Talk:United Nations Human Rights Council/Archive 1

China

Hmm? On the BBC article it said that China will be booted out. Surely they did not support this? -- Миборовский ^{U|T|C|M|E|Chugoku Banzai!} 05:29, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

Imprecise reference

The article states: "[The United Nations Commission on Human Rights] was often criticised for the high-profile positions it gave to member states that did not guarantee the human rights of their own citizens." Your description is partial and accepts the official position of some countries (the Western nations) regarding the topic. Developing nations criticized the commission for its political and selective choice of which countries to criticize for human rights violations, while leaving out nations that are friendly to Western states. The point here is that the Commission lost its credibility: it became such an important element to legitimize criticism --and possibly military action by hegemonic powers against their enemies (since, from the 1990's on, human rights started to be used as justification for military interventions), that the Commission was no longer viewed as a neutral entity. There was dispute among states to be a part of the commission precisely because it had become a political organism, which it never should have become. The point, therefore, is not just that countries did not want to be criticized; it's that the Commission was selective and used its criticism with political motivations, sometimes aiming to legitimize military interventions. I think that your text should reflect this position instead of passing the impression that the Commission's only problem was that countries that violated human rights did not want to be pointed out. This is almost like saying that the Commission did its job well.

—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 201.41.115.241 (talk) 04:16, 16 April 2007 (UTC).

Reference 15 points to an apparent government source that has been removed. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.40.238.26 (talk) 19:47, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

General editorial comment: This is the worst Wikipedia article I have seen. It combines random facts that were true at various times over the last 6 years, but are no longer accurate or relevant or both, so should be deleted or updated. Example: "As of 2010, Israel had been condemned in 32 resolutions by the Council since its creation in 2006. The 32 resolutions comprised 48.1% of all resolutions passed by the Council.[42] By April 2007, the Council had passed nine resolutions condemning Israel, the only country which it had specifically condemned." Who cares what the statistic was as of 2007 and 2010, cite it as of 2012. And Israel is certainly not "the only country which [the HRC has] specifically condemned," there are many more -- Iran, Burma, DPRK, Syria, Libya, etc. And the 48.1% is wrong. Likewise, the last UPR session mentioned was in 2009; there have been over 2 years of UPR sessions, 3 per year, including the UPR of the United States, since then. The article cites facts based on quotes from very partisan and biased sources. It is way too long. It focuses on particular issues in great depth while ignoring others. (For example, its "Specific issues" section has page after page about Israel, and one line each about two random other topics, out of dozens if not hundreds of "specific issues" that the HRC addresses.) Admittedly it's hard to write over a period of time an overview of an organically developing institution, but this article is worthless as an overview of the HRC -- it should be thrown out and re-started from scratch. 169.252.4.21 (talk) 18:03, 20 March 2012 (UTC)

Self-Review

Oh dear - "the Council's members will be required to meet "the highest standards" of human rights, and will be subject to periodic review". So the Council decides if the Council members are any good. I foresee problems. (In fact, I'm not sure in some cases, such as Africa, how they're going to *find* thirteen states with acceptable, let alone impeccable, human rights records.)

Anyways, it's the traditional problem; why would a State brutual and violent enough to ignore humans rights in the first place pay attention to a body which merely tells it not to do so? history comprehensively shows this approach is utterly useless. Toby Douglass 13:00, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

WP:NOT a soapbox. Talk pages are for discussing the articles they are attached to, not the subjects thereof.

James F. (talk) 14:30, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

You are correct and I accept my comment is soapbox; however, I did have an article related consideration in mind, in that it could be good to have a section discussing the strengths and weaknesses of the new structure. After all, we can also provide NPOV insight into the news. Toby Douglass 23:13, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

Yes. That's right. The United States should not be given a seat in it! __earth ^(Talk) 14:44, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

Structure

I am at that very moment translating the "Structure"-section into German. I noticed that in the last sentence that there is stated " [...]. The Commission was asked to wrap up its work [...]". Should this appereance of "Commission" be rendered as "Council"? --Wendelin 19:54, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

No. It refers to the United Nations Commission on Human Rights which the council is replacing. 131.111.8.99 20:01, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

Annan

UN Secretary-General Kofi Annan proposed the new council, but his plan was modified in the resolution...Should that be added, or is it irrelevant? Rachel 21:03, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

I don't think that such details are important. Everything gets changed in work. --tasc 21:12, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

