Talk:UNRWA/Archive 4

This is an archive of past discussions about UNRWA. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Current Head of UNRWA

Hello, the сurrent Commissioner General of UNRWA is Christian Saunders (UNRWA website), Pierre Krähenbühl has resigned (Guardian article). Please edit the article to reflect these changes.--محمد أحمد عبد الفتاح (talk) 12:59, 18 November 2019 (UTC)

It is in the article here.Selfstudier (talk) 14:05, 18 November 2019 (UTC)

The infobox needs to be updated.--محمد أحمد عبد الفتاح (talk) 14:12, 18 November 2019 (UTC)

Done! --T*U (talk) 14:16, 18 November 2019 (UTC)

Deputy Commissioner of UNRWA

Hello, following a request on ar.wikipedia, please update the infobox and any other passage to reflect the fact that the current deputy commissioner of UNRWA is not Sandra Mitchel. She has also resigned (Middle East Online). The position is not filled now, according to the request that was put on ar wiki.--محمد أحمد عبد الفتاح (talk) 12:51, 25 November 2019 (UTC)

Done --T*U (talk) 11:12, 28 November 2019 (UTC)

manby thanks.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.81.137.194 (talk) 10:07, 26 December 2019 (UTC)

descendant of refugees

It is a standard Israeli claim that UNRWA refugee status automatically passes to descendants while UNCHR refugee status never passes to descendants. Actually both claims are false in general, though it remains true that the two sets of rules are different. For UNCHR the most definitive source is the Procedural Handbook, see "derivative refugee status". Zero^talk 04:12, 29 March 2020 (UTC)

https://foreignpolicy.com/2018/08/17/unrwa-has-changed-the-definition-of-refugee/ Zarcademan123456 (talk) 20:12, 29 March 2020 (UTC)

An unreliable op-ed. See here for UNRWA's position. Zero^talk 02:47, 30 March 2020 (UTC)

Scholarly RS - Oxford Handbooks Online Susan Akram The Oxford Handbook of Refugee and Forced Migration Studies Edited by Elena Fiddian Qasmiyeh, Gil Loescher, Katy Long, and Nando Sigona

Chapter: UNRWA and Palestinian Refugees, pages 1 to 10.

Print Publication Date: Jun 2014 Subject: Political Science, International Relations, Comparative Politics Online Publication Date: Aug 2014 DOI:10.1093/oxfordhb/9780199652433.013.00

has a discussion of the definition(s) as well the resultant effects of them. Can't really be reduced to a one-liner. 15:44, 31 March 2020 (UTC) I am also guilty of non signing :)-remedied.Selfstudier (talk) 13:26, 3 April 2020 (UTC)

thank you for directing me to this source, is very user friendly...I just want to ask a question...under “can Palestine change the definition of a refugee” the source says that “persons whose normal place of residence was Palestine during the period 1 June 1946 to 15 May 1948, and who lost both home and means of livelihood as a result of the 1948 conflict.” Then it says that refugees outside of that time period, though not classified as Palestinian refugees, are then afforded assistance by UNRWA. The next paragraph, “how many Palestine Refugees’ access UNRWA services” says in the first sentence “In 2019, 533,000 refugee children attended UNRWA schools, 3.5 million refugees received primary health care services[...]”. I would appreciate you helping me understand who these refugees are...if they are not able to be classified as “Palestinian” refugees per guidelines which stare that they were not residents of Palestine from “1 June 1946 to 15 May 1948”...then are they “stateless” refugees? So in summation my question is: who are these refugees? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Zarcademan123456 (talk • contribs)

https://www.unrwa.org/sites/default/files/content/resources/unrwa_in_figures_2019_eng_sep_2019_final.pdf Selfstudier (talk) 11:58, 3 April 2020 (UTC)

@Zarcademan123456: Please don't forget to sign. It is reasonable to be confused because it is confusing. The gory details can be found in this document, where you will find that there are three cateogories: A1 = people meeting the definition themselves and their descendants, A2 = registered people who don't meet the definition, B = people receiving assistance but not registered as refugees. It seems that UNRWA included families in A1 right from the beginning, including children born after 1948, because very early annual reports mention natural increase in the number of refugees (I just checked 1952). Also, quite a lot of refugees meeting the definition can't get help from UNRWA because they don't live in a place covered by UNRWA (those living in Egypt for example). It used to be that they couldn't get help from UNHCR either, but that was changed. The large amount of propaganda around this issue makes it hard to get the historical facts straight. Zero^talk 12:15, 3 April 2020 (UTC)

