Talk:Durban Review Conference

Anti-racism or antisemitism

I think this article belongs in both catalogies. The conference IS an anti-racism conference but there is an issue with the conference itself that related to antisemitism. Comments? Oboler (talk) 01:51, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

If you are referring to the wealth of allegations of antisemitism in the conference itself, it might be worthwhile to expand the boycotts section to one referring more generally to criticism and controversy. This section would then warrant discussion pertinent to these allegations and reports, such as this one [1]. masqueraid 18:11, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

I agree with masqueraid. The Boycott is just the result of a series of criticism, not only antisemitism. The Dutch Foreign minister said he was worried over lack of mention of sexual orientation and there is worry that Islamic countries trying to ban criticism of religion, specifically Islam, could harm free speech at the summit. It should be expanded, with boycotts being a sub section of a wider Criticism section. Also, I always thought when a Critical section of the article becomes larger then the main portion itself, then there is this feeling of bias.Lemniwinks (talk) 03:07, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

It's not even strictly related to antisemitism. While Iran may have elements or hints to antisemitism, it's quite clear that giving more rights to Hebrews inside Israel, it's ethnoreligious discrimination. --AaThinker (talk) 09:25, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

There are also the important issue of reparations for slavery, which the us opposed in 2001, and religious discrimination - which Israel practices (see law of return).93.96.148.42 (talk) 23:25, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

Breaking: US to pull out of Durban II

[2]

U.S. pulling out of ‘Durban II’ conference By Ron Kampeas · February 27, 2009

WASHINGTON (JTA) -- The Obama administration has decided to boycott the so-called Durban II conference out of concerns for anti-Semitism.

Multiple sources on a conference call with the White House on Friday told JTA that the Obama administration had opted not to attend any further preparatory meetings ahead of the planned U.N. conference against racism in Geneva in April. [con't] Tundrabuggy (talk) 21:29, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

I've expanded this section slightly and added additional references.(Hyperionsteel (talk) 00:21, 28 February 2009 (UTC))

According to the BBC, another stumbling point (besides the Zionism issue) was that the conference draft "call[s] for restrictions on the defamation of religions", which "could threaten free speech". --Delirium (talk) 03:54, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

Well, then again

Maybe not [3] .... Tundrabuggy (talk) 03:14, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

Boycott map

Suggestion: reverse or change the colors signifying "considering boycott" and "boycotting". The current coloring is counter-intuitive, as burgundy appears "stronger" than red, and it looks like the burgundy colored countries are the ones who've actually announced a boycott, which is not the case. Jalapenos do exist (talk) 19:01, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

Done and Done boss Lemniwinks (talk) 21:18, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

Keep up the good work, young man  :) Jalapenos do exist (talk) 21:23, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

Just wanted to say nice work with the map :) Oboler (talk) 03:47, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

The map is a great addition. How did you create this and was it difficult? I can see this being used as a useful tool for a considerable number of wiki articles. (Hyperionsteel (talk) 06:13, 8 March 2009 (UTC))

It wasn't that difficult. If you have a paint program of some sort which most computers do it wouldn't be hard. If you ever want to use it I guess you could save this one on the article to your comp then put it in photoshop or a paint program of some kind and mess with the colour scheme. Lemniwinks (talk) 07:00, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

I noticed someone added Australia to the list of countries considering boycotts, so I did some research and found that not only Australia, but Denmark as well have stated they cannot accept the draft resolution as it is. So I added Denmark and Australia to the map. Lemniwinks (talk) 20:31, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

I notice someone changed the map. Isn't it rathe rconfusing now to understand? We should make it simple, like, countries that are there, and those that aren't, and those that are boycotting. I can't find an attendance list or anything though. 72.140.80.212 (talk) 18:30, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

I'm working on a re vamped map. So far it's countries attending and countries boycotting. Should I make a separate grouping for those that walked out of the Iran President's speech? To my knowledge none of them have left the conference for good, except for the Czech Republic, and will still be participating. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Lemniwinks (talk • contribs) 19:46, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

That sounds like a good idea, and I would also suggest making the colors more intuitive. Jalapenos do exist (talk) 20:02, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

The map just plain sucks since the colors and their names are not immediately obvious to the casual observer to what the difference between pink, indigo, and rose is. Couldn't someone have made a map based on more solidly different colors such as red, green, blue, yellow, purple? 134.50.203.72 (talk) 21:46, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

I agree in substance, but the harsh tone is unhelpful and unfair, as the situation is complex and several people have invested a lot of work in the map. Jalapenos do exist (talk) 21:49, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

I share the sentiment. I could have a map up in no time, but I need to know who is participating in the conference, because there does not seem to be a very definite list. Lemniwinks (talk) 21:58, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

Please don't be offended but I reverting the map to a previous version. The new version was too complex (to many colours for to many elements that are undetermined). Also, the lines connecting sections of countries that are discontinuous are unnecessary. They are not used in Wikipedia or on most maps. I realize a lot of work was put into this but I feel the earlier version is clearer, at least for the time being. When the conference is over, and all of the details are known, a new map can be created.(Hyperionsteel (talk) 22:08, 20 April 2009 (UTC))

I'm not offended at all, it wasn't the map I originally created. The one you put up is a good stand by one until we can figure out each countries attendance. Lemniwinks (talk) 22:09, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

I appreciate your support. The map you originally created was an excellent idea (I figured I would try to expand on it). My concern about reverting it was that 23prootie, who created the subsequent version (and clearly put a lot of work into it), might be offended that I am reverted it. I want to make sure 23prootie understands why I took this course of action.(Hyperionsteel (talk) 22:13, 20 April 2009 (UTC))

There is a list (though it may lack a few details) here. The source is also cited in the article, currently reference #53. Jalapenos do exist (talk) 22:16, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

