Talk:Louise Arbour

Loads of Honorary Degrees
She got an honorary degree from University of Guelph in June 2009 and I was there, so I thought I'd add that to the entry. I checked for any others and there are lots. I added a whole paragraph full but am too tired to finish up now. Here's a link listing a whole bunch more:. The citations are dead easy to find once you start looking. Tim Bray (talk) 06:06, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

Biography assessment rating comment
The article may be improved by following the WikiProject Biography 11 easy steps to producing at least a B article. -- KenWalker | Talk 20:31, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

Unreliable sources
See Reliable sources. I have just placed the inline refences into the Footnote format. When verifying the citations, I thought that two of them do not fit the guidline for reliable sources. The first one definatly not the second one perhapse but it would be better if a more reliable source could be found. I think that if new sources can not be found then the two factoids which are based on these citations should be removed. --Philip Baird Shearer 16:29, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
 * 1) Paul Belien UN to Investigate Racism of Danish Cartoonists in the Brussels Journal 7 December 2005
 * 2) David Beers The Leader the Libs Need? in The Tyee February 17, 2006

more citations needed

 * ''Throughout her career, Arbour has published in the area of criminal procedure, criminal law, human rights, civil liberties and gender issues, in both French and English. At various times, she has served as an editor for the Criminal Reports, the Canadian Rights Reporter, and the Osgoode Hall Law Journal.


 * ''Madam Louise Arbour has been awarded honorary doctorates by twenty-seven universities.


 * ''She has three children: Emilie, Patrick and Catherine Taman.


 * ''She is also the subject of a made-for-television movie, entitled, "Hunt For Justice," which follows her quest to indict Bosnian war criminals.

The above must have come from somewhere and it would be better if the facts had a citation, as at the moment anything could he added to this list and there is no way of using Wikipedia to cross check and verify the facts. --Philip Baird Shearer 16:36, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

Editor: Check this out: http://foottothefire3.blogspot.com/2008/05/steves-stasi-at-wikipedia.html —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.65.205.50 (talk) 01:00, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

Interviewed on CBC
There is a good interview that Arbour gave to Carol Off for the radio show As It Happens. It would be useful to get some of the information from that interview (which aired on March 21 2008) into this article. An extended version of the interview (longer than the version that aired on the radio) is available in the AIH podcast. --Mathew5000 (talk) 04:49, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

Criticisms of Isreali visit
I am changing the line As High Commissioner she was criticized for not using this trip as an opportunity to call attention to their kidnapping. "[9] to As High Commissioner she was criticized by the soldiers' families for not using this trip as an opportunity to call attention to their kidnapping. "[9] since the cited article only speaks of the soldiers' families criticising her. Pklala (talk) 04:08, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

Israeli Censorship
This section was deleted because, in one person's opinion, it wasn't "constructive". Your deletion of the section proves precisely the point that the section makes. Israeli censorship is a valid concern, and a reputable source was cited for this concern. The source was neutral, being from on author who has no ancestry in the Middle East. Israel, like any country, is NOT immune from criticism. I have restored this section. If it is deleted again, it will be proof that Wikipedia is biased in favour of Israel and against Palestinians. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.51.122.250 (talk) 17:52, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

Vandalism by 70.51.122.250, Deletion of Balanced and Substantiated Analysis
User 70.51.122.250 deleted the detailed, substantiated and balanced analysis of Justice Arbour's record. This same user's 30 December posting falsely described its vandalism as "(Undid revision 260750498 by Thingg (talk))". In fact the changes were done to other postings. No reason was given for the deletion of thoughtful analyis based on an empirical study where all data is provided and cited.

The only motive we know is this user's comment about "ancestry" and obsession with who is "Jewish" or not. Why ethnic or racial factors should be a factor in a discussion of facts is less than obvious.

Cindiohalloran (talk) 23:11, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

The Analysis section is extremely biased, and the labelling of Ahmadinejad's speeches as anti-semitic is subject to who is hearing it, it is not fact. He has been accused of it, though it is not absolute, and I would think the source it came from just from reading the title is hardly reliable for an analysis of Arbour. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.101.81.96 (talk) 16:02, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

Allegation of "Vandalism" by Cindiohalloran
Cindiohalloran has incorrectly called my revisions "Vandalism" because I disagree with his/her political views on Israel. His/her assertion that the deleted matter was a "detailed, substantiated and balanced" analysis of Justice Arbour's record is incorrect. While it was certainly "detailed", it was unsubstantiated and clearly biased in favour of Israel. In fact, it was written by a Jewish lobby group which calls itself "United Nations Watch". The fact that this is a lobby group must be stated clearly so that readers can understand that it is not some official organization. It is simply a group with a certain political opinion and agenda. The fact that it is a Jewish lobby group should also be clearly stated so that readers understand that it's opinions will be biased in favour of Jewish interests, including its interests in the Jewish state, Israel. This is hardly an "obsession", this is common sense. To do otherwise is unfair to the Palestinians.

