transfered from the previous version, hope it's useful. HG | Talk 14:32, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Creation of page[edit]

I created this page to replace the current Israel and the United Nations page. Briefly, I think that the current page is incomplete, poorly written, and that the title should include (future state of) Palestine.

You are welcomed to add factual content to this page but please:

Stay in the subject; this is a page about the UN, not about the Arab-Israeli conflict. Please provide specific examples about UN actions or publications.
Like everything about this region, this subject is controversial. No gratuitous opinions please. Rather, provide specific examples.
As you can see, I saved you the trouble of flagging the article with an NPOV warning. This article is about bias. One simply cannot be neutral when discussing bias. If you think the article is not representative of the truth, please edit it with reference to specific examples.

Emmanuelm 18:59, 17 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Vote on replacement of current article with this one[edit]

Please go to the Talk:Israel_and_the_United_Nations page to express your opinion. Emmanuelm 18:48, 17 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Feedback[edit]

Telaviv1 posted this in my user page. Here it is with my comments.

I think your introduction will be regarded as too one-sided, POV as they say here. You will need to water down a lot of what you say about the UN being biased or it will not gain acceptance. the introduction is particularly important as it gives the first impression, if people don't acept the intro they won't like anything else. Rather then making definite statements like "the UN is anti-Israel" you need to say "The UN has been accused of being anti-Israel" and also provide appropriate references. (UN Watch for example?).

The Wikipedia:Lead section page says "The lead should be capable of standing alone as a concise overview of the article, establishing context, summarizing the most important points, explaining why the subject is interesting or notable, and briefly describing its notable controversies". In other words, I do not need to to give references in the lead, there are plenty in the text below. I will, however, concede that the lead is more blunt than the text and changed it.Emmanuelm

Also I wouldn't accuse the UN of Geographic ignorance (re-Middle East) if they call it that they probably know what they're doing. It just devalues your article.

Why not accuse them? Are they above reproach? Look up the Wikipedia articles about Middle East, Near East, the Levant and decide for yourself which term best describes this group of four countries. Emmanuelm

I think you might do better making a seperate article called Anti-Israel Bias at the UN and linking to it. You should beware when connecting Israel with South-Africa as this is an Arab/left-wing tactic designed to encourage boycotting/delegitimizing Israel and take care not to put in statements that encourage that perception.

I disagree. The purpose of a "country x and the United Nations" article is to discuss the attitudes at the UN regarding this country and, therefore, bias for/against this country. I make very little reference to South Africa in the article. Emmanuelm

I would reccommend a more step-by-step approach, slowly changing the article to better suit your views but trying not to override people who have different opinions. Basically any article that works will have to be a compromise between opposing views.

Honestly, I read the current Israel and the United Nations article and it was so incomplete and clumsy that I did not know where to start. So I rewrote it from scratch. Emmanuelm

I do think the UN is not a neutral arbiter. But the UN is a vital world body which is at heart "Good for the Jews" and our objective should be reform. I read the Security Council debates for 1947-1949 and gained a clear impression that while you can ignore a General Assembly resolution the Security Council has a lot of clout. The super-powers don't like being ignored.

I agree. I admit that I spent too little time on the UNSC, a body much more objective and useful than the GA or the committees. With this article, my intention was to give hard data and facts to those who have influence or a readership, hoping something will come of it. As for the hope of reform, we all saw with the "reform" of the Human rights commission that the UN is simply too deeply rooted in its ways to truly change, and that the only meaningful change will be in the mind of the public.Emmanuelm 20:16, 18 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

A description not an argument[edit]

It's fine to want to improve an article and, yes, sometimes an overhaul or rewrite may be necessary. Just glancing at the intro, though, indicates serious potential problems. The lead paragraph introduces an argument, arraying evidence and supporting claims that leads to a (clearly cued) conclusion: "Therefore, the UN has adopted a pro-Arab position...." However, a Wikipedia article needs to be a description, not an argument.

First, the article should not present or strongly favor one side's argument in a broader debate. Where is the view that the UN is not pro-Arab in the way claimed here? This is a neutrality problem.
Second, the article should not represent your argument, but only arguments made in notable sources. This is a problem with original research.
Third, while we do describe significant arguments from various point-of-view, these are not Wikipedia's view but rather shown to be drawn from a reliable source. Who is making such claims as "South Africa, the only country treated more harshly at the UN than Israel"? This is a problem due to the need to write about and reference the reliable sources.

I'm sure you've put time and effort into your article, but it's not suitable for Wikipedia as long as it is structured to make an argument (e.g., that UN is pro-Arab). I'm not questioning whether your argument is more true than competing views, because it may well be, but I'd encourage you to think about how a presentation is needed for the encyclopedia. HG | Talk 19:18, 19 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with most of what the other commenters say. New material is always welcome, but the articles should be merged in some way. There are also factually incorrect statements - extremely incorrect in this instance: "Surprisingly, the 1967 six-day war, the most important event in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, initially generated little discussion at the UN. " There was an absolutely enormous amount of exhausting and complex debate at the UN from the time of the fighting and earlier, repeatedly bouncing from the SC to the GA and back, one of the biggest debates of all time, subject of whole books!John Z 19:59, 19 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

On the positive side, looking at the other article again, I see Emmanuelm's point. The structure and organization of this article is far superior and it includes much that should be in the other article.John Z 20:15, 19 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Article deleted and redirected[edit]

I removed the article for now, it needs to be rewritten to comply with the NPOV and NOR policies. You may see how it is going at User:Emmanuelm/Israel, Palestine and the United Nations. Thanks for the comments.Emmanuelm 14:23, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I fixed a link on main article talk and blanked the Redirect's Talk page (moving contents here). Take care. HG | Talk 14:49, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

PR done some changes[edit]

I've done some changes to section the early years of the article. Since this is Emmanual's page he is at liberty to do what he likes with them.

I don't see any listing or reference to all the UN resolutions that have condemned Israel for human rights abuses and aggression on its neighbours. It might be worth putting these into templates and linking them from the text (otherwise they'd over-power the narrative). PR^talk(New Sig for PalstinRembred) 20:24, 21 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Seeing as this is your page, you were perfectly within your rights to reject my suggestions. However, I have to tell you that some of what I wrote was substantially better (factually and linguistically) than what you've replaced it with. Nor did you notify me of your reversion/objections. If you really intend your new version to be acceptable to the community, you will need to graciously accept real improvements and not act summararily against the suggestions of others. PR^talk 10:03, 26 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Fair use rationale for Image:Unrwa.gif[edit]

Image:Unrwa.gif is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 20:15, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]