Talk:UNRWA: Difference between revisions

Browse history interactively

← Previous edit Next edit →

Content deleted Content added

VisualWikitext

Inline

Revision as of 12:30, 8 March 2024

Palestine Mid‑importance

	Palestine portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Palestine, a team effort dedicated to building and maintaining comprehensive, informative and balanced articles related to the geographic Palestine region, the Palestinian people and the State of Palestine on Wikipedia. Join us by visiting the project page, where you can add your name to the list of members where you can contribute to the discussions.PalestineWikipedia:WikiProject PalestineTemplate:WikiProject PalestinePalestine-related articles
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

International relations: United Nations Mid‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject International relations, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of International relations on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.International relationsWikipedia:WikiProject International relationsTemplate:WikiProject International relationsInternational relations articles
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by WikiProject United Nations.

Warning: active arbitration remedies

The contentious topics procedure applies to this article. This article is related to the Arab–Israeli conflict, which is a contentious topic. Furthermore, the following rules apply when editing this article:

You must be logged-in and extended-confirmed to edit or discuss this topic on any page (except for making edit requests, provided they are not disruptive)
You may not make more than 1 revert within 24 hours on any edits related to this topic

Editors who repeatedly or seriously fail to adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, any expected standards of behaviour, or any normal editorial process may be blocked or restricted by an administrator. Editors are advised to familiarise themselves with the contentious topics procedures before editing this page.

Further information

The exceptions to the extended confirmed restriction are:

Non-extended-confirmed editors may use the "Talk:" namespace only to make edit requests related to articles within the topic area, provided they are not disruptive.
Non-extended-confirmed editors may not create new articles, but administrators may exercise discretion when deciding how to enforce this remedy on article creations. Deletion of new articles created by non-extended-confirmed editors is permitted but not required.

With respect to the WP:1RR restriction:

Clear vandalism of whatever origin may be reverted without restriction. Also, reverts made solely to enforce the extended confirmed restriction are not considered edit warring.
Editors who violate this restriction may be blocked by any uninvolved administrator, even on a first offence.

After being warned, contentious topics procedure can be used against any editor who repeatedly or seriously fails to adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, any expected standards of behaviour, or any normal editorial process. Contentious topic sanctions can include blocks, topic-bans, or other restrictions.
Editors may report violations of these restrictions to the Arbitration enforcement noticeboard.

If you are unsure if your edit is appropriate, discuss it here on this talk page first. When in doubt, don't revert!

This article has previously been nominated to be moved. Please review the prior discussions if you are considering re-nomination.

Discussions:

Moved, 28 October 2014, from United Nations Relief and Works Agency for Palestine Refugees in the Near East to UNRWA, see discussion.
Not moved, 15 February 2024, from UNRWA to United Nations Relief and Works Agency for Palestine Refugees in the Near East, see discussion.

Archives

Archive 1	Archive 2	Archive 3
Archive 4

This page has archives. Sections older than 14 days may be automatically archived by when more than 3 sections are present.

RFC on telegram allegations

Should the article something similar to the following:

According to UN Watch, during the Israel-Hamas war, some UNRWA workers used an internal 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)

Survey

Yes. These allegations have been widely covered by reliable sources:

It is a 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. BilledMammal (talk) 12:33, 30 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yes per BilledMammal who is thorough with research into sourcing as usual JM (talk) 19:07, 1 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
No (bot-summoned) 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, --Goldsztajn (talk) 04:15, 22 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
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. ⇒SWATJester ^{Shoot Blues, Tell VileRat!} 03:33, 24 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
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. Iskandar323 (talk) 16:11, 24 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
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. nableezy - 15:06, 27 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
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. Zero^talk 02:58, 28 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
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). Zanahary (talk) 03:14, 28 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion

Bad RFC RSN for source reliability questions. See #UN watch allegations above.Selfstudier (talk) 12:38, 30 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
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. BilledMammal (talk) 12:44, 30 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
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. Selfstudier (talk) 12:53, 30 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
If reliable sources report something, isn't the idea to trust their fact-gathering and editorial processes and treat them as reliable? Zanahary (talk) 07:48, 24 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
mention but wording to be determined. Senorangel (talk) 04:07, 2 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Video is said to show U.N. relief worker taking body of Israeli shot on Oct. 7

https://www.washingtonpost.com/investigations/2024/02/16/unrwa-video-oct-7-israel/

worth a mention? 2A0D:6FC7:441:1C6A:957B:4FF0:57AC:9C2 (talk) 13:30, 23 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

No. We don't include news about IDF taking a body in our main Israel article. — kashmīrī ^TALK 15:13, 23 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I don't understand this reply. Zanahary (talk) 07:47, 24 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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. Selfstudier (talk) 09:45, 24 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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. — kashmīrī ^TALK 12:57, 24 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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. Zanahary (talk) 16:30, 24 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Out of date information about renewal