"Why ethnic or racial factors should be a factor in a discussion of facts is less than obvious" - 1) they aren't "facts" they are opinions, and biased opinions at that; 2) these opinions are precisely about ethnic and racial factors, i.e. whether Ms. Arbour's views weighed unjustly in favour of Middle Eastern persons, particularly Palestinians, and whether her views weighed unjustly against Jews and Israelis. It is obvious that someone of race X will have bias in favour of race X.

In any discussion regarding the conflict between Israel and Palestine or Jews and Muslims/Arabs, where information comes from a source that is on one side of the conflict or the other, it is only fair to state what side the source is on.

The source that Cindiohalloran has cited is on one side of the conflict. The source that I cited is not on any side of the conflict. This is an extremely important point and must be clear if Wikipedia is to fairly describe anything regarding Israeli - Palestinian tensions.

Cindiohalloran has deleted my remarks regarding Israeli censorship, thus proving precisely the point that I sought to establish.

Accordingly, I have undid his/her revisions on the basis of clear bias. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Alex Vanderpool (talk • contribs) 23:30, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

Breach of my account
I see that someone has hacked into my account and undid my previous revisions. This was noted as a correction of an error ("error 262850387"), and the change was somehow done in my name.

This is really getting pathetic. Disagreeing with legitimate criticism of Israel is one thing, but hacking into my account to reinstate your clearly biased views is going too far.

In any event, I can play this game as long as you can. The Palestinians deserve a voice, and people aren't taking this B.S. from Israeli supporters any more. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Alex Vanderpool (talk • contribs) 17:54, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

Vanderpool's Selective Deletion of Any Reference to Shortcomings in Arbour's Record
Alex Vanderpool deliberately misrepresents UN Watch's report, citing its positive praise of Arbour's record, but deleting any reference to shortcomings, such as her March 2008 admission that she knowingly balked at criticizing Russia and China. He also deleted several other references, such as that Arbour, despite being asked by 30 human rights NGOs, failed to address Iranian President Ahmadinejad's anti-Semitic campaign of Holocaust denial and incitement to genocide. By contrast, upon demands from certain UN alliances, Arbour did issue statements about perceived offences to Islam, which may have encouraged the Islamic states' campaign at the UN to curb freedom of speech,

How can Vanderpool quote only the half of UN Watch report he likes, and delete the half he doesn't?


 * I corrected his vandalism as best as I could. He hasn't edited since April, though I smell a sock. :D Wikifan12345 (talk) 07:10, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

Use of "Her Excellency"
Copying over from User talk:Mr Serjeant Buzfuz:


 * Hello, you reverted this edit of mine on Louise Arbour. This link, specifically the section "How to address diplomatic and consular corps", should substantiate what I said. I'm not entirely sure where the citation would go on the page, though. INDT (talk) 18:38, 2 October 2021 (UTC)
 * That's an interesting site, but it's a state cite from Australia, indicating how to address diplomatic corps accredited to Australia. Similarly, the Canadian federal government page on Styles of Address indicates that "Excellency" is "... only used  by the government and the citizens of the country to which the person is accredited."  Is Arbour accredited to any particular country? I don't think that's the case, so I don't think either the Victorian or the Canadian pages address the issue. Does the UN have its own protocol for how its diplomats such as a High Commissioner for Human Rights should be addressed?  I think we should be guided by the UN's protocol on this, not protocol from different countries, which may take different approaches. Mr Serjeant Buzfuz (talk) 19:04, 2 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Hmm, I couldn't find anything by the UN themselves, but this specifically states UN High Commissioner (even referring to the human rights commissioner), and I found a few references to other High Commissioners for Human Rights being referred to as excellency (1, 2, 3). INDT (talk) 19:37, 2 October 2021 (UTC)


 * Hey, checking in since it's been a while with no discussion. INDT (talk) 05:39, 23 December 2021 (UTC)