Talk:Israel and the United Nations/Archive 2

The page Talk:Israel and the United Nations was not moved along with the article page. Apparently only an editor can do this (why? I don't know). I requested this move, it will take a few days. Emmanuelm 12:56, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

Rewrite of the rest of the article
I posted the rest of my rewrite of this article. It was a learning experience for me, with all the limitations of the NPOV and NOR policies. I make no secret that I hate these policies, but we all have to accept them or shut up, so I did my best. It's all yours now! Emmanuelm 12:56, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

Severe factual problems with this article.
Seeing that there are attempts going on to re-write this article, it needs pointing out that there are glaring problems with the current version, two just in the first paragraphs of the first section "The early years".

1) - The first statement is false, since the "The idea of a Jewish state in Palestine" did not receive any "international support" at any time until 1947. The 1922 resolution was to "secure the establishment of the Jewish national home" (as we say). The Mandate authorities were certainly were not in favour, they'd decided (1939) to bring all immigration to a halt. What we've written looks like propaganda on behalf of Israel.
 * In 1922, the League of Nations was the only body that could claim to speak on behalf of the world. It called upon Britain to establish a "Jewish National home" (read Jewish state). This, PR, constitutes international support. What Britain thought of it is a different matter, discussed in the next sentence. Emmanuelm 13:27, 28 September 2007 (UTC)
 * (copied from User talk:Emmanuelm) I can see serious flaws in the article as it stands eg "The idea of a Jewish state in Palestine received its first international support within the 1922 text of the creation of the British mandate of Palestine by the League of nations". The idea of a "Jewish state" never received any international support (that I'm aware of) until 1947. Certainly not from the British, who made it very clear that there'd be no "state as Jewish as England was English", and by 1939 realised that the immigration was disastrous and must stop. (I'm sorry to hear that the behaviour of Israel had such a disastrous effect on your life in your native land). PRtalk 19:03, 3 October 2007 (UTC)
 * PR, I already answered above five days ago. Again, stop whining, take your pen and show us how to do it! Emmanuelm 14:24, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

2) - The following is absurdly misleading - "Following the rejection by the British of the 1937 Peel Commission recommendations" - when the British never considered partition and "transfer" per the Peel Commission. The whole of the rest of the time, 30 years from 1917 to 1947 they rejected this solution, there were only a few months when partition was even under discussion. Our statement might as well be propaganda.
 * Before editing the text, you may want to read about the 1938 Woodhead Commission and the 1939 St.James Conference which gave us the White Paper of 1939 which concluded: "The objective of His Majesty's Government is the establishment within 10 years of an independent Palestine State (...) The independent State should be one in which Arabs and Jews share government in such a way as to ensure that the essential interests of each community are safeguarded.". In other words, the British rejected the conclusions of the Peel Commission which called for a two-state solution. PR, what part of this sentence do you find "absurdly misleading"? "Propaganda" for what idea? Nevertheless, I do not think that this discussion belong in the article since the League of Nations was not involved and the UN not born yet. It belongs to the History of the Arab-Israeli conflict (I notice it is absent there). Emmanuelm 13:27, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

And there is a continuous stream of problems thereafter, eg UNSCOP and the partition resolution - the UN only got involved because the British were bombed out of Palestine (by the likes of Future Prime Ministers, Menachem Begin and Yitzhak Shamir). Again, our statement reads like propaganda. PRtalk 12:26, 28 September 2007 (UTC)
 * PR, I really do not understand your criticisms. I think you mistake brevity for ignorance, but this is secondary. The important part is that Wikipedia is not about complaining, it is about taking a pen and showing others what you mean. Go ahead! Emmanuelm 12:41, 28 September 2007 (UTC)
 * PR, I see where you are coming from. So many sources do have implicit Zionist assumptions, but some of these things are very hard to write about comprehensibly, concisely and neutrally.  Genuinely, scrupulously, thoughtfully neutral sources are extremely scarce, though I've added one to the references. The mandate being support of a Jewish state? - well the answer is yes and no.  The Brits certainly knew that that is what the Zionists had in mind eventually, and that that was a  possible outcome, even thought both denied it officially.  Both official views and real understandings are important.  The mandate document and the mandate administration was ambiguous and selfcontradictory, and the Zionists managed to resolve the ambiguities in their favor.John Z 08:24, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

