Talk:United Nations Human Rights Council

Why is this disputed?
The following content has apparently been the subject of some dispute. I restored it with a better edit summary as it had not been defended properly:


 * ''" restoring opinion article by notable person. Like most of the other content in this section, "accusations of bias", by their very nature, are often opinions, and opinions in RS are legitimate content when framed and attributed properly. This passes our PAG.)

The content:

"An editorial in the Jerusalem Post subsequently revealed that UNHRC was "poised to adopt six resolutions ... condemning Israel," noting that it was the highest number of resolutions ever to be adopted against Israel in a single session. Human rights activist and Hudson Institute senior fellow Anne Bayefsky accused UNHRC of failing to remove antisemitic propaganda distributed by the IHH during one of its sessions. The material in question was an illustration depicting Israel as a sinister Nazi octopus seizing control of a ship."

Please explain why this content is not suitable? The author is certainly notable and the source is a RS. The rest of the content in that section is also opinion. Opinions in RS are generally considered legitimate candidates for inclusion when attributed properly. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 01:40, 31 December 2022 (UTC)
 * I'd hope we could find better sources than editorials from a newspaper in the middle of a conflict. And perhaps the other parts of that section could be due for review. Whatever their opinion. O3000, Ret. (talk) 01:52, 31 December 2022 (UTC)
 * On what policy basis are you objecting? We are not treating opinions as facts or facts as opinions. It is clearly presented as the opinion of the writer. Why are you making an exception THIS TIME, for what we normally do? -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 01:56, 31 December 2022 (UT
 * Well, not THIS TIME. I've been against editorials from any papers. This isn't even from an uninvolved source. But, that's all I have to say and it's up to consensus. O3000, Ret. (talk) 02:06, 31 December 2022 (UTC)
 * I hope you change your mind about being "against editorials", as that is not policy. Editorials are just as legitimate content as any other source of opinion, and opinions are often the most important and interesting part of that "sum total of human knowledge" we are supposed to document. They are what affect the course of history. They are what explain history. They are the spice we need mixed with boring facts. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 02:10, 31 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Very well put -- and I enjoy spices. But, editorials from countries in favor of their own country's official positions I've never found useful. I prefer independent opinions in an encyclopedia. O3000, Ret. (talk) 02:25, 31 December 2022 (UTC)
 * I understand, but "balance" is still a thing. We shouldn't create a false balance, but we should, per NPOV, document views from opposing sides of a controversy:
 * "Neutrality assigns weight to viewpoints in proportion to their prominence in reliable sources. However, when reputable sources contradict one another and are relatively equal in prominence, describe both points of view and work for balance. This involves describing the opposing views clearly, drawing on secondary or tertiary sources that describe the disagreement from a disinterested viewpoint."
 * Valjean (talk) (PING me) 02:38, 31 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Prominence in reliable sources. An opinion piece by a Hudson Institute fellow is not a reliable source.  nableezy  - 03:14, 31 December 2022 (UTC)
 * The source is the Jerusalem Post. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 03:19, 31 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Um no, the source is an editorial by Anne Bayefsky in the Jerusalem Post. That is reliable for Bayefsky's opinions, but not for facts. You can tell that by the helpful map at the top of the article here: Jerusalem Post > Opinion > Editorials. As in an outside contributor published for their personal view.  nableezy  - 04:18, 31 December 2022 (UTC)
 * It's also from 11 years ago. This sort of thing is not that unusual, for example, every year the UNGA passes a bunch of resolutions concerning the conflict. See Palestine and the United Nations, for 2020, 6 of those resolutions were also passed in one session on 10 December. The number of them that get passed in one session or in any one year is just a function of the agenda being followed for that year. Nevertheless, every year, the predictable outcry erupts from the usual suspects alleging that this is bias against Israel.Selfstudier (talk) 10:03, 31 December 2022 (UTC)
 * All the entries in the "bias" section are 10+ years old. None of this is new at all, the same accusations are made for every single resolution, inquiry and report. Every UN interlocutor is accused of anti-Semitism and bias. As I mentioned  above, the other side is not addressed at all.
 * On the bias question overall Reuters re Trump/Haley era "The United States has long shielded its ally Israel at the United Nations. In citing what it says is bias against Israel, the administration of President Donald Trump could further fuel Palestinian arguments that Washington cannot be a neutral mediator as it prepares to roll out a Middle East peace plan. Washington also relocated its embassy to Jerusalem after recognizing it as the capital of Israel, reversing decades of U.S. policy."
 * Or AJ "The UN’s repeated buckling to US and Israeli pressure stands contrary to claims of an anti-Israel bias, analysts note."
 * And 21 countries signed a statement alleging bias. That's 21 out of 193.
 * John Dugard describes the situation as it is "“Undoubtedly, the UNHRC and General Assembly do devote disproportionate attention to Israel/Palestine,” South African international law professor John Dugard, the UN’s former special rapporteur for human rights in the occupied Palestinian territories, told Al Jazeera. "But this must be viewed in the context of the UN political organs as a whole," Dugard added. "The Security Council and Quartet on the Middle East [UN, European Union, United States and Russia] are notoriously pro-Israel and refuse to pay adequate attention to Palestinian issues."
 * Any bias is a two way street. Selfstudier (talk) 10:42, 31 December 2022 (UTC)

The Hudson Insititute is a relliable source, this article is slanted against Israel.Actoreon1 (talk) 17:35, 20 February 2023 (UTC)
 * They might be (idk) but as explained above, that's not the source. An opinion piece isn't and we know what that opinion is if we read her article. Looking at your first two edits ever, it seems that we know your opinion as well.Selfstudier (talk) 17:49, 20 February 2023 (UTC)
 * It is a source. Just because Wikipedia allows an anti semitic  groups to determine issues does not mean the rest of can correct errors.Unselfstudier (talk) Unselfstudier (talk) 22:23, 9 September 2023 (UTC)


 * Being opposed to the actions of the Israeli government is NOT anti-semitism. HiLo48 (talk) 02:57, 10 September 2023 (UTC)