New Commissioner-General

There is an new Commissioner-General, Mr Philipp Lazzarini.https://www.unrwa.org/who-we-are/our-leadership/unrwa-commissioner-general With kind regards Fritzober (talk) 07:41, 2 July 2020 (UTC)

explain revert

To editor Zurkhardo: I reverted your edit because it includes the seriously false statement "UNRWA was established in 1948 by the UN General Assembly (UNGA) to provide relief to all refugees within the State of Israel following the 1948 conflict". Actually it was established in 1949 and covered refugees outside Israel as well as inside. You changed too many things at once for me to go through to check everything you changed. I assume that some of your other changes were good, but please make them one at a time so that they can be reviewed more easily. Zero^talk 05:27, 10 August 2020 (UTC)

Fwiw, I looked at the changes too and to me most of them seemed fine. But Wikipedia's diff page makes it seriously difficult to review larger changes.ImTheIP (talk) 12:21, 10 August 2020 (UTC)

To editor Zurkhardo: Your editing style is antisocial. Look at this and see how hard it is to check your work. And it must be checked, as your initial fundamental errors show. Zero^talk 02:54, 11 August 2020 (UTC) Antisocial is a rather odd way to describe an editing style you do not agree with; the term is usually used to describe extreme mental illness like psychopathy. If you look closely, I am mostly rewording or updating existing materials and sources——and the "initial fundamental error" regarding the foundation date preceded my edits; I had simply moved it around. While I should have double checked, it is inaccurate to suggest I place the erroneous information there.Zurkhardo (talk) 23:20, 12 August 2020 (UTC)

It appears that the budget for UNRWA varies significantly year-to-year. Sometimes it is top 10, sometimes it is top 20. So I removed that claim.ImTheIP (talk) 06:27, 13 August 2020 (UTC)

Request to add a source to the External links chapter

Since the Wikipedia entry UNRWA is blocked for editing, I would like you to add the attached link to the External links chapter in the article. The attached source compares the refugees treated by UNRWA versus the refugees treated by UNHCR. Below is the line to add for editing in source code mode: -

UNHCR refugees Vs. UNRWA reugees by YonaLG

Thanks in advance for any help I will receive from you. .. Crocodile2020 (talk) 17:39, 16 January 2021 (UTC)

My impression is that that material is not "neutral and accurate material" per WP:EXT. See also Your previous attempt Selfstudier (talk) 18:30, 16 January 2021 (UTC)

Request to add a source to the External links chapter

Since the Wikipedia entry UNRWA is blocked for editing, I would like you to add the attached link to the External links chapter in the article. The attached source compares the refugees treated by UNRWA versus the refugees treated by UNHCR. Below is the line to add for editing in source code mode: -

UNHCR refugees Vs. UNRWA reugees by YonaLG

Thanks in advance for any help I will receive from you. .. Crocodile2020 (talk) 17:39, 16 January 2021 (UTC)

My impression is that that material is not "neutral and accurate material" per WP:EXT. See also Your previous attempt Selfstudier (talk) 18:30, 16 January 2021 (UTC)

Missing citations

The following statements are lacking citations.

Pupils at UNRWA schools often out-perform government school pupils in these state exams.
It has been reported that Hamas has interfered with curriculum and textbooks in UNRWA schools.
The Israeli Army circulates footage taken on 29 October 2007 showing three militants firing mortars from UNRWA boys' school in Beit Hanoun, Gaza. The militants were able to enter due to the fact that the school was evacuated at the time because of the war.