Map of 1947 Partition Plan
By the way, I think the anon removed the map, because it is a very crappy map. It makes the proposed Arab state far too small and grossly distorts the shape. There used to be a reasonably accurate similar map in these articles, dunno when and who messed it up. Someone reasonably removed this map from the GA 181 article, too.John Z 00:59, 3 October 2007 (UTC)
 * John Z, thanks for your sharp eyes! It turns out that the map Image:UN-Partition Plan For Palestine 1947.png is a malicious distortion of the original map Image:UN Partition Plan For Palestine 1947.png in order to make the Jewish partition look larger. The original 1947 map is available from the UN for all to see & compare. User:Dbz100 is probably the source of the distorted map. He replaced the original map with his creation in this article on Sept 27 2007. I missed that edit until your comment today. I reverted it and requested that the distorted map be deleted. Emmanuelm 15:43, 3 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the compliments and doing the work and fixing it. The really sharp eyes belong to the anon here and Andras schweitzer  in GA 181 article, who first saw it. Lots of people like to play silly and malicious games, sometimes they are successful for a long time.John Z 19:44, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

Name of article : Palestine vs Palestinians
Palestinians Per a request on my talk, I am explaining my rationale for moving the article: as the intro states, the talk at the UN has primarily focused on the Palestinians - the people - and since there is no definition for what constitutes "Palestine," (a territory? with which borders? a concept? the State of Palestine? etc.) it is better to have the article at this title. In reality, my preference would be for it to be split between Israel and the United Nations and Palestinians and the United Nations, but I suppose that's neither here nor there. -Justin (koavf)·T·C·M 07:18, 4 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Well, as most member nations at the UN since the 70's (and in 1947) do support a Palestinian state, and all the parties involved including the US and Israel have accepted the existence of such a state in principle, I don't think the title is as controversial as it once would have been. States don't have to have any defined borders to be members of international organizations (e.g. Albania /League of Nations). The ambiguity of whether Palestine is a state or territory or whatever seems to me to be harmless. - and I think the "Palestine" one just sounds better. Also it's called the "Question of Palestine" at the UN, not "the Palestinian question."There was an old Israel and UN article (but no Palestine and UN)  closer to your preference.  Since the two are so entwined, it is probably a good idea to have them together, to avoid POVforking even though there are Israel/UN issues that did not have too much to do with the Palestinians (e.g. Suez Crisis).  Anyways, that is what Emmanuelm did just recently and my preference is to see how the article shapes up before making major changes.  John Z 07:56, 4 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Koavf, when I chose the word "Palestine" in the title, I was well aware of the difficulties coming with it. As you know, the word "Israel" is also contentious; many states call it "the Zionist entity". But a title, to be useful, must be short and, therefore, incomplete and inaccurate. Hence the usefulness of the lead section to clarify the scope of the article. Everyone knows that one cannot talk about one without the other; Israel and Palestine constitute one subject. The Content Forking article states : "The generally accepted policy is that all facts and major Points of View on a certain subject should be treated in one article." Conclusion: in this article like in the real world, the conflict between these two people cannot be avoided. Emmanuelm 14:48, 4 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Well-taken John and Emmanuel, your points are germane, but I would stand behind my original rationale still. To respond to some of your more particular points: while it is true that the issues are closely related, that is true of a variety of states and international entities. I don't think it would be feasible or desirable to have articles such as Egypt, Israel, Jordan, Palestine, and the rest of the Middle East, and the United Nations simply because they have overlapping interests. Furthermore, I could easily see how lumping them together would itself be seen as POV, implying that all of the interests of one lie with the other and vice versa (for instance, as Emmanuel put it "Israel and Palestine constitute one subject.") As you astutely point out, situations such as the Suez Crisis refer to one entity and not the other. As far as not making radical changes, I agree and I wouldn't want to change the actual text of the article in a radical fashion since 1.) I have not been involved with it prior to now, 2.) it is not in dire need of changing, and 3.) there are apparently involved editors in the process of revising it. As far as "Israel" being a contentious term, you are right that there are entities that find it controversial. There are entities that find virtually any term controversial, though. The real issue for me is that the term "Israel" is not controversial to the PLO (the sole representative of the Palestinian people), whereas "Palestine" would be controversial to Israelis. Furthermore, "Israel" is nowhere near as controversial as "Palestine" and it at least has recognized borders, broad international recognition, is not existentially in a dispute about its final status, etc. What seems to make the most sense to me in retrospect would be two separate articles and possibly a List of United Nations resolutions relating to Israel and the Palestinians or somesuch if the content of this article becomes too bloated (note that it is currently 74 kilobytes long, something like twice the recommended size. If anything, this is probably the strongest argument for a split, as the article doesn't really need pruning, since most of the text seems relevant to me.) -Justin (koavf)·T·C·M 06:15, 5 October 2007 (UTC)
 * First, since the article starts with a discussion of the British Mandate of Palestine and the UN plans to partition Palestine, and the article describes the 1948 Arab-Israeli war as an Arab invasion of Palestine, there is no reason to conclude that "Palestine" in the title refers exclusively to Palestinian Arabs or a State of Palestine. Second, I'm not questioning your motivation, but to me this new title seems imbalanced — I think a more balanced phrase would include either "Israelis and Palestinians" or "Israel and Palestine". — Malik Shabazz (Talk | contribs) 06:40, 5 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Justin's point about length is well taken, although not definitive I think. There are plenty of long articles. The problem is just that Israeli and Palestinian nationalisms are just so close, so hard to talk about independently; perceptive observers have called them twin or copycat nationalisms.  I can't think of any other case where we should more have X, Y and the UN  (Rwanda & Burundi ?)  I thought it was admirable neutrality on Emmanuel's part to use the word Palestine in the title, and thought it boded well for the future of the article.  My preference is for the content we arrive at to dictate the titles and structure, not vice versa.  Two different articles on these topics have a real danger of becoming POV forks, or contradicting each other, and I think it would be good to get agreed content here now even if we do split later. Right now the article seems to me to split differently, between the history etc sections in the beginning and the claims sections following, which tends toward quotefarming and seems to be where most of the fat is. (Although I plead guilty in my latest edits to adding to this!) It would be nice if we could figure out how to integrate the claims and accusations into more agreed, straight narrative if possible.John Z 08:00, 5 October 2007 (UTC)
 * JohnZ, what you call "quotefarming" is what Wikipedia calls WP:NOR. A perfect Wikipedia article cannot be a "straight narrative". Direct your complaints to Jimbo. Emmanuelm 12:35, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

