made a familiar gesture; definitely not a gesture a meant by Brzak 5. The OIOS report confirms the statements of the two witnesses present, that the allegation of allegation cannot be sustained. 6. The OIOS-report then ignores the witnesses because they “are subordinate to Lubbers” 7. The OIOS report suggests that there were four other anonymous cases and recommends the Secretary General to give Lubbers a reprimand. However there was only one complaint. Even after Mr. Lubbers resigned nobody came forward. Obviously the four anonymous cases were made up. 8. The response of Lubbers is dated 21 June 2004. This response can be found in 4 pdf-files at the NOVA website (www.novatv.nl/index.cfm?fuseaction=videoaudio.details&reportage_id=3793) 9. In his response Lubbers states: “no acts of sexual harassment or abuse of authority took place.” 10. Attached to the response of Lubbers are the analyses of former High Commissioner for Minorities Max van der Stoel. He concludes as follows: “ In conclusion I want to stress in the first place that the OIOS report is deficient in objectivity and impartiality. It is a biased one. Its conclusions are insufficiently motivated or not motivated at all. It fails to prove that there was abuse of authority by the High commissioner. It also fails to prove that sexual harassment has taken place. There are therefore strong arguments for closing the case. Considering the number of leaks which occurred in the course of the OIOS investigation, a special investigation into this question is clearly high desirable.” (http://www.novatv.nl/index.cfm?fuseaction=videoaudio.details&reportage_id=3793) 11. Secretary General Kofi Annan asks, the former chairman of the International Court of Justice, Stephan Schwebel, to give his opinion. 12. Stephan Schwebel confirms the conclusion of Max van der Stoel. 13. On 15 July 2004 Kofi Annan concludes that Lubbers is not guilty. 14. On 13 October 2004 OIOS sends its confidential report to Brzak. 15. On 26 October 2004 Cynthia Brzak goes in appeal and withdraws her appeal later on 4 November 2004 16. In January 2005 Mark Malloch Brown becomes Annan’s the new Chef the Cabinet. He does not to follow the request of Van der Stoel for a special investigation into the leaking by OIOS. 17. 7 January 2005. Press briefing of Barbara Dixon of OIOS on sexual abuse by UN peacekeepers in Congo. (http://www.un.org/av/photo/detail/0062238.html?browse=all.html) 18. 11 January 2005 the journalist Kate Holt reports the Press briefing of Barbara Dixon in the British newspaper The Independent. (http://news.independent.co.uk/world/africa/article14411.ece) 19. On 16 February 2005. Kate Holt receives the confidential OIOS-report. Kate Holt does not receive the Response of Lubbers, the Analysis of Vander Stoel and the Report of Schwebel. 20. On 18 February 2005 The Independent publishes article on the OIOS report. (http://news.independent.co.uk/world/politics/article11693.ece ) 21. On 18 February 2005 the OIOS report is distributed to the press at the VN head office in New York; while still withholding the Response of Lubbers, the Analysis of Van der Stoel and the Report of Schwebel. 22. It must be assumed that the sender of the OIOS report was Barbara Dixon or Mark Malloch Brown. At least Mark Malloch Brown was responsible for not taking action after the findings of Max van der Stoel. 23. On February 20, 2005 Lubbers resigns as High Commissioner because of the ongoing press pressure. 24. On February 22, 2005 the spokesman for the Secretary General releases The Response of Lubbers and the Analysis of Max van der Stoel. (http://www.novatv.nl/index.cfm?fuseaction=videoaudio.details&reportage_id=3793) 25. Not withstanding many requests of all parties involved the Schwebel report is being withhold by OLA until today. This is obviously not in the interest of Mr. Lubbers.

(Columbo85 (talk) 13:40, 13 December 2007 (UTC))

It is good that we now have the links to the Letter from Lubbers responding to the report. I searched for this and was unable to find it. It is broken up into three pdf files.

The note from "Max" could also be put up though the link we have has the first page missing and it is only signed Max. There is no other identification

There is no sign of a "Schwebel Report" nor any citable source that Kofi Annan consulted Stephen Schwebel. The statement above that the UN Office of Legal Affairs is withholding a "Schwebel report" is a bit puzzling unless of course it was legal advice for the SG and thus confidential. However, until we get a citable reference, even a newpaper reference, it is better to leave it out.