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 BUSHMAN1024 (talk) 06:40, 5 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@@ Line 56: / Line 56: @@
 *:::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)
-== Requested move 15 February 2024 ==
-<div class="boilerplate mw-archivedtalk" style="background-color: #efe; margin: 0; padding: 0 10px 0 10px; border: 1px dotted #aaa;"><!-- Template:RM top -->
-:''The following is a closed discussion of a [[Wikipedia:Requested moves|requested move]]. <span style="color:red">'''Please do not modify it.'''</span> Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a [[Wikipedia:move review|move review]] after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.''
-The result of the move request was: '''Not moved.''' <small>([[Wikipedia:Requested moves/Closing instructions#Closure by a page mover|closed by non-admin page mover]])</small> [[User:Adumbrativus|Adumbrativus]] ([[User talk:Adumbrativus|talk]]) 05:20, 22 February 2024 (UTC)
-----
-[[:UNRWA]] → {{no redirect|United Nations Relief and Works Agency for Palestine Refugees in the Near East}} – I feel like we should use the longer, official title, similar to how we do at [[Central Intelligence Agency]] (CIA), [[Federal Bureau of Investigation]], [[United Nations Human Rights Council]] (UNHRC), [[United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees]] (UNHCR), and [[United Nations Economic and Social Council]] (ECOSOC). I view this as being more in-line with the [[WP:CRITERIA|criterion]] of consistency than leaving the title as it is at present. — [[User:Red-tailed hawk|<span style="color: #660000">Red-tailed&nbsp;hawk</span>]]&nbsp;<sub>[[User talk:Red-tailed hawk|<span style="color: #660000">(nest)</span>]]</sub> 02:15, 15 February 2024 (UTC)
-*'''Keep at UNRWA'''. Judging by Google Search counts, UNRWA appears to be by far the [[WP:COMMONNAME]], with [https://www.google.com/search?q=%22UNRWA%22 50 million results] vs [https://www.google.com/search?q=%22United+Nations+Relief+and+Works+Agency+for+Palestine+Refugees+in+the+Near+East%22 0.6 million]. There is precedent for using a shorter name when the official name is long, for example, [[Naming Commission]]. –[[User:Novem Linguae|<span style="color:blue">'''Novem Linguae'''</span>]] <small>([[User talk:Novem Linguae|talk]])</small> 02:28, 15 February 2024 (UTC)
-*'''Oppose move.''' The initials are the common name. '''[[User:Old Naval Rooftops|<span style="color:#002244">O.N.R.</span>]]'''&nbsp;<sup>[[User talk:Old Naval Rooftops|<span style="color:#002244">(talk)</span>]]</sup> 02:34, 15 February 2024 (UTC)
-*'''Oppose / Keep at UNRWA''' per others above. The initials are very very very much the [[WP:COMMONNAME]] to a humongous margin. <small>[[User:Paintspot|Paintspot Infez]] ([[User talk:Paintspot|talk]])</small> 02:43, 15 February 2024 (UTC)
-*'''Oppose''', the relevant guide is [[WP:NCACRO]], as per above the acronym is overwhelmingly used. [[WP:COMMONNAME]] is higher than [[WP:CONSISTENCY]]. Although [[WP:NCACRO]] argues the CIA isn't at that because of academic use, not sure if that is true here? '''[[User:DankJae|<span style="color: black">Dank</span>]][[User talk:DankJae|<span style="color: red">Jae</span>]]''' 23:07, 15 February 2024 (UTC)
-*'''Strong support''' per [[WP:NCGAL]]: {{tq|Use official names in article titles (...), unless an agency is almost always known by an acronym}}. UNRWA is consistently spelled out in full on official documents, in the website header, etc. Then we have [[WP:ACROTITLE]]: {{tq|if readers somewhat familiar with the subject are likely to '''only''' recognise the name by its acronym, then the acronym should be used as a title.}}. Until a few weeks ago, hardly anybody in the world outside of the Middle East would recognise what ''UNRWA'' stands for – and hardly anybody in the world will remember this in a year or two from now (much like we have [[United Nations Assistance Mission for Rwanda]], even though it's commonly known as UNAMIR). In conclusion, guidelines are telling us to have a full official name of this UN agency in the title. — [[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>]] 02:59, 16 February 2024 (UTC)
-*'''Oppose''', for reasons stayed above. <span style="border:1px solid;padding:2px 6px;font-arial">'''〜 [[User:Adflatuss|<span style="color:#3cb400">Adflatuss</span>]] • [[User talk:Adflatuss|<span style="color:#0066ff">talk</span>]]'''</span> 03:02, 16 February 2024 (UTC)
-*'''Oppose''', UNRWA is overwhelmingly the [[WP:COMMON]] name today and I don't think it's going to go off the radar anymore as the current crisis is existential for Palestine, that is to say, UNRWA is a key protagonist and the coming period will be one in which Palestine will remain in the news as it seems almost certain that its political form will be reshaped one way or the other (let's hope it's for the better, for the people's sake) and there will remain ample references to UNRWA in the media. [[User:Keizers|Keizers]] ([[User talk:Keizers|talk]]) 15:06, 18 February 2024 (UTC)
-*'''Soft Oppose:''' Fellow UN agency [[UNICEF]] uses said abbreviation instead of the full name for the article title.  (On the other hand, UNICEF is an acronym (like [[laser]]) while UNRWA is only an abbreviation.  If someone can show that acronyms (but not abbreviations) are consistently used for article titles (especially for UN agencies and similar organizations), then I'd be open to supporting the proposed move to the full name.) — [[User:ROADKILL|ROADKILL]] ([[User talk:ROADKILL|talk]]) 05:34, 19 February 2024 (UTC)
-:'''Keep''' per Novem Linguae and ROADKILL. [[User:RadioactiveBoulevardier|RadioactiveBoulevardier]] ([[User talk:RadioactiveBoulevardier|talk]]) 12:06, 21 February 2024 (UTC)
-<div style="padding-left: 1.6em; font-style: italic; border-top: 1px solid #a2a9b1; margin: 0.5em 0; padding-top: 0.5em">The discussion above is closed. <b style="color: #FF0000;">Please do not modify it.</b> Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.</div><!-- from [[Template:Archive bottom]] -->
-</div><div style="clear:both;" class=></div>
 == Video is said to show U.N. relief worker taking body of Israeli shot on Oct. 7 ==