Talk:UNRWA and Israel

Italy restores UNWRA funding

https://www.ansa.it/sito/notizie/mondo/2024/05/25/tajani-litalia-riparte-con-i-finanziamenti-allunrwa_a96697db-8037-4192-8d93-1a539fd4f67c.html

OR

Funding table is clearly OR as it relies on 2022 figures from a primary source. Makeandtoss (talk) 12:12, 22 August 2024 (UTC)

This material is not really needed any more in this article now that the funders (ex USA) have all restored following the 2 enquiries. Simple statements from RS as to what occurred after the 2024 allegations is all that is needed. Selfstudier (talk) 12:24, 22 August 2024 (UTC)

I think which countries froze funding and which didn't is pretty relevant to the topic, and a table seems like the best format for that. The current status doesn't really negate the relevance of past decisions. We could remove some details like dates if editors prefer a more compact table. — xDanielx ^T/_C\^R 16:08, 22 August 2024 (UTC)

The table is very very clearly OR by building on historical data to support present claims. Makeandtoss (talk) 16:56, 22 August 2024 (UTC)

How so? Combining facts isn't OR in general (or every article would be OR), only when there's an implied statement that isn't contained in the sources. What's the implied statement here? — xDanielx ^T/_C\^R 16:58, 22 August 2024 (UTC)

WP:OR: "To demonstrate that you are not adding original research, you must be able to cite reliable, published sources that are directly related to the topic of the article and directly support the material being presented." A 2022 source does not directly relate to the topic of aid suspensions in 2024. Makeandtoss (talk) 17:00, 22 August 2024 (UTC)

The topic of the article is UNRWA and Israel; 2022 actions based on Israeli allegations against UNRWA seem strongly related to that. — xDanielx ^T/_C\^R 17:08, 22 August 2024 (UTC)

Nothing is added by this table that isn't adequately covered in RS, https://crsreports.congress.gov/product/pdf/IN/IN12316 for example, the summary there is perfectly adequate if one just replaces "many" with "all others". There is no need to get into the weeds of who suspended, when did they resume, what did they say and all that.

What's wanted here is meta discussion about the donors/funding in general. I haven't got that far, yet, fixing this article up is not a trivial undertaking. Selfstudier (talk) 17:09, 22 August 2024 (UTC)

Wouldn't this meet the WP:PRIMARY requirements? The pledge data seems like uncontroversial facts with no interpretation. — xDanielx ^T/_C\^R 16:01, 22 August 2024 (UTC)

Nakba

@XDanielx: The sentence meant to say that the expulsion and flight is known as the Nakba. Makeandtoss (talk) 16:57, 22 August 2024 (UTC)

That makes sense, though I think references to related topics like Nakba probably only belong in text that contains substantive discussion of the events of 1948 (so maybe somewhere in the background section). I don't think it belongs in passing mentions, just as we wouldn't say "After the 1948 Palestine war, which occurred three years after the Holocaust, [some separate topic]". — xDanielx ^T/_C\^R 17:15, 22 August 2024 (UTC)

Restored mention of the Nakba. Its mention being removed due to "not clear why references to the Nakba would be relevant/useful in this context", but it is obviously relevant. IOHANNVSVERVS (talk) 17:26, 22 August 2024 (UTC)

Updating the image "UNRWA funding status (June 2024)"

According to the table below the image, the UK has resumed funding, leaving the US the only country with suspended funding.

Portugal appears in gray, but the article states that it even increased its funding.

While writing this, I saw that Portugal actually pledged 10 million Euros, putting it above the cut-off for the 2022 pledges (despite having a lower GDP than 1 country on the list, not counting with Palestine) Daniel.sousa.me (talk) 10:21, 25 August 2024 (UTC)

Lede

@Selfstudier: I am lost in the details. Can the three last lede paragraphs be removed as they are not a summary of the body, as well as being already summarized in the third lede paragraph? Makeandtoss (talk) 14:06, 2 September 2024 (UTC)

Really needs sorting out the body first, then the lead will take care of itself (and finally, summarizing back in the parent/removing the duplicated material from there). Selfstudier (talk) 14:16, 2 September 2024 (UTC)

True but the current situation isn't readable. I think the 4th and 5th lede paragraphs can be removed for now from the lede without affecting the overall summary. Useful bits can be later extracted from them in the future. Makeandtoss (talk) 21:57, 2 September 2024 (UTC)

Well, if you insist, then please do the summary of the new lead back at the main page and clean up the duplication (from when I copied all the UNRWA/Israel relations stuff over to here). Selfstudier (talk) 22:05, 2 September 2024 (UTC)

Which new lede and which main page? I am confused. Makeandtoss (talk) 22:51, 2 September 2024 (UTC)

You are redoing the lead here. Then summarize it and replace all the material in the main UNRWA article that I copied to here with the summary and this article as main. That was the whole point of the recent RM. Selfstudier (talk) 23:25, 2 September 2024 (UTC)

You are going to include the relations between 67 and 2024 in the lead, right? Selfstudier (talk) 12:24, 3 September 2024 (UTC)

I will check what I can do here soon, need a few days. Makeandtoss (talk) 13:25, 3 September 2024 (UTC)

OK, I removed the duplicated material from the parent that was copied here, when the lead is finalized here, it needs to be summarized and included at the main article (I have left what was there before pending that being done). Selfstudier (talk) 10:53, 4 September 2024 (UTC)

[1] Leaving this NYT article here; clearly articulates the 2024 controversy as: allegation of direct participation of 12, later expanded to reach 10% are involved; former allegation half disproved, later one unsubstantiated. Also mentions that UNRWA's creation was also due to push by Iraq and Egypt in 1951. Makeandtoss (talk) 11:19, 12 September 2024 (UTC)