What we are concerned with here is a small subsection of an encyclopedia entry. Statements need to meet the standards of: verifiability, and no original research. The entry as a whole needs to be NPOV.

The core of the subs-section, "Resignation After Negative Media Coverage Regarding an Unsubstantiated Complaint", deals with the investigation process and the quality of the OIOS report. It is not up to editors of the entry to analyze or comment on the quality of the report, but rather cite those who do. Kofi Annan has made no citable statement about either as far as I can see. His spokesman in response to a question made the statement: " that Mr Annan decided the allegations were unsustainable after seeking legal advice on the matter. He did not say there was no evidence. He said he found the evidence unsustainable on a legal basis" (http://news.bbc.co.uk/go/pr/fr/-/2/hi/europe/3963639.stm) Thus so far the only citable critical comments of the report are Mr. Lubbers' letter and the note from Max Van der Stoel which we now have links to.

• I don't think that the personal criticism of Barbara Dixon nor for that matter Mark Malloch Brown (now Lord Malloch-Brown) are really appropriate to the entry or really contribute to determining the quality of the report. When she said that she stood by every word of the report at a press conference (18 October 2005) she clearly was not personalizing the report but was speaking as Director of Investigations for OIOS. (http://www.un.org/News/briefings/docs/2005/051018_OIOS_PC.doc.htm). We also have the interview with the now retired Deputy Director of Investigations about the case, but I don't think that really adds much to this entry and belongs to a more extend discussion about the OIOS investigations etc.
• I don't believe that a link to the op-ed piece by Claudia Rosett of the neocon think tank, Foundation for the Defense of Democracies about the OIOS, is any more appropriate for Wikipedia than her op-ed in the National Review about Cynthia Brzak. (http://article.nationalreview.com/?q=YTgyNTczNjJhMGZiZmUyODIyZTZjODlmMDJjOTk0YzU) She is much more an advocacy person than an objective reporter.
• I am not sure that we need to mention that Cynthia Brzak withdrew her appeal from the UN process unless we indicate that her reason was: "Due to gross substantive and procedural deficiencies inherent to the UN’s internal justice system," otherwise it implies that she accepted the decision." (http://www.iowatch.org/supremecourtcase.pdf p.19 of the pdf document) But the reference could easily left out wihout changing substance or balance.
• The same is true with respect to referring to the US Supreme Court case. If it is referred to, then it needs to be mentioned that the case was an issue of jurisdiction and not about the UN procedures nor the OIOS report. Again, this could be left out without changing substance or balance.

--Joel Mc (talk) 17:11, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

Clarification

Obviously, there are contributors to this Talk page and others who wonder why the Wikimedia Foundation took action to lock the Wikipedia article describing Mr. Lubbers’ life and career. With Mr. Lubbers’ permission, I can say that this action was taken after it was brought to the Foundation’s attention that the text of the article repeatedly was manipulated by an editor who has a record of preventing other editors from contributing to the article by removing their edits immediately after their posting and replacing them with his own. The locking effectively ends that editor’s “monopoly.”

In particular, entire paragraphs describing Mr. Lubbers' ecological activities (including as Earth Charter Commissioner) and his achievements as United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR) were deleted and removed from the article, even though those paragraphs described the very life and career that the article is meant to summarize.

The deleted paragraphs were replaced with a disproportionately long section featuring the misleading heading "Sexual Harassment Charges." That heading is both factually and legally incorrect. Mr. Lubbers has never been "charged" with sexual harassment by any authority, even though his critics have attempted to associate him with such conduct (it is not uncommon for public figures to face such unsubstantiated accusations). An employee within the United Nations agency he once headed filed a complaint against him in 2004, which resulted in an internal and confidential United Nations investigative report whose leaked findings subsequently were found by the UN Secretary-General (the official with the highest authority in the matter) to be unsubstantiated, leading the Secretary-General to close the case against Mr. Lubbers.