If necessary, perhaps we could split the article into two that way, History/General and Claims/Accusations/Bias, if we can figure out titles. The overview/summary articles on the conflict seem to me to be something of a mess; very hard to make high quality articles. The limitation imposed by treating both, (Emmanuelm's idea) but relating to the UN, where there has been an awful lot of activity, might be very productive in creating a reasonable overview article of the whole conflict, which can always be split and changed later. In any case we have Justin to thank for promoting some musing on the article, which seems to me to be thoughtful and productive.John Z 08:00, 5 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Koavf, you moved this page despite a majority of opinions against it. As I said before, I am against a split. I am also against a title that suggests that Israelis can have a state, not Palestinians. If you want to be NPOV to the extreme, consider The Middle East and the United Nations. As for the length, Cancer is 90Kb, George W. Bush is 108Kb, and they are less controversial than Palestine. If the article must nevertheless be shortened, the Historical Overview could be removed since it is covered in other articles. I therefore see no need to split the article. Please undo your page move. I will not play the revert game with you; someone else can take that fight. Emmanuelm 12:35, 6 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Responses I was gone for a couple of days.
 * As per long articles, yes, there are some that are long, but that is no justification for this one being so long, especially since the examples you cited are inevitably going to be long (e.g. George Bush.)
 * I don't see how two articles would be a POV fork, as they are two separate - if related - entities. Again, if anything, forcing them into one article seems POV.
 * Splitting the article in regards to its content about criticisms makes some sense to me as well. -Justin (koavf)·T·C·M 23:27, 7 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Koavf, you are the only one who thinks so. Emmanuelm 18:07, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

