Talk:World Conference against Racism 2001

From WikiProjectMed
Jump to navigation Jump to search


Untitled

This might be the first page I ever wrote from scratch. It's just the definition of a term that I couldn't find when I searched Wikipedia. Hope it's okay. 

(UTC)tharsaile 16:10, 26 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Articles for Deletion debate

This article survived an Articles for Deletion debate. The discussion can be found here. -Doc 18:54, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The article currently reads 'is a term used to describe the attempt to compare'. I'm changing that it is a comparison, not an attempt, whether the comparison is justified or not is, of course, another matter. --Doc 18:54, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I just revisited this page and noticed all the hackles it raised. I'm glad the entry survived, but I hope it didn't contribute to Doc's departure, as he/she seems like a very valuable wikipedian. tharsaile 20:58, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Discoverthenetworks

Why is a link to discover the networks used as opposed to a link to the post? Hipocrite - «Talk» 19:03, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Probably because the Post article is not available from the Post online? The cite is valid, as it gives the publication and date. I assume this is the only reason you have tagged the section, so I am removing the tag, since the hot link is no longer there. Crockspot 19:06, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Discoverthenetworks is hosting a copyvio. We do not link to copyvios. Please don't link to copyvios. Thanks. Hipocrite - «Talk» 19:08, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
You have no proof of that, many news sites pay to respost information. I hope you do not persist in slander in your crusade to remove DTN. --NuclearZer0 19:15, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Steinberg & NGO Monitor

As far as I can tell, it's only Gerald M. Steinberg and his organisation NGO Monitor that use this term. —Ashley Y 04:06, 26 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have proposed deletion for this reason. —Ashley Y 06:11, 26 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
You didn't look very hard, apparently, as I didn't have to in order to find a perfectly good cite. Andyvphil (talk) 09:09, 26 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
He may have coined the term? That would be relevant to the article, IMHO. -- Kendrick7talk 21:54, 26 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Absolutely. Andyvphil (talk) 23:54, 26 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
OK. The only sources for "Durban Strategy" are opinion pieces. These can't be considered neutral. I'll put it up for AfD. —Ashley Y 03:12, 27 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Um, it's probably irregular to move an article while it's under AFD? —Ashley Y 05:38, 27 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have no idea why this got moved either, Durban Strategy is certainly the common name for the event and claiming that it is uncontested because you mentioned it almost 18 months ago in an AfD is hardly a good idea. I'd recommend listing at WP:RM to get a wider consensus, until then, reverting. Narson (talk) 16:48, 27 December 2007 (UTC) [reply]

Except I can't because of Uncle G's actions. Wonderful. Narson (talk) 16:51, 27 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]


Ashley Y, I just signed in for the first time in a long time and got your message that the article was up for deletion again. I put the comment (below) on the debate page which you linked for me, but apparently it's already archived and said "do not edit", so I'll just put it here, FWIW Here it is: tharsaile (talk) 22:28, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • commentAs the author of the article & a Hebrew-American who loves Israel, I certainly didn't mean to "allege Israeli apartheid". But, I realize that personal beliefs are not what Wikipedia is about. If you guys really want to delete it, just delete it. If you don't, it'll just be nominated a 3rd time and a 4th, and we editors all have better things to do with our lives, right? tharsaile (talk) 22:21, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

NGO Forum Declaration

Does anyone else feel that this section is getting a little into WP:Undue territory with the amount of coverage it gives to criticising the declaration discussion's on the US? I haven't even really looked through the entire declaration, it's so very long but as the early part of this section states, it seems to basically be a something where NGOs have stuck anything and everything which concerns them into it with everything from criticism of classic anti-slavery to the Checnya, Sri Lanka-Tamil Tigers, Roma people and even the treatment of disabled people and GLBT people. It seems to me then that there is probably more criciticism then (for reference, I'm looking at this version [1]) Nil Einne (talk) 15:32, 27 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I second the concern for the language of the NGO section. It seems to concentrate almost solely on the US criticism of the NGO Forum with little actual substantive information on the proceedings of the conference. --Yatta (talk) 07:03, 12 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think that this edit has misled you both. ☺ The article isn't finished yet, by any means, and despite its length. I devoted over a week to it, but that doesn't mean that it's at featured article status yet. There's much more to write, and you've correctly identified one of the parts of the article where this is particularly the case. I generally don't work at the FA end of the article spectrum. I give articles a good shove upwards from the dank and dismal depths of deletion discussions, but I rely upon other editors to then haul them all of the way up to FA status, one of whose criteria is ensuring that no aspects of the subject have been omitted. This article is simply at the point where it is apparent to any reasonable editor that deletion wasn't and isn't the answer. And for an article that isn't at FA status yet, perfection is not required. It's collaboration that is required. Feel free to find some of the many sources that I didn't use, and add more to the article about the proceedings of the NGO Forum. There's work to be done. ☺ Uncle G (talk) 10:57, 20 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Intro changes