I think it's important. Annan's initial proposal was very different and far better; it's been watered down terribly in the politics of process. I think it worthwhile that the article includes an explanation of the original proposal and the final, adopted proposal. It's the old problem of getting a bad body to reform itself - reform work gets hammered into uselessness by the body incoporate which has plenty of self-interested reasons for not changing. Personally, I hold that internal reform simply does not happen; organisations are fundamentally incapable of changing their nature by their own choice, *regardless* of the merits or reasons for change. It requires an externally imposed crisis, which will either destroy the organisation or coerce it into adapting. All this matters to the article in that if we are to provide insight into events, we need to understand the nature of the problems faced by large organisations attempting internal reform. My views in this matter are a small part of that collective understanding. Toby Douglass 23:13, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

I was actually commenting that there was no mention of the origin of the proposal anywhere. Should we explain that it came from Annan as part of a plan for more reforms, or is that not really to the point? Rachel 20:55, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

I also think including Annan's original proposal is important, as the adopted proposal is slightly better than the old system, but still seriously flawed. StuRat 15:30, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

New Math?

I'm wondering if anyone here can count. 170 in favor + 4 opposed + 3 abstained equals 177, not 190. That leaves 14 member nations unaccounted for (forgive the pun). Did they abstain, or were they not present for the vote (technically an abstention)?

Please. This is just embarassingly bad for a front page news related article. Anyone who knows the status of the 14 MIA nations, please add them now so we stop looking like goobers. -Kasreyn 06:19, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

NB: my own hilariously embarassing error in adding this comment should not detract from the seriousness of my point. I may be a fool, but Wikipedia still needs its articles to make sense. -Kasreyn 06:23, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

Added info regarding absent countries. Perhaps another 7 just didn't vote. --tasc 08:32, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

http://www.un.org/News/Press/docs/2006/ga10449.doc.htm

Vote on Human Rights Council

The draft resolution to establish the Human Rights Council (document A/60/L.48) was adopted by a recorded vote of 170 in favour to 4 against, with 3 abstentions, as follows:

In favour: Afghanistan, Albania, Algeria, Andorra, Angola, Antigua and Barbuda, Argentina, Armenia, Australia, Austria, Azerbaijan, Bahamas, Bahrain, Bangladesh, Barbados, Belgium, Belize, Benin, Bhutan, Bolivia, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Botswana, Brazil, Brunei Darussalam, Bulgaria, Burkina Faso, Burundi, Cambodia, Cameroon, Canada, Cape Verde, Chile, China, Colombia, Comoros, Congo, Costa Rica, Croatia, Cuba, Cyprus, Czech Republic, Democratic Republic of the Congo, Denmark, Djibouti, Ecuador, Egypt, El Salvador, Estonia, Ethiopia, Fiji, Finland, France, Gabon, Gambia, Germany, Ghana, Greece, Grenada, Guatemala, Guinea, Guinea-Bissau, Guyana, Haiti, Honduras, Hungary, Iceland, India, Indonesia, Iraq, Ireland, Italy, Jamaica, Japan, Jordan, Kazakhstan, Kenya, Kuwait, Kyrgyzstan, Lao People’s Democratic Republic, Latvia, Lebanon, Lesotho, Libya, Liechtenstein, Lithuania, Luxembourg, Madagascar, Malawi, Malaysia, Maldives, Mali, Malta, Mauritania, Mauritius, Mexico, Federated States of Micronesia, Monaco, Mongolia, Morocco, Mozambique, Myanmar, Namibia, Nepal, Netherlands, New Zealand, Nicaragua, Niger, Nigeria, Norway, Oman, Pakistan, Panama, Paraguay, Peru, Philippines, Poland, Portugal, Qatar, Republic of Korea, Republic of Moldova, Romania, Russian Federation, Rwanda, Saint Kitts and Nevis, Saint Lucia, Saint Vincent and the Grenadines, Samoa, San Marino, Sao Tome and Principe, Saudi Arabia, Senegal, Serbia and Montenegro, Sierra Leone, Singapore, Slovakia, Slovenia, Solomon Islands, Somalia, South Africa, Spain, Sri Lanka, Sudan, Suriname, Swaziland, Sweden, Switzerland, Syria, Tajikistan, Thailand, The former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia, Timor-Leste, Togo, Tonga, Trinidad and Tobago, Tunisia, Turkey, Turkmenistan, Tuvalu, Uganda, Ukraine, United Arab Emirates, United Kingdom, United Republic of Tanzania, Uruguay, Uzbekistan, Vanuatu, Viet Nam, Yemen, Zambia, Zimbabwe.

Against: Israel, Marshall Islands, Palau, United States.

Abstain: Belarus, Iran, Venezuela.

Absent: Central African Republic, Democratic People’s Republic of Korea, Equatorial Guinea, Georgia, Kiribati, Liberia, Nauru.