Mr. Lubbers has reason to believe that the UN investigative report was repeatedly leaked to the media with a view to compromising his position as UN High Commissioner for Refugees. The record shows that the repeated leaking, and not the allegation against Mr. Lubbers, resulted in his resignation in February 2005. As the UN investigative report acknowledges, the alleged incident that formed the basis for the 2004 complaint against Mr. Lubbers took place at the end of a meeting held in his UNHCR office in Geneva and attended by two other UNHCR employees besides Mr. Lubbers and his accuser, and those two employees unequivocally denied the accusations against Mr. Lubbers in their meetings with the UN investigators. While that witness testimony should have led Ms. Barbara Dixon, the self-proclaimed author of the UN investigative report, to conclude that the accusations against Mr. Lubbers were baseless, the report inexplicably recommended disciplinary action against Mr. Lubbers. The UN Secretary-General declined to take such action after consultation.

The individual who repeatedly made manipulative edits to the article failed to make reference to the aforementioned exculpatory evidence (even though this evidence was described in the leaked UN report from which he quotes) and instead assigned a prominent place to a single quotation from the UN report that is evidently designed to make the reader of the article conclude that this quotation from the UN report reflects the objective truth of the matter—whereas the full record, were it allowed to be described, demonstrates the opposite. In addition, that editor nowhere mentioned in his edits that, according to public records, the UN employee who accused Mr. Lubbers filed a formal appeal against the decision of the UN Secretary-General to close the case against Mr. Lubbers within the UN's internal justice system in 2004, only to withdraw that appeal voluntarily not long after its filing. Subsequent to the withdrawal of that appeal, the text of the UN investigative report mysteriously found its way into the British daily newspaper The Independent notwithstanding the obligation of the internal UN investigation unit to safeguard the confidentiality of the report and despite the report’s dismissal by the UN Secretary-General. In view of earlier leaks, Mr. Lubbers had no other option but to resign at a time when the UN leadership was facing heavy criticism in connection with the Iraqi “Oil-for-Food” program.

Finally, I would like to state that Mr. Lubbers has never made any legal threats against the Wikimedia Foundation. When an evident problem regarding the article was brought to the Foundation’s attention on his behalf, the Foundation acted as it saw fit.

I hope that this posting will serve to clarify the record.Fpbat (talk) 20:37, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

Response

As this seems to be your first edit, it is not clear for whom you are speaking. It seems to me that it should be up to the Wikipedia authorities to make that explanation.

Fortunately, in Wikipedia there is a historical record. There you will see that I have edited the article only on two days: 27 October 2007 (my edits are explained above on this page) and 6 November when I reverted anonymous edits which had removed inter alia all references that I had put in without out offering any discussion for such drastic changes.

My revert inadvertantly removed a sentence in the ecology section which ended with the unreferenced statement: "...Mr. Lubbers is acknowledged as one of the most influential persons in Dutch society." which had been added by the anonymous editor.

I doubt that any of this warrants the accusations of "manipulation" "monopoly" or "manipulative edits". The edits have already been explained on this page. I am not sure that engaging in personal attacks really advances us, whether it is used to cast doubt about the good faith behind my edits or to undermine people involved in the sexual harassment case.

The term "Charges" is taken directly from the NYT headline: "U.N. Investigating Top Refugee Official in Sex Harassment Charge"

From my experience the best way to restore balance in a Wikipedia article is to add referenced material rather than remove other referenced material. I have tried to initiate a discussion above on how we might move forward.--Joel Mc (talk) 08:41, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

Joel, I support your view of things, especially your assertion that more referenced content is better than less. As long as all of the information is presented in an organized way, and NPOV is respected, the reader will be able to make up their mind for themselves. In the case of Mr Lubbers, I think the evidence will always result in a hung jury; the evidence seems to show that he had an extraordinary life of public service, and some unfortunate bad habits in private which finally were exposed by impartial investigation. I suppose we will always end up with polarized views of such a person. Thanks for sticking with this. I look forward to seeing your contributions when the article is unlocked. Jra (talk) 21:51, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

Proposed Text for Section "Resignation After Negative Media Coverage Regarding an Unsubstantiated Complaint" (For discussion purposes until the block is lifted)

Change Title to "Resignation"

In May 2004, Lubbers was accused by a UNHCR employee, Cynthia Brzak, of sexual harassment. The complaint was reported in the media, and at the end of the month Lubbers informed UNHCR staff about the charges. On this occasion, he vehemently denied any wrongdoing and rejected the allegation against him. On 2 June 2004, United Nations Office of Internal Oversight Services (OIOS) sent its report to SG Kofi Annan. In its public annual report to the UN Secretary General (presented to the UN General Assembly), the OIS reported concerning the case that they had "submitted a report to the Secretary-General supporting the allegations and recommended that appropriate actions be taken accordingly. The Secretary-General reviewed the report and the responses of the High Commissioner and the senior manager to the report, and decided that the complaints could not be substantiated by the evidence and therefore closed the matter."A/59/359* Report of the Office of Internal Oversight Services to the UN General Assembly, p. 31