Can someone please update these to include appropriate references from reliable sources to avoid them being removed from the article? Thank you! --Djrun (talk) 18:01, 17 March 2021 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 15 May 2021

This edit request to UNRWA has been answered. Set the |answered= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

Change 100 billion to 1 billion, and "as of 2019" to "in 2019" in the following passage from the article: "as of 2019, close to 60 percent of its total pledge of $100 billion came from EU countries, with Germany being the largest individual donor"

The cited source is referring to a single year of funding as evidenced by the passage: "In 2019, 58.4 per cent of the Agency’s total pledges of US$ 1.00 billion came from EU member states, who contributed US$ 585.3 million" From the cited source https://www.unrwa.org/our-partners/government-partners Dropspace (talk) 13:09, 15 May 2021 (UTC)

Done ಮಲ್ನಾಡಾಚ್ ಕೊಂಕ್ಣೊ (talk) 14:17, 15 May 2021 (UTC)

Request to edit a misspelling

I mainly try to aid Wikipedia by editing misspellings and typo's, and I have noticed that there are many instances where "UNRWA" is misspelled as "UNWRA". I can edit it on most pages, but on this page the misspelling occurs once under the subheading "Definition of Refugee" when talking about the organization's mandate. Could somebody edit this (UNWRA-->UNRWA)? Thank you in advance. Jloost-gamer 18:19, 22 april 2021 (UTC)

Spot. Done, there were two instances.Selfstudier (talk) 17:30, 22 April 2021 (UTC)

Can someone also correct the word "thought" to "though" in the sentence

"Initially, it was reported to be an UNRWA clinic but the IDF shortly thereafter retracted the claim thought it was noted that it had an UNRWA sign on it."

IMO it's a clumsy sentence even with the correction, and it's in the passive voice. Maybe this would be better:

The IDF initially described the booby-trapped building as a UNRWA clinic, but a spokesman for Israel's Coordinator of Government Activities in the Territories (COGAT) later said that despite the misleading signage it was not a UNRWA site, and that it had been three years since it was last registered as a sensitive location.

Joe in Australia (talk) 03:24, 7 June 2021 (UTC)

(Please put new requests at the bottom of the page.) I don't think a UNRWA sign is enough reason for this incident to be in the article, so I removed it. Zero^talk 04:06, 7 June 2021 (UTC)

Thanks for fixing the misspelling, one way or another :-) Joe in Australia (talk) 22:00, 7 June 2021 (UTC)

Edit request: update link

The link in reference 5 (Consolidated Eligibility and Registration Instructions) is not working anymore, here is a current link: https://www.unrwa.org/sites/default/files/2010011995652.pdf

--PeterTrompeter (talk) 11:20, 7 February 2022 (UTC)

update link in ref 5

This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

What I think should be changed: Update link in reference 5 (Consolidated Eligibility and Registration Instructions) to https://www.unrwa.org/sites/default/files/2010011995652.pdf
Why it should be changed: old link doesn't work anymore
References supporting the possible change (format using the "cite" button): https://www.unrwa.org/sites/default/files/2010011995652.pdf

PeterTrompeter (talk) 16:26, 7 February 2022 (UTC)

Done SpinningCeres 16:42, 7 February 2022 (UTC)

Another mistake

Another mistake is that it describes Kushner as the President's nephew when he is his son-in-law. That whole section needs to be put also in past tense.

I just removed the description and added a wikilink to Jared Kushner. “WarKosign ” 20:45, 13 March 2022 (UTC)

Asaf Romirowsky and Alexander H. Joffe

Why is an op-ed by these two people being used in an encyclopedia article? nableezy - 03:17, 9 May 2022 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 2 August 2022

This edit request to UNRWA has been answered. Set the |answered= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

The link of the Reference number 16 is outdated. The correct link is this one: https://www.un.org/unispal/document/auto-insert-208942/ Please replace the old one. Equivocus (talk) 13:26, 2 August 2022 (UTC)

Done. Thanks for providing the updated source! P1221 (talk) 10:43, 3 August 2022 (UTC)

Please update Commissioner-General name

This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

What I think should be changed (format using {{textdiff}}): A new Commissioner-General was named in 2020, Philippe_Lazzarini
Why it should be changed: to replace outdated info
References supporting the possible change (format using the "cite" button): Philippe_Lazzarini, https://www.un.org/sg/en/content/profiles/philippe-lazzarini-0

2001:8A0:65A9:D00:60E4:C91C:A5E6:6C43 (talk) 11:35, 16 April 2023 (UTC)

This is already in the article. Selfstudier (talk) 11:51, 16 April 2023 (UTC)