I have made a couple of changes to the text recently added by Jalapenos. Firstly, I removed the claim that "The conference included distribution of the antisemitic forgery Protocols ...." etc as the source clearly states that these materials were distributed at another conference.[2] I have also removed the text stating that the US and Israel walked out of the conference "claiming it was merely a pretext for the airing of virulent antisemitism" as it is unsourced; the sources only state that the walkout was due to objections over a draft document equating Zionism with racism. Gatoclass (talk) 09:12, 4 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Jalapenos has just restored the content, without giving a reason or responding to my concerns above. Due to 1RR, I am unable to revert at this time, so I have placed a POV tag on this article for the time being. Gatoclass (talk) 05:51, 5 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I've just removed it. The source provided clearly stated that the material was distributed at "a conference that coincided with the Durban conference in 2001" rather than the conference in question. As such, it obviously doesn't support a claim that the material was being distributed as part of the Durban Conference itself. Nick-D (talk) 06:36, 5 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks Nick. I have removed the POV tag accordingly. Gatoclass (talk) 06:40, 5 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Multiple sections contain blatant bias

This article is so biased I am amazed it hasn't been tagged by multiple individuals. The entire "Compensation and Colonialism" section reads like it was written for a high school essay project. The following are some of the more obvious examples of bias that don't belong in a Wikipedia entry:.

1."It was one of the most controversial issues debated at the conference, one that had the potential to derail the entire conference. It was dealt with cleverly in the Declaration..."
2. "The issue of compensation was thus a complex one, that was exacerbated by the President of Senegal, Abdoulaye Wade..."
3. "Prior to the conference, on 2001-08-03, the African Group circulated a Non-Paper on the "Injustices of the Past", containing strong language but a generally reasonable position..."
4. "Similarly, South Africa was more interested in devoting time and effort to more pragmatic ends..."

Those quotes were taken from the beginning of the entry; however, similar statements are found throughout the entire entry. Every single one of them involves a value judgment from the author. "Dealt with cleverly"? "Exacerbated"? "Generally reasonable position"? What criteria is being used to determine that such a position was "generally reasonable"? "More pragmatic ends"? That statement contains both explicit and implicit bias. That only one source was used for essentially that entire section is one possible explanation for the bias, althought that doesn't explain why the entire entry is riddled with similar statements that have no business in an encyclopedic entry. It is not for Wikipedia to determine if one position is more rigidly ideological rather than "more pragmatic", whether a solution is "clever" and if a position is "generally reasonable" or not. The author doesn't even use weasel words or statements such as "some individuals claim..." rather it is just taken as unassailable fact that a particular position is more "reasonable" or "pragmatic" than another, or that a particular person "exacerbated"(a word I have never seen used in a positive way) a particular situation. Again, it is not the role of Wikipedia editors to make such judgments.74.138.41.50 (talk) 22:31, 6 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on World Conference against Racism 2001. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 23:42, 7 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Update, please

The sculpture, to be titled the Permanent Memorial to the Victims of Slavery and the Transatlantic Slave Trade, or the UN Slavery Memorial, is set to be completed in 2012.

Latest? Valetude (talk) 02:04, 16 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Protocols...

The Palestinian Solidarity Committee of South Africa reportedly distributed copies of the antisemitic forgery The Protocols of the Elders of Zion.

This claim is not well-sourced so I took it out. ImTheIP (talk) 23:26, 25 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://mdwiki.org/wiki/Talk:World_Conference_against_Racism_2001"