Also, may I suggest a two color system with small gradations within each color, e.g.:

• Blue: boycotted
• Light blue: government boycotted but sent low-level delegation (Sweden)
• Red: Planning committee (attended)
• Dark orange: attended
• Orange: considered boycotting, but attended
• Light orange: members of EU (which considered boycotting) who did not individually consider boycotting, and attended

Jalapenos do exist (talk) 22:34, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

Vatican support for the conference

I noticed that Pope Benedict had given his support for the conference, which might be surprising to some given that the neighboring right-wing government of Italy has protested the conference. However, it happens at a time when Vatican-Israel relations are at a historic low point, and so it is maybe not surprising that the Vatican would want to protest the negative ethos it has with Israel. Conversely, the Vatican has comparatively good relations with neighboring Jordan, Lebanon, Syria and the Palestinian Authority. [4] ADM (talk) 12:12, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

Global

I have added this tag, since the article gives unbalanced prominence to the views of the us, israel, and the eu. The tag should not be removed until this has been corrected.Mein Kopf (talk) 23:45, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

Could you please elaborate? Specifically, please state which views do you feel are inadequately represented in the article, and if possible provide reliable sources where those views are recorded. Jalapenos do exist (talk) 23:52, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

Please be more specific. Which views are not represented and do you have re around discusliable sources? If so, feel free to add the relevant information.(Hyperionsteel (talk) 00:07, 21 April 2009 (UTC))

I agree. Why are the views of a small number of countries who regularly boycott attempts at progression (see Kyoto, International Criminal Court, UN peacekeeping missions) considered so important that they take up the BULK of the article? Where are the statements from other equivalent countries like China and Russia or major contributors to UN missions like India? This article is biased.--Senor Freebie (talk) 03:47, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

Again, if you feel that strongly, please add citations containing the relevant information.(Hyperionsteel (talk) 04:07, 21 April 2009 (UTC))

Hey! There is a link missing to the speech transcript! This speech by the Iranian President is an integral core of this current event article and to this discussion page. I suggest that this link be posted in the main artical with out delay in order for informed discussion to proceed. How can we all sit around discussing the topic like intelligent idiots with out access to the info it contains? Answer is we can't objectively improve the quality of this article with out information thats the crux and catalyst of the artical aye. 121.44.235.100 (talk) 09:23, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

Since the tag's insertion has not been explained, I'm removing it. Jalapenos do exist (talk) 10:33, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

Please see discussion above - details of the disruptive views of a small number of states are given, and the views of the majority of the members of the United Nations are not represented. The Global tag expresses this. Unfortunately I do not have time to improve the article myself, that is why I have added the tag. I would like to add that the article gives very little attention to the issue of compensation for slavery, which is important to many participating countries, and a lot of attention to pro-Israeli sentiment. Please do not remove this tag.93.96.148.42 (talk) 23:05, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

the tag displays the following text at the head of the article. It can be reinstated by adding it to the top of the article, if it is removed.

93.96.148.42 (talk) 23:30, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

I have read and participated in the discussion above. The views of a great many states are presented in the article. That their views are disruptive is merely your personal opinion and irrelevant in any case. Again, please state which countries have expressed views that are recorded in reliable sources and are not adequately represented in the article. If possible, provide some reliable sources. Jalapenos do exist (talk) 23:41, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

Sexuality

While this has been cited as a reason for the boycotts, I fail to understand how homosexuality relates to racism, which the conference is about, given that it occurs among all races. Religion tends to be linked to race.Mein Kopf (talk) 23:49, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

A number of Western countries wanted to include a statement supporting the acceptance of homosexuality. However, many nations which have laws restricting or prohibiting homosexuality successfully prevented its inclusion. This certainly didn't help the conference's image.(Hyperionsteel (talk) 00:06, 21 April 2009 (UTC)) In fact, Sexual orientation was supposed to be one of the themes of the conference and its exclusion was unwelcome by many countries and groups.(Hyperionsteel (talk) 00:10, 21 April 2009 (UTC))

Acceptance or rejection of homosexuality has nothing to do with racism. The idea of including the subject in the agenda was as absurd as including (for example) abortion laws, or welfare plans, or health care projects. Sexual orientation is a private personal matter, as much as gastronomical orientation is, none of which has any relationship with racism whatsoever. I think that exclusion was a correct decision. --AVM (talk) 02:22, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

The purpose of the summit goes beyond fighting racism. If you haven't noticed, religious bigotry is also on the agenda, which isn't race based either. Lemniwinks (talk) 02:39, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

Some religions, eg Judaism, are racially based. I repeat that I am unaware of racial connexions to sexuality93.96.148.42 (talk) 23:07, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

Those religons are bunk. If that was true, there would be any black jews, would there? Race is something you're born into and cannot change; religion is something your indoctrinated into and can change. Race and religon are not the same thing and using religon as leverage to lable someone as a racist or masking religion as a race is meaningless. If the haplogroup where religion orginated and mutated from and spread unto all humans is found in the evolutionary history of humans, you'll have a case.--24.222.198.92 (talk) 02:03, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

List of accredited NGOs

Of the list of non-governmental organizations listed, why is the Indiana University School of Law in there? It's a school, not an organization in the same vein as the Blue Diamond Society or the MCLI. I have similar issues with the inclusion of the Church of the Brethren in that list. And incidentally, what does "accredited to attend" mean in the first place? --MicahBrwn (talk) 03:35, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

Boycott

There is something wrong, on one hand they are shown as boycotting and other there are walking away from it. How can they be walking away when they weren't present. ? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 116.71.178.116 (talk) 04:54, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

They were all informed, prepared, known that Israel was not singled out, that the holocuast was mentioned as an important (real) event, etc. They walked out on television as a stage act. It was symbolic.

-G