References

UNRWA labeled as NGO

UNRWA should not be labeled as an NGO as it is part of the UN, an intergovernmental organization, and is governed by an intergovernmental committee. Skipidibodadob7 (talk) 19:01, 25 May 2023 (UTC)

corrected, ty. nableezy - 19:05, 25 May 2023 (UTC)

Out of date info about mandate renewal

In the opening section under the map, and in the first paragraph of 'organisation and mandate' there is out of date information about the renewal of UNRWA's mandate. In both places it states that the most recent renewal extended the mandate to June 2023, but in fact this was superseded by a renewal to June 2026. As set out here Breatheforpeace (talk) 04:59, 16 October 2023 (UTC)

Requesting some changes to the textbook section

This edit request to UNRWA has been answered. Set the |answered= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

What I think should be changed (format using {{textdiff}}):

−
~~selection~~ of ~~the~~ ~~Study~~ ~~Material~~
+
materials included in study
−
"highly demonizing pieces were not ~~included,~~ ~~under~~ ~~the~~ ~~pretext~~ ~~that~~ ~~they~~ ~~were~~ ~~not~~ ~~explicit~~ ~~enough"~~
+
"highly demonizing pieces were not included ... because it did not mention Jews or Israelis ..."
−
~~"real~~ ~~cases~~ of ~~ignoring~~ ~~the~~ ~~'other'~~ ~~deliberately~~ ~~without~~ ~~degrading~~ ~~him~~ ~~slipped~~ ~~away~~ ~~from~~ ~~scrutiny"~~
+
generality of themes did not include the legitimacy of the "other,"
−
~~false~~ positive ~~descriptions~~
+
positive texts depicted negative Jewish traditions

Why it should be changed: It seems there has been some editorialization, capitalization, and interpretation errors as a result of direct copy & paste from the source, leaving room for misunderstanding (i.e. explicit in the "graphic" or "evident" senses of the word, or "false positive" descriptions vs false "positive descriptions"). There's probably more instances in preceding paragraphs but properly summarizing the source itself is probably a priority.
References supporting the possible change (format using the "cite" button): References do not need to be added nor changed as edit request is based on the original source

ZigZagZoug (talk) 18:56, 9 October 2023 (UTC)

References

Not done: I've decided to remove the entire part of the paragraph mentioning Groiss, since the ref is primary and seems undue. ARandomName123 (talk)^{Ping me!} 02:40, 17 October 2023 (UTC)

A couple of recent sources

If anyone is interested, here are a couple of recent Hebrew media sources that could be incorporated into the article:

שני, יובל (2023-11-23). "למה לפלסטינים יש יחס מיוחד באו"ם ומדוע יותר קשה לפתור סכסוכים בימינו" (Interview). Interviewed by חן ליברמן.
לינדר, רוני (2023-12-08). ""מלמדים שם את הילדים שצריך להשמיד את ישראל": הגוף הכלכלי החזק ביותר בעזה אחרי חמאס". TheMarker. Retrieved 2023-12-09.

Both cover the history of the UNRWA, its role in Palestinian society, and various criticisms leveled against it. François Robere (talk) 10:56, 9 December 2023 (UTC)

Allegations of Hamas control over UNRWA in Gaza

The IDF has published recordings of conversations with Gaza residents which allege that aid is not being effectively distributed because senior officials within UNRWA in Gaza are Hamas operatives.

https://twitter.com/IDF/status/1739997352411451497 Sstr (talk) 14:19, 27 December 2023 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 27 January 2024

This edit request to UNRWA has been answered. Set the |answered= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

Not seeking to edit the page but add some recent news. 1.UK has suspended funding - https://news.sky.com/story/uk-pauses-funding-to-unrwa-over-claims-staff-were-involved-in-hamas-attack-13057506 Steveonsi (talk) 15:18, 27 January 2024 (UTC)

Done, thank you. BilledMammal (talk) 15:38, 27 January 2024 (UTC)