Request for Comments
Two issues need to be resolved in this article: due to a recent page move, it has a new title that is controversial and due to several edits expanding the scope of the article, it may be desirable to split. -Justin (koavf)·T·C·M 20:08, 8 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Comment. Regarding both the title and scope of the article, it would be wise to track the practices of the most highly qualified sources on the subject matter. So, I think the key question is this: In peer-reviewed academic writings on this topic, how are UN discussions and issues characterized? (Indeed, strong academic sources would be preferable to the UN's own nomenclature.) Among these sources, it might be best to eliminate the most one-sided scholars and favor neutral accounts, such as literature reviews on the topic. Thanks. HG | Talk 22:49, 8 October 2007 (UTC)
 * HG, 1) the Israeli-Palestinian conflict is so mediatized and emotional that there is simply no one who could be perceived by both parties as being neutral, 2) this might be why peer review books & articles about Israel, Palestine and the UN are very few, and 3) I disagree that the opinion of some ivy league pencil pusher is worthier than the opinion of a UNSG or a head of state. Nevertheless, the spirit of Wikipedia is not to complain about someone else's work but to edit it yourself. Please show us what you mean. Emmanuelm 13:16, 9 October 2007 (UTC)
 * While the peer-reviewed writings may be few, I'm simply pointing out WP Policy that they are preferred over even UN sources. They're "worthier" both as secondary sources and as more reliable and neutral sources. Though I'm not here to add content, I hope my process suggestions will be welcome graciously, even if not accepted. I do hope you all can find some moderately neutral sources, even if you have to work through some tertiary ones first. Thanks muchly, HG | Talk 13:50, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

Suggestion -- How about Israeli-Palestinian conflict and the United Nations? --Marvin Diode 14:53, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

Latest pro-Israel accusations by Zahar -- include or not?
In the Oct 8th Haaretz, Mahmoud Zahar, foreign minister in the Hamas-led government, called on United Nations Secretary General Ban Ki-moon to quit his post "because of his full partiality towards Israel." He accused Ban of violating the rules of the international organization "by his biased attitudes towards Israel." "We follow up with a great concern the biased steps carried out by the UN in relation to Middle East conflicts," Zahar said in a written statement.

Everyone knows this is blatant falsehood, meant as a counterpoint to the recent anti-Israel accusations by Ban and Bush. Does the NPOV policy applies to disinformation? I already included two pro-Israel accusations to satisfy the neutrality gang, despite the objective evidences to the opposite. I personally despises "neutrality" but nevertheless tried to play the game. How far do we have to go? Where is the line between a lie and an opinion? Emmanuelm 18:06, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

The UN is ignoring anti-Palestinian discrimination by Arab states -- reference please
I extracted this hidden text from the article for all to see & discuss.

The racial discrimination and violence endured by Palestinians in Arab countries, especially Lebanon, is well documented. Yet, as far as I know, the UN has never condemned these countries for it, despite the very numerous condemnations of Israel for the same crimes on the same people during the same time. Strangely, neither could I find an article denoucing this fact. Can someone help? Emmanuelm 19:49, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
 * The difference in UN condemnation is partly due to the fact that Israel violations more clearly fall under the UN's mandate, Lebanon's (deplorable) discrimination being defended as an internal matter. John Z.
 * Oh, I see now John Z, it is so just and fair. Can you find a source for that? Emmanuelm 19:49, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

Removed from 'claims that UNESCO is pro-Israel'
I have removed the following text from the 'claims that UNESCO is pro-Israel' section:
 * "In 2003, an exhibition of holy books at the UNESCO-sponsored Alexandria Library in Egypt included a copy of the Protocols of the Elders of Zion next to the Torah. UNESCO issued a public denunciation of the exhibition and the book removed from the display., "

I don't see how this is a claim that UNESCO is pro-Israel; no one is making such a claim here. Indeed, the very thought that someone could object to the removal of the Protocols of the Elders of Zion from public display as somehow 'pro-Israel' is disturbing... surely it's just being 'anti-hoax' or 'anti-racism'! Terraxos 01:14, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Terraxos, you are right: this was an example of UNESCO fighting anti-semitism. Those knee-deep in the Israeli-Arab conflict often fail to respect the thin and arbitrary border between anti-zionism and anti-semitism. The same goes for Wikipedia editors on the subject. Emmanuelm 13:24, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