Criticism of the OIOS report [15][Supreme Court Annex 1 p.35 Mr. Lubbers responded to the report in a letter setting out to " (a) deny acts of sexual harassment or abuse took place; b) establish that such "evidence" of the alleged misconduct as is said to exist is insufficient and flawed; and (c) conclude that the report itself would appear to be based on an irregular statutory basis and also flawed by errors of law and resoning." [16] [17][18] Mr. Lubbers asked Max van der Stoel, former High Commissioner for Minorities, to comment on the confidential report. He concluded that: "the OIOS report is deficient in objectivity and impartiality."[19]

However, in February 2005, the case was in the news again when the British daily The Independent obtained a copy of the OIOS report and published its contents. In the absence of support from the UN Secretariat, Mr. Lubbers on 20 February 2005 decided to resign. The UN S-G's office issued a statement the same day which stated, that the High Commissioner's resignation was in the best interests of the UNHCR.Washington Post 2005-02-21 In his letter of resignation, he stated that this constituted no expression of guilt, but that he had become the victim of smearing, adding that he had resigned “in the interest of the organisation”.NYT 2005-02-21 In a letter to UNHCR staff, Kofi Annan wrote, "My decision to accept his resignation should not be interpreted as a finding of guilt."AP 2005-02-22 Joel Mc (talk) 17:22, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

This is much better, I think. High time to replace the current text with this proposal !!! hbijloo (talk) 13:22, 5 Januari 2008 (UTC)

Here another proposal. This text focusses more on the real reason for resignation: The ongoing media-presure caused by OIOS.

Proposed Text for Section “Resignation After on-going Negative Media Coverage Regarding an OIOS-report that violated UN-rules and general legal principles” (For discussion purposes until the block is lifted)

In Spring 2004 the New York Times published two articles based on information it received from OIOS, incriminating UNHCR Ruud Lubbers. The articles refer to an accusation of sexual harassment by Cynthia Brzak, an UNHCR-employee and the so-called West-Africa sex scandall."U.N. Investigating Top Refugee Official in Sex Harassment Charge" Although OIOS had the obligation to protect confidentiality it did obviously not live up to this obligation. Subsequently OIOS entertained regular contact with Bob Kroon, a Geneva-based Dutch journalist to the effect that there was wide media coverage in the Netherlands based on the rumours OIOS had spread around and the assumed authority of OIOS. [20] When again subsequently an investigation into these leaks was asked for by UNHCR staff and by the High Commissioner, the UNHCR Inspector General was instructed by OIOS not to look into the leaks. [21]Forced by these continuous leaks Mr. Lubbers informed his staff by the so-called Pentacoste letter. [22] Eventually on 2 June 2004 OIOS sent its report to S.G. Kofi Annan. (http://www.novatv.nl/uploaded/FILES/Onderzoeksrapport.pdf) According UN-rules Kofi Annan asked the response of Mr. Lubbers and given the exceptional situation – involvement of the Dutch government and the leaks – also an analysis by Max van der Stoel was agreed upon. [23] [24] [25][26] In the autumn of that year OIOS confused the Fifth Committee, and S.G. Kofi Annan had to make a clarifying statement, but as OIOS eventually wrote in its public annual report that they had “submitted a report to the Secretary General supporting the allegations and recommended that appropriate actions be taken accordingly. The Secretary General reviewed the report and the responses of the High Commissioner and the Senior Manager to the report and decided that the complaints could not be substantiated by the evidence and therefore closed the matter”. However in parallel to this correct reporting OIOS conveyed in “a brown bag” the OIOS-report of 2 June 2004 to Cynthia Brzak, who subsequently distributed it as if it represented the truth. [27] In the meantime the strong recommendation of Max van der Stoel of June 2004 – “considering the number of leaks which occurred in the course of the OIOS-investigation, a special investigation into this question is clearly highly desirable” – was not given any follow-up.On the contrary, in February 2005 the Independent published (out of) the OIOS-report. (http://news.independent.co.uk/world/politics/article11693.ece) This publication has led to the resignation of Mr. Lubbers [28]S.G. Kofi Annan went on record, stating that the resignation by Mr. Lubbers should not be considered as the result of any ill-doing, but was only the result of ongoing media-pressure. The latest message to the media by Kofi Annan was in Geneva on a press conference responding to a question by Bob Kroon. [29] —Preceding unsigned comment added by Columbo85 (talk • contribs) 15:53, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