Above unsigned comment by User:85.210.20.208

There still seems to be 6 missing (if indeed there are 190 countries in the UN, and there are 170 yay votes there (I'm not counting them)) bjmurph _talk‽ 10:19, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

There were, at the time, 191 members (there are now 192). At a glance, Papua New Guinea and Seychelles are two of the 7 unaccounted for. I think I have the answer. Chapter IV, article 19 of the Charter of the United Nation states: "A Member of the United Nations which is in arrears in the payment of its financial contributions to the Organization shall have no vote in the General Assembly if the amount of its arrears equals or exceeds the amount of the contributions due from it for the preceding two full years. The General Assembly may, nevertheless, permit such a Member to vote if it is satisfied that the failure to pay is due to conditions beyond the control of the Member." Presumably, PNG, Seychelles and the other missing five have had their voting rights suspended due to arrears in payment. Aridd 11:08, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

See also this page on the UN's website. Aridd 16:08, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

The members numbers don't make sense - in the members section it shows the members of the council, not the members of the convention and neither match the number of "members" stated in the articleSuastiastu (talk) 00:37, 22 April 2016 (UTC)

Enforcement mechanism ?

No enforcement mechanisms are listed. Those COULD include referring cases to the security council with recommendations for embargoes and other diplomatic action, or for taking military action against genocide. Since no enforcement mechanism is listed, I wonder if they have any power at all or will just give lip service to human rights.

See my comment in the preceding section. The talk page of the article is for discussion of ways to improve the article, not discussion of the subject of the article. -Kasreyn 06:40, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

The part for the article is that the enforcement mechanism should be listed, but isn't. StuRat 12:41, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

Oops! Of course, you're right. My apologies. I think that mistake means I need sleep now. >_< -Kasreyn 12:49, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

LOL, do you need me to sing you a lullaby ? StuRat 13:18, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

Composition of Council

"The 47 seats in the new Council will be distributed among the UN's regional groups as follows: 13 for Africa, 13 for Asia, 6 for Eastern Europe, 8 for Latin America and the Caribbean, and 7 for the Western European and Others Group."

This seems to be weighted toward those areas of the world where the most human rights abuses take place (Africa, Asia, Eastern Europe, Latin America and the Caribbean) and against those regions with the fewest records of recent genocide, etc. (Western European and Others, which I assume includes the US, Canada, Australia, and New Zealand). I would have expected the Council to either be evenly weighted by population (in which case Africa would have far fewer representatives than the Western Europe and Others Group) or, better yet, more heavily weighted towards those with good records. What is the explanation for this ? StuRat 15:24, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

Because the seats were distributed on the basis of the number of member states in each group, not by the aggregate populations of those member states. WEOG accounts for some 30 out of 190 member states: about 15%, so it gets 7 seats on the council (7 = 15% of 47).

"Africa should have fewer seats than WEOG"? In terms of population, Africa and WEOG are pretty much the same size. The region that really loses out by divvying up seats by member-states instead of population is the Asian bloc; conversely (I think) EE and LAC gain. (Does Wikipedia only have an article for the WEOG, not all the others?) But that's how things are done: the UN's members are the states, not the inhabitants of those states - one state, one vote. Lapicero 17:02, 9 April 2006 (UTC)

"better yet, more heavily weighted towards those with good records. What is the explanation for this ?" Ever thought about the fact that exactly those states with "not-quite-so-good" to "abysmal" records are in the majority, and that it's pretty ... naive to assume they'd give up on their advantage so easily? Bah. Fucking dictatorships. —Nightstallion (?) 17:37, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

Confused about how members are selected

I'm a bit confused how the members are selected. I know each has to be approved individually, but how exactly are they nominated (self nominated?)? Are only the appropriate number for each region nominated or is it possible to have more then the total allowed for a region nominated? If it's possible to have more then the total, and more then the total are approved, how exactly are the states which will actually be on the council selected (e.g. based on the votes received). Finally, whatever the case, what happens if not enough states are selected/approved from a region? Nil Einne 08:47, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

I hink that they are self-nominated because there were more candidates then mandates to disperse. --134.169.5.1 13:25, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

To address your questions in order:

• They are all self-nominated. The countries have to volunteer, and they have to invite observers into their countries to check how their own human rights record actually is.
• It is possible, and intended, that more than the alotted number of slots nominate themselves; else, why vote if we have exactly as many candidates as slots?
• As has happened for the Western European and Others Group, the ones with the most votes in support are selected. (None of the candidates from the WEaOG got less than 50% approval, but Greece and Portugal got the smalles number of votes, I believe.)

Hope this explains it. —Nightstallion (?) 17:32, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

Logo request

It's got a logo -- http://www.un.org/apps/news/story.asp?NewsID=19069&Cr=Human -- and that should be in the article. —Nightstallion (?) 11:28, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

It has been added now. /Slarre 22:15, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

Regional Groupings, are these 'official'?

