Jump to content

Talk:UNRWA: Difference between revisions

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Browse history interactively
← Previous edit
Content deleted Content added
VisualWikitext
→Discussion: Bad RfC
 
(44 intermediate revisions by 22 users not shown)
Line 1: Line 1:
{{WikiProject banner shell|class=B|
{{WikiProject banner shell|class=B|1=
{{WikiProject Palestine|importance=Mid}}
{{WikiProject Palestine|importance=Mid}}
{{WikiProject International relations | importance=Mid | un=yes}}
{{WikiProject International relations | importance=Mid | un=yes}}
{{WikiProject Human rights |importance=High}}
}}
}}
{{Arab-Israeli Arbitration Enforcement}}
{{Arab-Israeli Arbitration Enforcement}}
Line 18: Line 19:
{{archives|search=yes}}
{{archives|search=yes}}


== Italy restores UNWRA funding ==
==RFC on telegram allegations==
<!-- [[User:DoNotArchiveUntil]] 15:01, 5 March 2024 (UTC) -->{{User:ClueBot III/DoNotArchiveUntil|1709650872}}
Should the article something similar to the following:
{{tqb|According to UN Watch, during the [[Israel-Hamas war]], some UNRWA workers used an internal [[Telegram (software)|Telegram]] channel with over 3000 members, intended to facilitate their work, to praise and celebrate the [[2023 Hamas-led attack on Israel]]. According to UN Watch, this included sharing photos of dead and captured Israeli's, as well as calling for the execution of hostages.}}
12:33, 30 January 2024 (UTC)