We might just as well add to the title, and Ruud Lubbers is a nice guy and I'm really really really sure he was framed by the OIOS bad guys.

The first proposal is factual and balanced, the second is a one-sided whitewash operation. There is no substantiating for the story about the OIOS leaks, nice for a novel but not OK for an encyclopedia.

How do we know for certain that the OIOS report is not the truth ? What's the basis for the statement "the OIOS-report of 2 June 2004 to Cynthia Brzak, who subsequently distributed it as if it represented the truth." suggesting the OIOS report does not give a truthfull description of the events. hbijloo (talk) 11:22, 8 Januari 2008 (UTC)

I agree with your comparison of the two proposals. This is my first (and only) foray into BLP territory and I have tried to write a section which is worthy of an encyclopedia and follows BLP policy. I have nothing against Mr. Lubbers but have stuck with this to see if the BLP policy can really be applied to a rich and powerful person. I am not encouraged so far.--Joel Mc (talk) 09:59, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

I think you did a good job so far. I can understand that it takes some time to get stuff like this organised. So we should have a little patience I think. hbijloo (talk) 11:22, 8 Januari 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.228.253.212 (talk)

I agree that the tekst should be fit for Wikipedia. Therefore I read all the reports and look at all the (known) facts. I think all contributers to Wikipedia should take that effort.

HBijloo obviously does not take seriously the analysis by Max van der Stoel.Did he read it at all and if so where does he differ with the findings by Max van der Stoel ? The analysis by Max van der Stoel was never contested nor disproved. His conclusion is clear:

"In conclusion I (Max van der Stoel) want to stress in the first place that the OIOS report is deficient in objectivity and impartiality. It is a biased one. Its conclusions are insufficiently motivated or not motivated at all. It fails to prove that there was abuse of authority by the High Commissioner. It also fails to prove that sexual harassment has taken place. There are therefore strong arguments for closing the case.Considering the number of leaks which occurred in the course of the OIOS Investigation, a special investigation into this question is clearly high desirable."

Unfortunately the special investigation into the leaks by OIOS never took place. On the contrary: OIOS send its confidential report to Cynthia Brzak and later to The Independent newspaper. The Reply of Ruud Lubbers and the Analysis of Max Van der Stoel were withhold. These report were only released after Ruud Lubbers resigned. On 22 February. 2005, two days after the resignation of Ruud Lubbers, Fred Eckhard, spokesman for the Secretary-General at the UN headquarters in New York stated: “The report by UN Office of Internal Oversight Services (OIOS) on the High Commissioner for Refugees has been leaked to the press, and thus in the interest of fairness, copies of Lubber’s defence are also available from the Spokesman’s Office.”[30]

The conclusion is that Ruud Lubbers resigned because of ongoing media pressure while S.G. Kofi Annan concluded that the OIOS-report did not contain any substantial evidence and that Lubbers was not guilty at all. User:Columbo85 —Preceding comment was added at 15:07, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Of course I take the van der Stoel report seriously. That's why I'm in favour of adding the fact that he investigated the matter, and what he concluded to this section. In the first draft the report and it's conclusion are included. People can draw their own conclusions based on the information provided. We don't have to do that for them (as in the second draft).hbijloo (talk) 20:22, 10 Januari 2008 (UTC)

Improve this page

The OFFICE process is not a ban on editing: Jimbo Wales said it should operate like this; "I would recommend protection or semi-protection at this point, but with the idea that even if protected admins are (as compared to normal protection) actually encouraged to come help with the article."

The template says "Please discuss changes on the talk page first."

Rich Farmbrough, 16:00 12 February 2008 (GMT).