['Canada' in 'Western Europe and other states'?. Is there any reason why the U.S. wasn't there or that there is no 'regional' group covering N. America - in which case Canada is the representative nation - and Mexico should be in there also]

The Western European and Others Group article explains exactly what the WEOG is and what it covers. As for the USA's absence, that's addressed in this article: the US chose not to seek membership on the Council on this occasion. Lapicero 23:37, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

Criticism by UN Watch Director should be incorporated into the Article

http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340,L-3381839,00.html http://www.kxmb.com/getARticle.asp?ArticleId=108159

re Council's position on Israel

I placed an {npov} tag on that section. It sounds like highly POV and apologetic - add to that a possible WP:SYNTH. WP:UNDUE is also observed as it covers around 25% of the total article. Just a blatant POV. 41.251.66.64 04:09, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

Hi, I was wondering what exactly you found to be "highly POV and apologetic." Two people can read the same topic about Israel and feel they are incredibly biased in opposite ways. As for SYNTH, I thought that this is handled fairly well. Certain facts/patterns about voting are presented and then followed by positions from various figures. They do all support one side, but NPOV does not mean that all sides must be equally presented in terms of page volume. If you can provide links/facts that refute the criticism, please include them. As far as UNDUE, I think some of it is undue, ie two paragraphs quoting Bush when Wolff's reaction would be sufficient. On the other hand the UNHRC was founded to replace the UNCHR. Given the UNHRC's emphasis on Israel to the exclusion of other issues, which is similar to the failings of the previous UNCHR, this section is very appropriate to the subject. But perhaps the section should be retitled "controversy on position" or expanded to "criticism of UNHRC" or some such thing.Eridanos 19:55, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

I removed the NPOV flag. This section is filled with quotes from reliable sources, all in agreement. Even Costea, the president of the UNHCR, agrees that there is an anti-Israel bias! If you can find a source stating otherwise, quote it. Stop flagging, start editing! Emmanuelm (talk) 14:15, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

The section Controversial country-specific rapporteurs

I suspect that this section is a bit out of date. Were not the Belarus and Cuba special rapporteurs discontinued already last year? As for the presently ended session 7 (I just went through the draft protocols), the North Korea rapporteur indeed seems to be highly contested, but the Myanmar one not at all. (The council consistently employs that name instead of the older Burma, whence I think it apt to do the same in references to its resolutions.) Now, this is only what I can find out from the official documents; I do not know what goes on behind the scene, and would prefer if someone following news reports of the issues updated the section.-JoergenB (talk) 19:27, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

Bot report : Found duplicate references !

In the last revision I edited, I found duplicate named references, i.e. references sharing the same name, but not having the same content. Please check them, as I am not able to fix them automatically :)

• "Annan" :
  • On [[20 June]] [[2007]], Secretary-General [[Ban Ki-moon]] joined Western nations in criticising the world body's own Human Rights Council for picking on Israel as part of an agreement on its working rules. A UN statement said, "The Secretary-General is disappointed at the council's decision to single out only one specific regional item given the range and scope of allegations of human rights violations throughout the world." The [[European Union]], Canada and the United States attacked the singling-out of Israel's role in the [[Palestine|Palestinian]] territories for continued special investigation, under the deal reached in Geneva two days earlier. The Geneva meeting aroused further controversy after [[Cuba]] and [[Belarus]], both accused of abuses, were removed from a list of nine special mandates, which included [[North Korea]], [[Cambodia]] and [[Sudan]], carried forward from the defunct Commission.<ref>[http://online.wsj.com/article/SB120156891659323879.html The U.N.'s Human-Rights Sham - WSJ.com<!-- Bot generated title -->]
  • The UN Secretary-General: [http://hrw.org/un/pdfs/annan_address120806.pdf Address to Mark International Human Rights Day] 8 December 2006.
• "HRC7add1" :
  • [http://daccessdds.un.org/doc/UNDOC/LTD/G08/123/07/PDF/G0812307.pdf?OpenElement Session 7, draft report,] Published 2008-03-28, accessed 2008-04-11
  • Human Rights Council: [http://www2.ohchr.org/english/bodies/hrcouncil/docs/7session/A-HRC-7-L11.doc. Session 7, draft report, addendum 1] Published 2008-03-28, accessed 2008-06-06.
• "economistcouncil" :
  • {{cite news |title=Bad counsel |work= |pages= |language= |publisher=''The Economist'' |date=[[2007-04-04]] |url=http://www.economist.com/world/international/displaystory.cfm?story_id=8966293 |accessdate=2006-08-16 }}
  • ''A Shadow on the Human Rights Movement'', By Jackson Diehl, June 25, 2007; Page A19, [http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/06/24/AR2007062401373.html www.washingtonpost.com]