2014 rockets

https://www.unrwa.org/newsroom/press-releases/unrwa-condemns-placement-rockets-second-time-one-its-schools 2A00:A041:1CE0:0:E139:30F8:BF3:D3FE (talk) 16:34, 27 January 2024 (UTC)

repeated material

I moved down and then tried to combine with the existing material on the most recent allegations here, though I did remove the bit on teachers being asked to participate in military drills as that isnt actually part of the evidence Israel has provided for this, thats just another accusation. What the NYT says is In recent weeks, Israel has presented new evidence that it says shows UNRWA's animus toward Israel. Among the recent allegations made by the Israeli military were copies of letters from Hamas’s military wing to the Gaza education ministry asking that teachers be excused from work so they could participate in military training sessions. Not that this was presented as evidence for this claim, which wouldnt make much sense anyway. nableezy - 22:39, 27 January 2024 (UTC)

Make wording more closely follow the sources

This edit request to UNRWA has been answered. Set the |answered= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

What I think should be changed (format using {{textdiff}}):

Why it should be changed:

This wording is more accurate because it's closer to the secondary source that follows this sentence in the article ^[1], as well as to UNRWA's own words ^[2]

References supporting the possible change (format using the "cite" button): As above

eyal (talk) 02:27, 28 January 2024 (UTC)

References

Done with have changed to had due to past-tense ARandomName123 (talk)^{Ping me!} 03:20, 28 January 2024 (UTC)

I don’t think this is a great edit tbh, it just says the same thing in a more convoluted way. nableezy - 04:49, 28 January 2024 (UTC)

I made this edit request because I think that "accused that" and "gave information about" (the latter from UNRWA's official statement) mean different things. The nature of UNRWA's statement is that it received information from Israel which suggests something that drove UNRWA to react. This interpretation (that information was passed to UNRWA) is corroborated by Israel ^[1]: "A senior Israeli official said the Shin Bet and Israeli military intelligence provided information that pointed to the active participation of UNRWA staffers and the use of the agency's vehicles and facilities during the Oct. 7 Hamas attack." On the other hand, UNRWA's official statement doesn't include any mention of accusations.

I do agree that the "Information alleging" wording can be improved. I actually meant to lift it verbatim from UNRWA's statement, but I must've misread. I don't see a problem with doing it (correctly this time) by changing the wording to "Israel had provided the agency with information about the alleged involvement of twelve of its employees in the 2023 Hamas-led attack on Israel..." eyal (talk) 07:15, 28 January 2024 (UTC)

References

[1]
https://www.axios.com/2024/01/26/unrwa-gaza-hamas-israel-attack

Allegations

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 29 January 2024

A needed clear mentioning under main information photo

UN watch allegations

If UN watch is seen as israli biased then why are their allegations of unrwa being affiliated with HAMAS being included in this when they're the only ones saying this? News needs to be unbiased and not deviate from telling the truth. Letting state propaganda infiltrate articles like this only brings wikipeida disdain. Idontknowanythingok (talk) 19:59, 29 January 2024 (UTC)

Tend to agree, have removed some UN Watch material as undue and likely unreliable. Maybe an RS discussion about UN Watch is needed. Selfstudier (talk) 11:13, 30 January 2024 (UTC)

Definitely. Sorry, I was reading this backwards. Also Memri, not related to this page, but mentioning to someone while i think of it because I might not be able to. Irtapil (talk) 14:59, 30 January 2024 (UTC)

I can only find an old 2009 discussion (suggests it is something like NGO monitor) and some limited discussion in 2021. Will try to check how many cites are on WP atm.Selfstudier (talk) 11:35, 30 January 2024 (UTC)

As far as I have seen they only defend Israel, they don't seem to watch anything else the UN does. Irtapil (talk) 14:55, 30 January 2024 (UTC)

259 WP mentions, including a lot from archives.Selfstudier (talk) 11:54, 30 January 2024 (UTC)

See WP:BIASED: However, reliable sources are not required to be neutral, unbiased, or objective. --Hob Gadling (talk) 12:46, 30 January 2024 (UTC)

Should UN watch be in the depreciated sources list? Irtapil (talk) 14:53, 30 January 2024 (UTC)

Idk, may need a discussion at RSN, let's see if editors insist on inclusion first. Selfstudier (talk) 14:58, 30 January 2024 (UTC)

I think it's likely to come up a lot given the new spinoff article? see if it's cited already elsewhere on wikipedia?

I've been meaning to work out how deprecation process works for Memri, it is a collection of cherry picked out of context translations of Middle Eastern content, anything in there we should be looking for the original or looking for another source with more context and less biased analysis. Sorry, off topic, just worried I won't find a better place to day that in time.