A revised proposal

Almost two months ago, I proposed for discussion a text for the section "Resignation After Negative Media Coverage Regarding an Unsubstantiated Complaint". I had hoped that there might be suggestions for improvements. On 7 January Columbo85 proposed an alternate text which has been criticised by hbijloo and is really inappropriate for an encyclopedia for a number of reasons.

• The section head is not only unwieldly but it expresses a point of view i.e. no third party references for “Negative” nor “violation”. I do feel that my suggestion of “Resignation” is more neutral.

• References are mainly to Mr. Lubbers explanations and should be included, but are not sufficient for the accusations against the OIOS, i.e. “that it didn’t live up to its obligations” or that “OIOS entertained regular contact with Bob Kroon” etc. Such types of accusation do not really belong. I did include quotes from Mr. Lubbers in the para Criticism of the OIOS report, with links to his whole response.

• Like hbijloo I take the van der Stoel note seriously which is why I quoted him in my proposed text with a link to the note. Unfortunately, the report is not strengthened by the fact that the first page is missing (thus we do not really know to whom it is addressed) and that it is signed “Max” which seems to be more in the nature of a personal note rather than a report. It is not clear what obligation the SG had to followup on the van der Stoel recommendations.

• It is not really up to an encyclopedia article to judge quality of the report nor to find out who made leaks, but to point out that there are those who raise such issues—which I believe I did in my suggested text.

Suggested changes to my proposed text would be:

• To add a reference to van der Stoel's accusations about leaks.

• to provide the link provided by Colombo85 to the actual letter (rather than quote the NYT).

• to replace the last sentence quoting Kofi Annan in his letter to UNHCR staff with the quote from the press conference in Geneva provided by Colombo85 which also refers to media pressure.

Revised Proposed Text for Section "Resignation After Negative Media Coverage Regarding an Unsubstantiated Complaint"

Change section title to "Resignation"

In May 2004, Lubbers was accused by a UNHCR employee, Cynthia Brzak, of sexual harassment. The complaint was reported in the media, and at the end of the month Lubbers informed UNHCR staff about the charges. On this occasion, he vehemently denied any wrongdoing and rejected the allegation against him. On 2 June 2004, United Nations Office of Internal Oversight Services (OIOS) sent its report to SG Kofi Annan. In its public annual report to the UN Secretary General (presented to the UN General Assembly), the OIS reported concerning the case that they had "submitted a report to the Secretary-General supporting the allegations and recommended that appropriate actions be taken accordingly. The Secretary-General reviewed the report and the responses of the High Commissioner and the senior manager to the report, and decided that the complaints could not be substantiated by the evidence and therefore closed the matter."A/59/359* Report of the Office of Internal Oversight Services to the UN General Assembly, p. 31

Criticism of the OIOS report [31][Supreme Court Annex 1 p.35

Mr. Lubbers responded to the report in a letter setting out to " (a) deny acts of sexual harassment or abuse took place; b) establish that such "evidence" of the alleged misconduct as is said to exist is insufficient and flawed; and (c) conclude that the report itself would appear to be based on an irregular statutory basis and also flawed by errors of law and resoning." [32] [33][34] Mr. Lubbers asked Max van der Stoel, former High Commissioner for Minorities, to comment on the confidential report. He concluded that: "the OIOS report is deficient in objectivity and impartiality." Furthermore he accused UN officials of leaking information to the press and recommended that an investigation of the leaks be undertaken. [35]

However, in February 2005, the case was in the news again when the British daily The Independent obtained a copy of the OIOS report and published its contents. In the absence of support from the UN Secretariat, Mr. Lubbers on 20 February 2005 decided to resign. The UN S-G's office issued a statement the same day which stated, that the High Commissioner's resignation was in the best interests of the UNHCR.Washington Post 2005-02-21 In his letter of resignation, he stated that this constituted no expression of guilt, but that he had become the victim of smearing, adding that he had resigned “in the interest of the organisation”. [36] In October 2005, S.G. Kofi Annan went on record, stating that the resignation by Mr. Lubbers should not be considered as the result of any ill-doing, but was only the result of ongoing media-pressure. [37]

  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Joel Mc (talk • contribs) 09:24, 20 February 2008 (UTC) 

Joel's text

I have made a few minor style, spelling etc. changes and will include this if there are no objections within say, 24 hours. Rich Farmbrough, 10:41 12 March 2008 (GMT).