https://www.ansa.it/sito/notizie/mondo/2024/05/25/tajani-litalia-riparte-con-i-finanziamenti-allunrwa_a96697db-8037-4192-8d93-1a539fd4f67c.html
===Survey===
*'''Yes'''. These allegations have been widely covered by reliable sources:
*#[https://www.timesofisrael.com/watchdog-finds-unrwa-workers-praised-hamas-massacres-in-internal-telegram-channel/ Times of Israel]
*#[https://www.nationalreview.com/news/u-n-agency-teachers-cheered-hamas-as-october-attack-unfolded-called-for-execution-of-jews-in-group-chat/ National Review]
*#[https://www.jpost.com/israel-news/article-781531 Jerusalem Post]
*#[https://www.algemeiner.com/2024/01/11/un-agency-staff-praised-hamas-oct-7-massacre-telegram-channel-watchdog-reveals/ Algemeiner]
*#[https://www.telegraph.co.uk/world-news/2024/01/26/un-employees-sacked-alleged-hamas-oct-attack-israel/ The Telegraph]
*#[https://nationalpost.com/news/world/israel-middle-east/messages-un-agency-telegram-channel-teachers-glorified-hamas-massacre National Post]
*#[https://www.i24news.tv/en/news/international/1704873044-group-of-3-000-unrwa-teachers-has-glorified-october-7-massacre-terrorism i24news]
*#[https://www.israelhayom.com/2024/01/26/us-official-to-israel-hayom-unrwa-to-remain-trusted-partner-post-war/ Israel Hayom]
*#[https://www.jewishnews.co.uk/unrwa-staff-celebrated-october-7-massacre-watchdog-finds/ Jewish News]
*#[https://www.ynetnews.com/article/bjfesbnd6 Ynet News]
*#[https://www.afr.com/politics/federal/saving-lives-or-inciting-hate-the-un-body-getting-australian-aid-20240119-p5eyli Australian Financial Review]
*#[https://www.jns.org/unrwa-teachers-telegram-channel-glorifies-oct-7-hamas-massacre/ Jewish News Service]
*#[https://www.israelnationalnews.com/news/383352 Israel National news]
*#[https://www.independent.ie/irish-news/micheal-martin-says-ireland-will-keep-on-funding-unrwa-despite-aid-workers-suspended-for-alleged-hamas-collusion/a421870840.html Irish Independent]
:It is a {{tq|significant viewpoint}} published in reliable sources; It would be a [[WP:DUE]] violation to exclude it.
:Note that some of these sources go beyond merely attributing the claims to UN Watch and instead verify some or all of them. [[User:BilledMammal|BilledMammal]] ([[User talk:BilledMammal|talk]]) 12:33, 30 January 2024 (UTC)
*'''Yes''' per BilledMammal who is thorough with research into sourcing as usual [[User:JM2023|JM]] ([[User talk:JM2023|talk]]) 19:07, 1 February 2024 (UTC)
*'''No''' <small>(bot-summoned)</small> [[WP:UNDUE]], [[WP:RECENTISM]] and [[WP:SYNTHESIS]]. I do not see how this informs readers about UNRWA itself; at best it indicates the opinions of what appears to be a (tiny?) handful of UNRWA employees. If this channel was for work purposes of UNRWA teachers, then were these postings a breach of workplace guidelines? Think of a more extreme version of this ... if two British Army soldiers commit murder, should that appear in the British Army article? By itself, does that give us insight into the British Army? (My answer would be no). Just because information exists does not mean it should be in the article - I do not see reliable sourcing connecting the viewpoints of a small number (whatever "some" means) of employees to something specifc regarding UNRWA. This statement functions as a form of sythesis (essentially guilt by association). Again to use an example, a reliable source reporting British Army soldiers being members of the English Defence League tells us that those soldiers hold far-right views, but it does not indicate that the British Army is far-right, to do so on such sourcing alone would be synthesis. Regards, --[[User:Goldsztajn|Goldsztajn]] ([[User talk:Goldsztajn|talk]]) 04:15, 22 February 2024 (UTC)
*'''Yes''' -- newsworthy allegations that have been covered by copious amounts of reliable sources. However the wording probably should include some indication about UN Watch's inherent biases. Ideally, if it's possible to use one of the media sources that, as BilledMammal indicates, went beyond UN Watch and did the verification itself, that would be presumably better, especially if we could bypass sourcing to UN Watch at all. [[User:Swatjester|<span style="color:red">⇒</span>]][[User_talk:Swatjester|<span style="font-family:Serif"><span style="color:black">SWAT</span><span style="color:goldenrod">Jester</span></span>]] <small><sup>Shoot Blues, Tell VileRat!</sup></small> 03:33, 24 February 2024 (UTC)
*'''No:''' Per Goldsztajn. This is hardly core information. Some unsubstantiated allegations about a handful of employees connected with the subject. This only reflects on the subject itself in the most tangential of manners. It is rumour mill stuff. The fact that the proposal is to attribute this to UN Watch is presumably a reflection of the fact that there has been no independent verification of the allegation outside of this advocacy organisation. Perhaps the volume of sources reporting on it makes it due on the UN Watch page as a notable example of allegations put out by that organisation, but not here. [[User:Iskandar323|Iskandar323]] ([[User talk:Iskandar323|talk]]) 16:11, 24 February 2024 (UTC)
*'''No''' - a, wildly UNDUE, a handful of sources covering a partisan organization making some claim in the news is not in any way DUE weight for an organization that has existed for some 74 years. B. several of those sources listed above are unreliable, among them the National Post, i24, Israel National News and Algemeiner. Compared to the coverage of UNRWA as a whole this is a rounding error to 0 in weight of coverage. And it remains an allegation by an organization that itself is unreliable. '''[[User talk:Nableezy|<span style="color:#C11B17;font-size:90%">nableezy</span>]]''' - 15:06, 27 February 2024 (UTC)
*'''No''', of course. A handful of UNRWA workers is not UNRWA. This could only be relevant if official involvment of UNRWA was established by reliable sources. [[User:Zero0000|Zero]]<sup><small>[[User_talk:Zero0000|talk]]</small></sup> 02:58, 28 February 2024 (UTC)
*'''Yes'''. It's attracted coverage, all of which editorially links these messages to the UNRWA. As for arguments about the story's irrelevance to the page because it doesn't pertain to official UNRWA actions, or the relatively small number of implicated persons, I am not convinced. Reliable sources find it relevant to the UNRWA, and we should reflect that. I don't like the proposed wording, though. The agency's response of firing employees needs to be mentioned, and "According to UN Watch..." is not strong enough. It was reported as fact by numerous reliable sources, so the sourcing should be more like the "...exposed by a UN Watch report"-type wordings used in sources (though I find "exposed" too sensationalist). [[User:Zanahary|Zanahary]] ([[User talk:Zanahary|talk]]) 03:14, 28 February 2024 (UTC)