DumZiBoT (talk) 14:46, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

Bush's remarks

I have removed overlong quotations of Bush because the section becomes slanted in favor of a particular point of view. His remarks have nothing to do with the UN Human Rights Council or its position on Israel. For Wikipedia editors to interpret Bush's remarks as criticism of the HRC amounts to original research. ABarmenkov (talk) 18:24, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

Antisemitism

The source provided for the claim that the organisation is Antisemitic doesn't use the word Antisemitic. The word Antisemitism should not be used when the sources talk soley about a bias against Israel. 82.46.49.45 (talk) 12:04, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

anti Israeli bias, 2009

Riots in China. Protests in Iran. UN rights council talks about ... Israel. --Sceptic from Ashdod 08:02, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

...and something about Darfur: The Seven Excuses of Inaction for Darfur. --Sceptic from Ashdod 08:05, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

No doubt the UNRC has become mostly a political tool to wage lawfare against unpopular countries. I really think the section on Israel could be expanded to a more quality extent but reduced in size. Information is way too scattered and sub-headings should be added. The contrast with the latest Sri Lankan war could also be merged. I'd argue the issue is less about bias and more of a systematic and institutionalized code of conduct.

I think if we focused more on the all-around flaws, that would be better. While it is true Israel bears the brute of the moral criticism, countries like Sudan, Congo, Zimbabwe, and Sri Lanka continue to endure endless civil wars and famines at a loss of 8,000,000+ people, 15,000,000+ refugees/IDPs, and hundreds of billions of dollars. This needs to be fleshed out. Do you want to work on this? Wikifan12345 (talk) 10:17, 25 July 2009 (UTC) If anything this article gives the council too much credit when it's main occupation seems to bash Israel. There was no criticism of Lebanon for allowing Hezbollah to engage in terrorist act against Israel.Tannim1 (talk) 13:57, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

Position of the United States

Why on earth do I give a crap enough to read that whole section? Why is it so large, the position of one country? 99.232.196.201 (talk) 20:30, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

Could have to do with the United States being one of its more vocal critics, as well as the UN's largest financial supporter. Of course, you can always skip that section if it pleases you.72.201.251.230 (talk) 23:16, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

Support for Goldstone report

This entry is biased against Goldstone and needs revision on that account. There is a section citing complaints against the report but no mention of support (even if qualified at times) given by human rights NGOs and international statepersons. I give the following examples but do not suggest that this is an exhaustive list.

- Amongst her criticisms of the report Jessica Montell, Executive Director of Bt’selem could still say that “The full-throated, unequivocal denouncement is unsubstantiated…” She later gives a reserved endorsement to its central premise. “All the tendentious mudslinging and the more grounded criticism cannot delegitimize the report's central recommendation: that Israel itself must conduct credible investigations into its own conduct. The whole international system is based on the premise that justice should be done at home. Only in cases where there is no possibility of obtaining a domestic remedy does the international community step in to fill the vacuum. The Goldstone report reiterates this premise.” [1]

- Amnesty International Secretary General Irene Khan said that she was pleased that the findings of Judge Goldstone's report echoed those of Amnesty International's fact-finding mission to Gaza in January.

"Judge Goldstone has confirmed that there were war crimes committed by the Israeli forces and also crimes against humanity, attacks on civilians that had no military purpose, excessive destruction of buildings, blockage of food and other essentials to the civilian population.

"We are also pleased that Judge Goldstone took a balanced approach and also looked at violations committed by the Hamas authorities. And we are very pleased that he has recommended accountability for what has been done," [2]

- Sarah Leah Whitson, Middle East director at Human Rights Watch endorsed the report saying “Goldstone’s report, scathing in its criticism of both sides, is the best evidence that his mandate in practice was neither biased nor unfair,” [3]

- Mary Robinson wrote after the report’s publication “I feel it is important to put my views on record, as comments I made previously are now being used as part of the effort to undermine wrongly Judge Goldstone and his important work.” Without any reservation she concluded her statement thus “For the sake of human rights and peace in the region, my hope is that the international community will bear witness to these circumstances, consider Judge Goldstone’s report in its entirety and press for accountability for the most serious crimes.” [4]

- Jimmy Carter in the International Herald Tribune wrote “…I consider their [Hamas] condemnation by Judge Goldstone to be justified.” and “Again, the criticism of Israel in the Goldstone report is justified.” [5]

Sources

1) Jessica Montell, 1 October 2009; The Goldstone Report on Gaza; Huffington Post. http://www.huffingtonpost.com/jessica-montell/the-goldstone-report-on-g_b_306500.html (Accessed 9 February 2010)