In May 2004, Lubbers was accused by a UNHCR employee, Cynthia Brzak, of sexual harassment. The complaint was reported in the media, and at the end of the month Lubbers informed UNHCR staff about the charges. He denied any wrongdoing and rejected the allegation against him. On 2 June 2004, United Nations Office of Internal Oversight Services (OIOS) sent its report to Secretary General Kofi Annan. In its public annual report to the UN secretary general (presented to the UN General Assembly), the OIOS reported concerning the case that they had "submitted a report to the Secretary-General supporting the allegations and recommended that appropriate actions be taken accordingly. The Secretary-General reviewed the report and the responses of the High Commissioner and the senior manager to the report, and decided that the complaints could not be substantiated by the evidence and therefore closed the matter."

The OIOS report was criticised.

Mr. Lubbers responded to the report in a letter setting out to "(a) deny acts of sexual harassment or abuse took place; (b) establish that such "evidence" of the alleged misconduct as is said to exist is insufficient and flawed; and (c) conclude that the report itself would appear to be based on an irregular statutory basis and also flawed by errors of law and reasoning." Mr. Lubbers asked Max van der Stoel, former high commissioner for minorities, to comment on the confidential report. He concluded that: "the OIOS report is deficient in objectivity and impartiality." Furthermore he accused UN officials of leaking information to the press and recommended that an investigation of the leaks be undertaken.

However, in February 2005, the case was in the news again when the British daily the Independent obtained a copy of the OIOS report and published its contents. In the absence of support from the UN Secretariat, Mr. Lubbers on 20 February 2005 decided to resign. The UN secretary general's office issued a statement the same day which stated, that the High Commissioner's resignation was in the best interests of the UNHCR. In his letter of resignation, he stated that this constituted no expression of guilt, but that he had become the victim of smearing, adding that he had resigned “in the interest of the organisation”. In October 2005 Kofi Annan said that the resignation by Mr. Lubbers should not be considered as the result of any ill-doing, but of ongoing media-pressure.

Hi Joell and Rich, As I miss some aspects in the text, please find below my text for the “Resignation” chapter

Resignation because of Ongoing Media Pressure

In May 2004, Mr. Lubbers was accused by Cynthia Brzak, an American UNHCR employee, of sexual harassment following a meeting in his office that was attended by two other UNHCR staff members. The complaint was reported in the media, prompting Mr. Lubbers to inform UNHCR staff about the accusation. [38] On this occasion, he vehemently denied any wrongdoing and rejected the allegation against him. On 2 June 2004, the United Nations Office of Internal Oversight Services (OIOS), which was tasked with investigating the accusation, sent its report to UN Secretary-General Kofi Annan. (http://www.novatv.nl/uploaded/FILES/Onderzoeksrapport.pdf) In its public annual report to the Secretary-General (as presented to the UN General Assembly), OIOS reported concerning the case that it had “submitted a report to the Secretary-General supporting the allegations and recommended that appropriate actions be taken accordingly.” The Secretary-General reviewed the report and the responses of the High Commissioner and the senior manager to the report, and decided that the complaint could not be substantiated by the evidence and therefore closed the matter.A/59/359* Mr. Lubbers responded to the OIOS report in a letter setting out to “(a) deny acts of sexual harassment or abuse took place; (b) establish that such ‘evidence’ of the alleged misconduct as is said to exist is insufficient and flawed; and (c) conclude that the report itself would appear to be based on an irregular statutory basis and also flawed by errors of law and reasoning.” [39] Max van der Stoel, a former UN High Commissioner for Minorities, was asked to review the OIOS report.[40] He concluded that “the OIOS report is deficient in objectivity and impartiality” and that the report’s “conclusions are insufficiently motivated or not motivated at all.” He noted that the two other staff members who were present at the meeting at which the alleged sexual harassment took place had denied the accusation against Mr. Lubbers in their meetings with the OIOS investigators. Furthermore, he recommended that a special investigation be undertaken of the leaks which occurred in the course of the OIOS investigation. [41] No such investigation is known to ever have been undertaken, and in February 2005, the case was in the news again when the British daily The Independent obtained a copy of the OIOS report and published its contents. (http://news.independent.co.uk/world/politics/article11693.ece) In the absence of support from the UN Secretariat in New York at a time when the UN leadership was facing heavy criticism regarding the Iraqi “Oil-for-Food” program, Mr. Lubbers submitted his resignation on 20 February 2005. In his letter of resignation, Mr. Lubbers stated that his resignation constituted no expression of guilt, but that he had become the victim of smearing, adding that he had resigned “in the interest of the organisation”. The UN Secretary-General’s office issued a statement the same day which underlined that the High Commissioner’s resignation was in the best interests of the UNHCR. On 22 February, 2005, two days after the resignation of Mr. Lubbers, Fred Eckhard, a spokesman for the Secretary-General, made the following statement at UN headquarters in New York: “The report by UN Office of Internal Oversight Services (OIOS) on the High Commissioner for Refugees has been leaked to the press, and thus in the interest of fairness, copies of Lubber’s defence are also available from the Spokesman’s Office.”[42] In October 2005, UN Secretary-General Kofi Annan went on record stating that the resignation by Mr. Lubbers should not be considered as the result of any ill-doing, but was only the result of ongoing media-pressure. [