Irtapil (talk) 15:06, 30 January 2024 (UTC)

a big chunk removed

Group of teachers

https://unwatch.org/group-of-3000-unrwa-teachers-celebrates-hamas-massacre-and-rape/ 2.55.168.80 (talk) 05:52, 10 January 2024 (UTC)

UN Watch has has a very strong pro-Israel bias, and thus is not a reliable source in this article. No reliable source corroborates their claims. Unknown-Tree🌲? (talk) 03:46, 27 January 2024 (UTC)

Plenty of other sources on UNRWAs affiliation with Hamas, it's activities and principles.

https://www.cnn.com/2024/01/26/middleeast/unrwa-fires-staff-members-october-7-attacks-intl/index.html

https://m.jpost.com/middle-east/article-775777

https://www.reuters.com/article/middleeastCrisis/idUSL05686115/

https://www.impact-se.org/wp-content/uploads/UNRWA-Education-Textbooks-and-Terror-Nov-2023.pdf Helpingtoclarify (talk) 05:51, 27 January 2024 (UTC)

None of those articles substantiate the specific claim made by UN Watch in the linked article. Unknown-Tree🌲? (talk) 08:00, 27 January 2024 (UTC)

Ignoring the headline, I think the IMPACT source does; UN Watch says that teachers in a Telegram group for 3000 UNWRA teachers celebrated the attacks. That claim appears to be supported by IMPACT as well as endorsed by other sources like Times of Israel, National Review, and Jerusalem Post. BilledMammal (talk) 08:12, 27 January 2024 (UTC)

The IMPACT document says nothing about the supposed Telegram group of 3000 teachers. National Review is considered a partisan source per WP:NATIONALREVIEW, and should not be used to substantiate contentious claims; in addition, it cites UN Watch. Times of Israel and Jerusalem Post are quite obviously pro-Israeli, and again only cite UN Watch. Exceptional claims require exceptional sources. Unknown-Tree🌲? (talk) 08:35, 27 January 2024 (UTC)

Setting aside the platform for a moment, I think it would be WP:DUE to mention that according to UN Watch and IMPACT some UNWRA staff celebrated the attacks.

Regarding the telegram platform, I think given the coverage the UN Watch report has received it is appropriate to mention it attributed to UN Watch:

Algemeiner
The Telegraph
National Post
Fox News
Wall Street Journal (Opinion piece, but by the WSJ's Editorial Board)
Australian Financial Review
i24news

I note that several of these don't limit themselves to quoting UN Watch; they say, in their own voice, presumably after reviewing the evidence, that teachers in the chat celebrated the attacks.

The UN has also said that they are investigating these allegations. BilledMammal (talk) 08:52, 27 January 2024 (UTC)

Let's break it down source by source:

1. algemimer cites UN Watch

2. The Telegraph does not mention the purported 3000 teachers; it's about the recent 12 that were fired

3. National Post cites UN Watch, and also, according to their byline, is getting that article as a wire service

4. Fox News is generally unreliable for politics per WP:FOXNEWSPOLITICS (and only cites UN Watch)

5. WP:NEWSOPED states that opinion pieces are not reliable for fact—and the WSJ article is again only about the 12, not the purported 3000 teachers.

6. Again, only cites UN Watch.

7. Once again, only cites UN Watch.

Perhaps it can included as a cited claim, but definitely should not be included as a statement of fact. Unknown-Tree🌲? (talk) 17:00, 27 January 2024 (UTC)

Perhaps it can included as a cited claim, but definitely should not be included as a statement of fact. We definitely shouldn't put this in Wikivoice; would you be satisfied with including it attributed to UN Watch? BilledMammal (talk) 17:03, 27 January 2024 (UTC)

Yes, I'm satisfied with putting it in the article as attributed to UN Watch (probably using the Times of Israel as a source to avoid it being a primary source). Unknown-Tree🌲? (talk) 18:03, 27 January 2024 (UTC)

Thank you - added, with Times of Israel as the source. I've also added the IMPACT-SE allegations; if you disagree with that, please let me know and I'll self-revert that aspect so we can discus further. BilledMammal (talk) 12:30, 28 January 2024 (UTC)