2) Amnesty International, 18 September 2009; IRENE KHAN URGES US GOVERNMENT TO EXAMINE GOLDSTONE REPORT; http://www.amnesty.org/en/news-and-updates/news/irene-khan-urges-us-examine-goldstone-report-20090918 (Accessed 9 February 2010)

3) Human Rights Watch, 27 September 2009; US: Endorse Goldstone Report on Gaza; http://www.hrw.org/en/news/2009/09/27/us-endorse-goldstone-report-gaza (Accessed 9 February 2010)

4) Mary Robinson, 30 September 2009; Accounting for Gaza; Project Syndicate. http://www.project-syndicate.org/commentary/robinson2/English (Accessed 9 February 2010)

5) Jimmy Carter, 5 November 2009; Goldstone and Gaza; International Herald Tribune. http://www.cartercenter.org/news/editorials_speeches/goldstone-gaza-jc-oped-110509.html (Accessed 9 February 2010) Scottish chap (talk) 21:05, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

Fixing the Goldstone Report section

This is the first time I've tried to alter a contentious page, but there's several issues that need fixing, I'm just going through an trying to make the POV a little more neutral.

1)That all Western countries were against the Resolution. Not seeing any evidence for that. And indeed the map says the opposite. The broken link was to the Jerusalem Post, not a very unbiased source.

The Jerusalem Post is considered WP:RS.Do you have some other WP:RS sources that say otherwise.Also you can't make you own conclusions from the map it would be OR.

It seems the map and your quote from the JP are both wrong,

I've looked here: http://www2.ohchr.org/english/bodies/hrcouncil/specialsession/9/

In favour: Angola, Argentina, Azerbaijan, Bahrain, Bangladesh, Bolivia, Brazil, Burkina Faso, Chile, China, Cuba, Djibouti, Egypt, Gabon, Ghana, India, Indonesia, Jordan, Madagascar, Malaysia, Mauritius, Mexico, Nicaragua, Nigeria, Pakistan, Philippines, Qatar, Russian Federation, Saudi Arabia, Senegal, South Africa, Uruguay, Zambia;

Against: Canada;

Abstentions: Bosnia and Herzegovina, Cameroon, France, Germany, Italy, Japan, Netherlands, Republic of Korea, Slovakia, Slovenia, Switzerland, Ukraine, United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland.

How does that fit with 'All Western nations opposed the establishment of the inquiry commission'?

2)removing: "Noting that the mission digressed little from its original mandate, Melanie Phillips suggests that the motive for the high-handed action may have been "to provide Goldstone with the fig-leaf to disguise the moral bankruptcy of the entire process."[55]" this is an opinion/POV. It should be noted that her views are certainly quite biased, she "has called the Palestinians "a terrorist population", and has said lots of other unpleasant things. I think having her commentary in this article is a little too biased. Lionfish0 (talk) 13:40, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

There other comments that support the mission from various people.So she should stay read WP:NPOV

Are there? It seems there were surprisingly few before I tried to add an edit. Oddly few compared to the number of people who support it. Also I still don't think quoting those at the fringes is wise, while ignoring the central consensus quotes.

Shouldn't we at least warn people of her prior opinions?

3) Changing lots to make the most POV quotes less the focus

Please introduce changes in talk first.Its controversial issue

Cool. I was just surprised at what appeared to be rather selective use of quotes.

4) Also it seems odd that Mary Robinson's quote that she herself said was being wrongly used to undermine the report was put in big quotes on the page. Really quite unacceptable! Lionfish0 (talk) 14:30, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

Explain why.Does this quote is not correct?Shrike (talk) 17:00, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

By using part of her quote and putting it in large letters, and repeating it in the text is definitely an incorrect use of a quote.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:NPOV#Impartial_tone

I hope the changes I've made are ok, and I've really tried to be as NPOV as possible. I think it's important to highlight when a quote or reference is from a particularly sketchy source.Lionfish0 (talk) 17:24, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

• I've just come to this page after a lot of work editing the Goldstone report page. A couple of points: editors on this talk page seem to be making comments and not signing which makes it difficult to follow discussions, please sign all of your edits. I would be in favour of removing most of the content from the Gaza report section and just directing to the Gaza report page. Pexise (talk) 17:14, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

Question

Just curious, does anyone know why this article is vandalized unusually frequently? Jalapenos do exist (talk) 03:50, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

"globalize" tag on top of article

I suggest removal of this tag. Raggz (talk) 06:23, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

Another thought

How about the whole section just redirects to Goldstone_report? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lionfish0 (talk • contribs) 14:52, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

It may be a good ideaShrike (talk) 17:00, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

Cool. How do we do that? Lionfish0 (talk) 17:24, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

Suggested content for Gaza section

I would suggest changing the section to this: Pexise (talk) 17:29, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

====Gaza report====

Main article: United Nations Fact Finding Mission on the Gaza Conflict

On the 3 April 2009, South African Judge Richard Goldstone was named as the head of the independent United Nations Fact-Finding Mission to investigate international human rights and humanitarian law violations related to the Gaza War. The Mission was established by Resolution S-9/1 of the United Nations Human Rights Council.