When Kofi Annan declared to the UNHCR-staff that Lubbers had not been found guilty of any ill-doings and nevertheless resigned (in the interest of the organisation), OIOS and more in particular the officer in charge, Barbara Dixon, had completed its course; contrary to UN-rules and regulations. This began with not protecting confidentiality; resulting in New York Times-publications. This was followed up by active manipulation of the media (here has to be inserted citation out of analysis Van der Stoel). In the Autumn of 2004, after that S.G. Kofi Annan before the summer had closed the case because the OIOS-report could not be substantiated, the report was made available to Cynthia Brzak. Cynthia Brzak went subsequently in appeal against the conclusion of S.G. Kofi Annan, but withdrew shortly after her appeal. The next and last step under responsibility of Barbara Dixon was the publication in The Independent. According to UN-rules and regulations only then the response by Mr. Lubbers and the analysis of Max van der Stoel became public. Only then the OIOS course of action, i.e. to push for resignation by an ongoing media pressure, became clearly visible. To fuel the media pressure Barbara Dixon had introduced anonymous cases. Even after the resignation none of these "cases" proved to be real. There was and remained only one case, i.e. Cynthia Brzak, which could not be substantiated at all.

User:Columbo User talk:Columbo

Addition of References etc.

I have added most of the references in the form of footnotes and have tried to put it in encyclopedic language mostly following what had been on the disc page. However I did leave out unsubstantiated accusations as well as personal attacks, i.e. Dixon, etc. This doesn't really belong in an encyclopedia even if it could be referenced. I haven't included the statement that van der Stoel's recommend investigation of leaks did not take place as we can't really know that it didn't, and besides it isn't really very relevant to the entry. I have left in place the last para in the new press reports subsection, but am not really very comfortable. It gives the implication the the US Supreme Court dismissed the case because of the lack of merits of the accusation when in fact it did so because of jurisdiction questions which are linked to issues of diplomatic immunity. But maybe others have some views. One only has to look at the complaintant's submission to the US Supreme court to conclude that she did not withdraw her complaint because she accepted the SG's decision. Joel Mc (talk) 12:54, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

Reorganization of sections

Today I have tried to reorganized some of the sections. I hope that the logic is acceptable. It is mostly time based: i.e. I put the block quote later since the public did not know its contents until the Independent published. I have put back the heading now sexual harassment complaint to take into account the opposition above to the word charges. I am afraid that I have only just come from behind the Great Firewall of China and was unable to do any editing...--Joel Mc (talk) 15:34, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

Photos

Hi guys. I don't know how to do it, but maybe someone could upload this photo: http://www.flickr.com/photos/ter-burg/6832764615/

It's CC-licensed. It's not such a nice photo composition-wise but the current one is 27 years old! 83.80.199.59 (talk) 19:27, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

Odd use of Word "anonymously"

"Shortly after the election of 1982 incumbent Prime Minister and Leader Dries van Agt unexpectedly announced he was stepping down and Lubbers was anonymously selected as his successor as Leader and the de facto next Prime Minister. Following cabinet formation of 1982 Lubbers formed the Cabinet Lubbers I and became Prime Minister of the Netherlands taking office on 4 November 1982."

In bold, was this anonymous election or unanimous election. Perhaps a citation will help make this clearer. SrUncleMel (talk) 16:57, 24 September 2023 (UTC)