== 2024, UNRWA banned *and* designated "terror organisation" ==
===Discussion===
*'''Bad RFC''' RSN for source reliability questions. See [[#UN watch allegations]] above.[[User:Selfstudier|Selfstudier]] ([[User talk:Selfstudier|talk]]) 12:38, 30 January 2024 (UTC)
*:It's not a question of source reliability, it's a question of whether the allegations are sufficiently significant to warrant coverage under [[WP:DUE]]. Based on how widely the allegations have been covered in reliable sources I believe they are. [[User:BilledMammal|BilledMammal]] ([[User talk:BilledMammal|talk]]) 12:44, 30 January 2024 (UTC)
*::Personally, and I guess it would be the same for most editors, I have no objection to citing reliable sources for material. If, OTOH, the reliable sources are citing UN Watch rather than asserting something as fact, I do have some concerns about that. So by all means cite the sources that do not rely on UN Watch and proceed in that manner. [[User:Selfstudier|Selfstudier]] ([[User talk:Selfstudier|talk]]) 12:53, 30 January 2024 (UTC)
*:::If reliable sources report something, isn't the idea to trust their fact-gathering and editorial processes and treat them as reliable? [[User:Zanahary|Zanahary]] ([[User talk:Zanahary|talk]]) 07:48, 24 February 2024 (UTC)
*'''mention''' but wording to be determined. [[User:Senorangel|Senorangel]] ([[User talk:Senorangel|talk]]) 04:07, 2 February 2024 (UTC)
* '''Bad RfC''', as its subject matter is, ultimately, the (un)reliability of UN Watch and not the importance/relevance of a given piece of information. (BTW, it doesn't matter whether UN Watch's report has been mentioned in other sources; the issue is the credibility of the accuser). — [[User:Kashmiri|<span style="color:#30c;font:italic bold 1em 'Candara';text-shadow:#aaf 0.2em 0.2em 0.1em;">kashmīrī</span>]]&nbsp;[[User talk:Kashmiri|<sup style="color:#80f;font-family:'Candara';">TALK</sup>]] 12:00, 30 March 2024 (UTC)


UNRWA was legislated by Israel with 2 laws on 2024. The first one banned its operations (currently in the article), but a second one designated it a "terror organisation" (not mentioned in the article and it should).
== Video is said to show U.N. relief worker taking body of Israeli shot on Oct. 7 ==
https://www.france24.com/en/middle-east/20241028-live-un-security-council-to-hold-emergency-meeting-after-iran-request [[Special:Contributions/109.49.139.107|109.49.139.107]] ([[User talk:109.49.139.107|talk]]) 11:04, 29 October 2024 (UTC)


:Not done. The second one did originally intend to classify UNRWA as a terrorist organization but apparently that was [https://archive.is/8IPdG "softened due to legal obstacles"], in any event, material about this legislation is better situated in the [[UNRWA and Israel]] article. [[User:Selfstudier|Selfstudier]] ([[User talk:Selfstudier|talk]]) 11:21, 29 October 2024 (UTC)
https://www.washingtonpost.com/investigations/2024/02/16/unrwa-video-oct-7-israel/


== Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 9 November 2024 ==
worth a mention? [[Special:Contributions/2A0D:6FC7:441:1C6A:957B:4FF0:57AC:9C2|2A0D:6FC7:441:1C6A:957B:4FF0:57AC:9C2]] ([[User talk:2A0D:6FC7:441:1C6A:957B:4FF0:57AC:9C2|talk]]) 13:30, 23 February 2024 (UTC)