On September 15, 2009, the UN Fact-Finding mission released its report. The report found that there was evidence "indicating serious violations of international human rights and humanitarian law were committed by Israel during the Gaza conflict, and that Israel committed actions amounting to war crimes, and possibly crimes against humanity." The mission also found that there was evidence that "Palestinian armed groups committed war crimes, as well as possibly crimes against humanity, in their repeated launching of rockets and mortars into Southern Israel." The mission called for referring either side in the conflict to the UN Security Council for prosecution at the International Criminal Court if they refuse to launch fully independent investigations by December 2009.

Seems reasonable. Although do you think it should have more about the resolution itself? I guess I'm worried about *how* information about the resolution info might be included. After having read the original resolution, it did appear to be investigating the actual attack by Israel - rather than including any of Hamas' activity. However, as mentioned in the article the mandate changed, and I feel that there's a risk of over-emphasising this apparent 'bias' in the resolution - which might lead people to believe that the report itself ignores Hamas' activities. This is very tricky! How about, in your suggestion above, after "The Mission was established by Resolution S-9/1 of the United Nations Human Rights Council.", something to the effect of "The resolution's focus was only on Israeli activity during the conflict. Some commentators have criticised this aspect of the original resolution [citations]. However, after negotiation(?) the mandate was altered to include the role of Hamas in that period [citation needed]."

Does that help? Thanks for getting involved! Lionfish0 (talk) 09:58, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

My view would be that it's not worth getting into such specifics here. People who are interested in more information can find a thorough (perhaps not NPOV) discussion in the main article on the report.

The issue is really a red herring anyway, as the mission did investigate both Israeli and Palestinian violence. It is just the case that the Israeli violence was on a far greater scale than the Palestinian (although it was suggested that both could have been guilty of war crimes). Pexise (talk) 21:21, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

That is my own personal view, but I was trying to be as NPOV as possible. Unfortunately I think I swung too far the other way in my attempts at being NPOV. Thanks for the suggestions, I'll make the changes soon, but I suspect any changes I make will be immediately reverted - I'll have a go next week some time. Thanks again, Lionfish0 (talk) 13:50, 5 February 2011 (UTC)

I've already made the changes, and they haven't been reverted (yet). I think it's laudable to strive for NPOV at all times, but NPOV means presenting information from a neutral perspective, not necessarily including all perspectives. Some editors try and use NPOV as a way to push for inclusion of fringe views, or as a way to push soapbox agendas in the name of "neutrality". Pexise (talk) 18:16, 5 February 2011 (UTC)

Yes so why you deleted all the information that critical of resulution.We should only report what WP:RS says.You conclusion or personal thought is WP:OR.Shrike (talk) 11:38, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

Looks like I spoke too soon. Please see WP:FRINGE and WP:SOAPBOX. There is a full discussion of the resolution and all other aspects of the mission in the main article on the report, no need to re-hash it all here. Pexise (talk) 12:48, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

I've had a read of the sub-section you linked to, and it does indeed address the criticisms Shrike is referring to. It seems the criticisms are, as Pexise notes, a red herring, and amount to a relatively fringe view, which is covered in sufficient detail in a NPOV way in the main article. I vote to keep the changes Pexise made. Lionfish0 (talk) 13:28, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

Then I deleted the section all together becouse we can't say what report said without the critism and its not fringe contrary to what you claimShrike (talk) 13:55, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

Sorry, what I meant was it isn't so fringe that it shouldn't be mentioned at all, but that it isn't central to the report. So it deserves noting (and it is in the main article), but it shouldn't be included in a summary of the issue. 81.102.111.172 (talk) 15:09, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

I would agree with that assessment. Pexise (talk) 15:14, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

• User:Shrike - please don't add material against consensus and without first discussing on the talk page. Pexise (talk) 20:54, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

References

Dead link

The blue link "Special Rapporteur on Freedom of Expression" (between "Controversial country-specific rapporteurs" and "Universal Periodic Review") gives

"Http Status Code: 404 - Reason: File not found or unable to read file"

Why? Was something deleted? Or is it vandalism? Other links seem to work. The link "United Nations Special Rapporteur" works. --Janwikifoto (talk) 08:51, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

Question

Can this article be added as a category?--User:Warrior777 (talk) 11:45, 2 July 2011 (UTC)

Human rights violation by UNCHR members

It's important to note in the article that more then half of the countries that makes up the UNCHR is a known serious human rights abusing countries. it's really important since it's giving an important information about the council credibility. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.172.90.179 (talk) 11:39, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

Tag

I added a tag due to the extreme bias in this article. The article is currently written from the point of view of Israelis and her few supporters. For example, the "International response" section merely contains Israel, the US, the Canadian government, and Palestine, a group which often goes against the international opinion on the Israeli occupation rather than being representative of it. The article goes on to be a coatrack of quotes pretty much attacking any one who does not support Israel.