Anonymous edits
To the anonymous Dutch guy who made a zillion small edits today on the article : first, sign. Second, make all your modifications in one edit to facilitate their evaluation & edition. Emmanuelm 01:20, 5 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Making them in lots of small edits let you evaluate each one in turn. You can the reject some and keep what you patronisingly call the "some interesting" ones. A blanket revert like you did rolling hback a couple of hours work was just astonishingly rude. 83.245.19.149 06:01, 5 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Dear 83.245.19.149, I see you knew exactly how to recover your work and re-introduce it in the article as a single edit. I suspect you are not new to Wikipedia, only sneaky. And, on the subject of rudeness, may I suggest a quick class in etiquette?. Emmanuelm 19:43, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

Terrorist or Militant?
As per the WP:TERRORIST policy, Mr anonymous Dutch removed all instances of the T-word from the text. I feel strongly against this policy but a WP article is not the place for gut feelings. Your opinion please. Emmanuelm 15:19, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

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

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

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

BetacommandBot (talk) 20:15, 26 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Image deleted. Go bother someone else. Emmanuelm (talk) 18:15, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

About Comparison with other conflicts being Original Research
Hello Eleland, WP:OR is defined, among others, as unpublished analysis or synthesis of published material that serves to advance a position. The concept of OR is further clarified in WP:NOTOR, which states: Organizing published facts and opinions — without introducing your opinion or fabricating new facts, or presenting an unpublished conclusion — is not original research. In my opinion, this table is a neutral organization of published facts. If you disagree about the neutrality of this compilation, the proper attitude would be to show us what you mean by editing the table. In the meantime, stop deleting it. Emmanuelm (talk) 17:05, 7 January 2008 (UTC)


 * There are several problems with the table:


 * First, there are no sources for the "number of UNGA resolutions." Presumably, the selection criteria for that number make rather a large difference in what it ends up being, but they're not specified, and coming up with criteria ourself is original research.
 * Good point. Legend expanded to clarify method.


 * Second, the source for "deaths" is Wikipedia itself. I'm going to assume that all the articles on those wars have sources for their deaths estimate, so I'm fine with leaving it as-is until we can cite those sources properly, but it still does need sources eventually.
 * This article is about the UN; details about the various conflicts belong to the respective articles. If the casualty numbers are good enough for them, they are good enough for me.


 * Third, the issue of original synthesis. The specific juxtaposition of "deaths" and "number of UNGA resolutions" is clearly designed to advance a position, namely that Israel is disproportionately singled out by the United Nations for some reason or another.
 * Ah, I was waiting for you to make this point! My table indeed seems to "advance a position" but I do not state an opinion, only facts. Your impression is the result of self evident facts. Frankly, I was myself shocked by this compilation. Surely, the UN cannot be so blatantly biased, this must be a mistake or a distortion of the truth! Therefore, I urge you to look at it critically. Please edit this table to make it more NPOV. I am eager to see the result.

You can advance a position without explicitly stating it. To take a silly example, if the number of elephants in some particular game reserve has tripled in the last six months, adding a chart of those figures to an article about elephant populations could have the effect of advancing the claim that elephant population is on the rise, even if it wasn't explicitly stated.
 * Silly indeed. To call OR the statement of self-evident facts is a distortion of the original intent of this WP policy. In the words of Jimbo Wales, articles may not contain any unpublished theories, data, (...) or ideas that would amount to a "novel narrative or historical interpretation."

A more germane example; one could just as easily construct a table regarding United States vetoes of Security Council resolutions; there are literally scores of examples of the U.S. voting alone, nearly alone, or with the U.K. alone against the entire rest of the world.
 * Great idea! Please add another column for the UNSC resolutions; they are found here. The vetoed resolutions can be found here, looking for items labeled "no action".