@Selfstudier: Want to join the discussion here rather than just reverting? It’s been widely covered in reliable sources; inclusion is WP:DUE. BilledMammal (talk) 11:17, 30 January 2024 (UTC)

I reverted UN Watch material per [#UN watch allegations] at the bottom of this talk page, perhaps you would like to join that discussion? Selfstudier (talk) 11:20, 30 January 2024 (UTC)

This discussion addresses why it was added; I was hoping you would review those reasons and, if you disagreed, explain why. BilledMammal (talk) 11:23, 30 January 2024 (UTC)

The discussion below deals with UN Watch specifically and I gave my reasons there. In addition, I am pretty sure that anything due that UN Watch has to say is covered in less troublesome sources. Selfstudier (talk) 11:28, 30 January 2024 (UTC)

We’ve already had extensive discussion here, and I have no desire to repeat myself. Will you please explain why you disagree with the conclusions derived? BilledMammal (talk) 11:45, 30 January 2024 (UTC)

I am not going to repeat myself here when there is an ongoing discussion at the bottom, where it can be seen that if there is a desire to make use of UN Watch material, then it should be subject of an RSN discussion. Selfstudier (talk) 11:52, 30 January 2024 (UTC)

To be clear, your position is merely “it’s unreliable, it doesn’t matter how many reliable sources have reported on these claims”? BilledMammal (talk) 11:55, 30 January 2024 (UTC)

If we want to rely on UN Watch material cited to them, I will refer it to RSN. Or you could do that yourself right now, I don't mind. Selfstudier (talk) 12:06, 30 January 2024 (UTC)

Looks like no one ever took this to RSN - I for one agree with BilledMammal here, if so many sources are repeating it then it's WP:DUE for repeating in the article, whether wikivoice or attributed. JM (talk) 19:11, 1 February 2024 (UTC)

Hot Button Words or Phrases

Error in the intro : Country listed twice in a row

Hamas had command tunnel under U.N. Gaza headquarters, Israeli military says

Requested move 15 February 2024

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a 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. (closed by non-admin page mover) Adumbrativus (talk) 05:20, 22 February 2024 (UTC)

UNRWA → 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 criterion of consistency than leaving the title as it is at present. — Red-tailed hawk _(nest) 02:15, 15 February 2024 (UTC)

Keep at UNRWA. Judging by Google Search counts, UNRWA appears to be by far the WP:COMMONNAME, with 50 million results vs 0.6 million. There is precedent for using a shorter name when the official name is long, for example, Naming Commission. –Novem Linguae (talk) 02:28, 15 February 2024 (UTC)
Oppose move. The initials are the common name. O.N.R. ^(talk) 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. Paintspot Infez (talk) 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? Dank Jae 23:07, 15 February 2024 (UTC)
Strong support per WP:NCGAL: 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: 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. — kashmīrī ^TALK 02:59, 16 February 2024 (UTC)
Oppose, for reasons stayed above. 〜 Adflatuss • talk 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. 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.) — ROADKILL (talk) 05:34, 19 February 2024 (UTC)

Keep per Novem Linguae and ROADKILL. RadioactiveBoulevardier (talk) 12:06, 21 February 2024 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

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

Out of date information about renewal

Page inconsistency

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.

BilledMammal (talk) 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)

Yes per BilledMammal who is thorough with research into sourcing as usual JM (talk) 19:07, 1 February 2024 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
No As can be seen from its article, UN Watch takes a highly biased position as regards the UN in relations to matters pertaining to the AI conflict and cannot be considered reliable for facts in that area imo. Also noted that the reporting of what they have said is mainly from partisan sources even if some of them are nonetheless reliable. If these charges are truly notable, then there ought to be coverage of them from the likes of BBC, WAPO, CNN, NYT etcetera. Selfstudier (talk) 12:48, 30 March 2024 (UTC)

Discussion

Bad RFC RSN for source reliability questions. See UN watch allegations.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. 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. 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? Zanahary (talk) 07:48, 24 February 2024 (UTC)
mention but wording to be determined. Senorangel (talk) 04:07, 2 February 2024 (UTC)
Bad RfC, because 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). — kashmīrī ^TALK 12:00, 30 March 2024 (UTC)

Survey

Discussion

Related Articles

Timelines

Top Qs

Fact Checks