{{edit extended-protected|UNRWA|answered=yes}}
:No. We don't include news about IDF taking a body in our main [[Israel]] article. — [[User:Kashmiri|<span style="color:#30c;font:italic bold 1em 'Candara';text-shadow:#aaf 0.2em 0.2em 0.1em;">kashmīrī</span>]]&nbsp;[[User talk:Kashmiri|<sup style="color:#80f;font-family:'Candara';">TALK</sup>]] 15:13, 23 February 2024 (UTC)
⚫
::I don't understand this reply. [[User:Zanahary|Zanahary]] ([[User talk:Zanahary|talk]]) 07:47, 24 February 2024 (UTC)
:::I think they mean that the IDF habitually take and hang on to bodies and we do not play that up in our articles. So then, why the fuss about one here? It's not even "clear if he is alive" and "It is not clear why or where the two men took the Israeli or why they left the other bodies". The only point that is possibly of relevance is not the taking of the body but that one of the persons doing the taking is a UN relief worker and one of the 12 accused by Israel. If this were going to go anywhere, it might be at the article covering that controversy. [[User:Selfstudier|Selfstudier]] ([[User talk:Selfstudier|talk]]) 09:45, 24 February 2024 (UTC)
:::This is an article about an '''organisation'''. People come here to learn what UNRWA is, how it was established, and how it works. What one of its employees did in their free time in October 2023 is [[WP:UNDUE]] here, much like what an Israeli policeman or civil servant did in their free time last year would be undue in ''[[Israel]]'' article. — [[User:Kashmiri|<span style="color:#30c;font:italic bold 1em 'Candara';text-shadow:#aaf 0.2em 0.2em 0.1em;">kashmīrī</span>]]&nbsp;[[User talk:Kashmiri|<sup style="color:#80f;font-family:'Candara';">TALK</sup>]] 12:57, 24 February 2024 (UTC)
::::I don’t think comparing the UNRWA article to the Israel article makes sense; one is an agency, the other is a state/land. But in any case, I think that this might be due for inclusion only if it received extensive coverage that links it to the UNRWA. [[User:Zanahary|Zanahary]] ([[User talk:Zanahary|talk]]) 16:30, 24 February 2024 (UTC)


<!-- State UNAMBIGUOUSLY your suggested changes below this line, preferably in a "change X to Y" format. Other editors need to know what to add or remove. Blank edit requests will be declined. -->
== Out of date information about renewal ==


{{textdiff |On the basis of his 2009 analyses for WINEP, referred to in previous sections, former UNRWA general-counsel James G. Lindsay and fellow researcher for Washington Institute for Near East Policy[citation needed] made the following suggestions for improvement:[citation needed] |
In organisation and mandate it says '13 December 2019, extending until 30 June 2023.[30][31]' however the most recent renewal is from 22 December to 30 jun 2026 as mentioned in the introduction [[User:BUSHMAN1024|BUSHMAN1024]] ([[User talk:BUSHMAN1024|talk]]) 06:40, 5 March 2024 (UTC)
On the basis of his 2009 analyses for WINEP, referred to in previous sections, former UNRWA general-counsel James G. Lindsay and fellow researcher for Washington Institute for Near East Policy[citation needed] made the following suggestions for improvement:[1]}}


[1] {{cite web |last1=Lindsay |first1=James G. |title=Fixing UNRWA: Repairing the UN's Troubled System of Aid to Palestinian Refugees |url=https://www.washingtoninstitute.org/policy-analysis/fixing-unrwa-repairing-uns-troubled-system-aid-palestinian-refugees |publisher=The Washington Institute for Near East Policy
== Page inconsistency ==