 * Now, I'm sure that there really are sources which present comparable tables or statistics, not to mention sources which say that the UNGA disproportionately singles out Israel, but I'm not sure that featuring their views so prominently, without any opposition, caveats, or even attribution, would be in line with WP:NPOV. If that table, or a comparable table, can be sourced to statistics given by some pressure group, then it would be a welcome addition to "Claims the General Assembly is anti-Israel" section, but it's not appropriate where it is now, and it's not appropriate without sources. &lt;eleland/talkedits&gt; 17:40, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
 * I found nothing, but I am not perfect. Please help me. Emmanuelm (talk) 19:21, 8 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Eleland, I take your criticisms seriously, so I kept reading about the NOR policy. Here is what I found in the maze of WP policy pages: The goal is to improve Wikipedia. The process of removing unsourced material and demanding that other editors find sources can cause conflict and edit warring. Ideally, you would find and cite additional sources to support the unsourced text. My point exactly. Emmanuelm (talk) 16:27, 9 January 2008 (UTC)


 * In future, can you not post in the middle of my comments? That's generally done only for very long comments, see WP:TALK. OK, you've clarified your method in determining what resolutions relate to Israel-Palestine-Lebanon, (though not other conflicts) but the method itself is still original research. Also, your inclusion of all resolutions with the words "Lebanon, Disengagement, or 1967" is guaranteed to generate false positives. Simple mathematical procedures which any high schooler can check, such as turning raw figures into percentages, aren't original synthesis, but anything much more involved, such as devising a standard to determine which resolutions relate to which conflicts based on which words they contain, are original synthesis.
 * Now, the essay you've cited (which seems to be reasonable, but reflects the views of one editor User:Uncle G) says that ideally additional sources would be found. If those sources don't exist, the information should be removed. For now I'll just add a warning tag to the section. &lt;eleland/talkedits&gt; 17:21, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
 * If I may chime in, I've just glanced at the above discussion. Emmanuelm says: My table indeed seems to "advance a position" but I do not state an opinion, only facts. Your impression is the result of self evident facts. This strikes me as quite problematic. The table does look like WP:SYNTH, marshalling facts to argue for (advance) a position. A choice to correlate different variables, whether synchronic or trend data, is a choice emblematic of original research. At a minimum, shouldn't you all be finding some secondary sources (e.g., scholars) who have analyzed this, or similar data, who would be making the point instead of Wikipedia? Thanks. HG | Talk 18:27, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

(outdent) You know, I just noticed that the images and charts such as Image:GA_middle_east_number.jpg and Image:GA_middle_east_percentage.JPG are by the same author, and he says they are "heavens forbid, the result of Original Research by myself, and ... an image. Original research is not allowed in Wikipedia, but original images are. The survival of this graph to the scrutiny of the NOR police therefore depends on this ambiguity."

I think this pretty severely misunderstands the reasons for our OR-images exception, which exists "because images generally do not propose unpublished ideas or arguments." The graphs are highly problematic, when it comes to unpublished ideas or arguments. For example, mideast resolutions seem to be multi-part much more often than non mideast resolutions. So "The jump between 1984 and 1985 corresponds to the introduction of multi-part resolutions," and "The counting of each part separately is justified because the number of parts reflects the amount of debate on the subject." By my reading of the graph, this means that in 1984 some 25% of resolutions pertained to the Middle East, while in 1985 the proportion jumps to around 40%, simply based on this rather arbitrary judgement call.

We may need an RfC on this question. &lt;eleland/talkedits&gt; 21:53, 9 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Frankly, you guys are right : the figures are OR, and also possibly the table. Ironically, I did this research to correct pro-Israel bias in published data. It started with this number from eyeontheun.org : they claim that in 2006, 47% of resolutions concern Israel. My count, using the criteria detailed in the picture pages, amounts to 39%.
 * Now, my last words : stop complaining, do not flag me, be bold and please edit the article to make it better. Emmanuelm (talk) 15:53, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Italics
What's with the uncoventional use of italics in the article? AnonMoos (talk) 01:01, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
 * I used italics to incorporate quotes in the text instead of using the "" function. What would be a "conventional" use of italics?  Emmanuelm (talk) 16:49, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Unfortunately, italics are currently used in a rather strange way which does not exactly correspond to direct quotation, and often doesn't correspond to anything meaningful at all (as far as I can see). AnonMoos (talk) 15:56, 2 February 2008 (UTC)
 * I cleaned it up just for you. Emmanuelm (talk) 19:39, 3 February 2008 (UTC)