<!-- Write your request ABOVE this line and do not remove the tildes and curly brackets below. -->
Why is it that this article has a title "Torture of UN staff" when all of the citations contain reference to a single report that was produced by UNRWA itself? Shouldn't the title be "Alleged Torture of UN staff?"
}} [[User:Zlmark|Zlmark]] ([[User talk:Zlmark|talk]]) 11:46, 9 November 2024 (UTC)
⚫
: Done [[User:Rainsage|Rainsage]] ([[User talk:Rainsage|talk]]) 03:14, 26 November 2024 (UTC)


<ref></ref>
As a comparison, in this very same article, whenever the involvement of UNRWA staff in the attack on Israel on Oct 7, the word alleged is included. Isn't this the other way around as it was proven that an UNRWA teacher had indeed participated in the attack, along with others as [https://www.i24news.tv/en/news/israel-at-war/1709796476-new-report-confirms-3-unrwa-workers-took-part-in-oct-7-attack| can be seen here].

At the very least we should edit the title to "Alleged torture of UN staff", wouldn't you agree? [[Special:Contributions/147.235.196.65|147.235.196.65]] ([[User talk:147.235.196.65|talk]]) 02:48, 30 March 2024 (UTC)

:[https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2024/3/13/after-the-unrwa-report-more-accounts-of-israels-torture-in-gaza Not just the UNRWA report: Countless accounts of Israeli torture in Gaza] [[User:Iskandar323|Iskandar323]] ([[User talk:Iskandar323|talk]]) 11:39, 30 March 2024 (UTC)

Not done. The main title, [[Torture during the Israel–Hamas war]] does not contain the word alleged. Also see [[UNRWA October 7 controversy]], which is about a series of evidence-free Israeli allegations made against UNRWA, no "alleged" in that title either. Whether to include words such as accusation/alleged is an editorial decision and there is some inconsistency in the results, I would suggest that it should depend on the relative strength of the evidence, I would rate a UN report higher up the scale than a report by the IDF or Hamas for example. Since changes like this require editorial consensus, best left to extended confirmed editors to decide ([[WP:ARBECR]] refers). [[User:Selfstudier|Selfstudier]] ([[User talk:Selfstudier|talk]]) 10:51, 30 March 2024 (UTC)

Latest revision as of 03:14, 26 November 2024

Italy restores UNWRA funding

[edit]

https://www.ansa.it/sito/notizie/mondo/2024/05/25/tajani-litalia-riparte-con-i-finanziamenti-allunrwa_a96697db-8037-4192-8d93-1a539fd4f67c.html

2024, UNRWA banned *and* designated "terror organisation"

[edit]

UNRWA was legislated by Israel with 2 laws on 2024. The first one banned its operations (currently in the article), but a second one designated it a "terror organisation" (not mentioned in the article and it should). https://www.france24.com/en/middle-east/20241028-live-un-security-council-to-hold-emergency-meeting-after-iran-request 109.49.139.107 (talk) 11:04, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Not done. The second one did originally intend to classify UNRWA as a terrorist organization but apparently that was "softened due to legal obstacles", in any event, material about this legislation is better situated in the UNRWA and Israel article. Selfstudier (talk) 11:21, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 9 November 2024

[edit]


−
On the basis of his 2009 analyses for WINEP, referred to in previous sections, former UNRWA general-counsel James G. Lindsay and fellow researcher for Washington Institute for Near East Policy[citation needed] made the following suggestions for improvement:[citation needed]
+
On the basis of his 2009 analyses for WINEP, referred to in previous sections, former UNRWA general-counsel James G. Lindsay and fellow researcher for Washington Institute for Near East Policy[citation needed] made the following suggestions for improvement:[1]

[1] Lindsay, James G. "Fixing UNRWA: Repairing the UN's Troubled System of Aid to Palestinian Refugees". The Washington Institute for Near East Policy. Zlmark (talk) 11:46, 9 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Done Rainsage (talk) 03:14, 26 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Cite error: There are <ref> tags on this page without content in them (see the help page).

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Talk:UNRWA&oldid=1259616833"