There is much much more wrong with the article, but I must go. Sepsis II (talk) 14:10, 16 March 2013 (UTC)

This edit was done with the explanation of "Don't think we can say that as the sources don't".

Well, both sources do say it, here, I'll even cut out the quotes so you don't have to tire yourself by actually reading the sources.

"But thanks to the Obama administration’s dogged diplomacy, it has started to turn the corner, gaining “newfound credibility as a human rights watchdog.”" [1]

"critics on the right should be very surprised -- at the extent to which the United States has been able to make the Human Rights Council more effective by joining it..." [2] Sepsis II (talk) 15:28, 17 March 2013 (UTC)

Sri Lanka section disproportionate and out of date?

The HRC debates 20 or 30 resolutions a session and has 3 sessions a year. Having a whole section on one particular draft resolution that was voted on in 2012 therefore seems a bit OTT, does it not? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.103.47.252 (talk) 16:43, 21 July 2016 (UTC)

Memberships last until the end of the year

According the UN website, the membership last until the last day of the final of three year term for each country. However, the current website has already updated the member list based on the recent vote. To be accurate, the current term should be 2014-2016, not 2016-2019. And the next term should be 2017-2019.

user:mnw2000 19:03, 29 October 2016 (UTC)

Tagged unbalanced

A controversial organisation unarguably, Nonetheless the article completely ignores the details of its criticism. The reports are abundant for a simple google search, so it is inexcusable to ignore the criticism.--Chanaka L (talk) 10:18, 6 April 2017 (UTC)

Transfering contents relating to Special Procedures, thoughts?

I think that transfering the contents of the subsection "Special procedures mandate-holders" and the list of thematic and country-specific mandate holders to an individual article would make much more sense. I already intend to change the United Nations special rapporteur article to a more general "Special Procedures of the Human Rights Council" under that title and expand it to include the proper explanation of how the three Special Procedure's mechanisms (Working Groups, Independent Experts, and Special Rapporteur) work, so it would be appropriate to have the aforementioned subsections there.

I don't think it makes sense to have an article on Special rapporteurs without having one on Special procedures. In fact, the United Nations special rapporteur article is already about the Special Procedures in general (its contents apply to all three mechanisms and the list there includes mandates of working groups and independent experts as well), it just has the wrong title and structure.

Any thoughts on these changes? I didn't want to go ahead and change things whitout checking first since I see there has been recent activity here. Cheers! --Manfercas (talk) 05:59, 6 December 2017 (UTC)

Archived Old Discussions

I have archived old discussions from 2015 and before. If you are planning a rewrite it may be worth looking through for info. Wqwt (talk) 07:17, 21 June 2018 (UTC)

Lead

The following needs to be removed from the Lead and to the appropriate section: "Secretaries General Kofi Annan and Ban Ki-moon, former president of the council Doru Costea, the European Union, Canada, and the United States have accused the council of focusing disproportionately on the Israeli–Palestinian conflict.[3][4][5] The United States boycotted the Council during the George W. Bush administration, but reversed its position on it during the Obama administration.[6] Beginning in 2009 however, with the United States taking a leading role in the organization, American commentators began to argue that the UNHRC was becoming increasingly relevant.[7][8]"

The tag for a rewrite of the Lead has been pending for a year. Raggz (talk) 22:44, 27 January 2018 (UTC)

Also should be in the lead, the mission is to go after Israel due to the anti-Semitism of the majority of members.24.97.161.140 (talk) 15:56, 10 April 2019 (UTC)

Agree with UNHRC targeting Israel.American Zionist (talk) 18:36, 27 April 2019 (UTC)

Overlap

There is overlap/redundancy between the Structure and Members sections, which should be addressed. --2603:7000:2143:8500:F1B5:C515:3F97:E850 (talk) 19:16, 6 June 2021 (UTC)

Kk

In India, Wasim is defaming our Muslim religion. Wasim made any arrangements 2402:3A80:1F02:9B21:F49D:D45A:F7C7:67F6 (talk) 19:05, 14 December 2021 (UTC)

I am failing to see what you are trying to advocate for in your comment. Are you asking for a change to be made or just giving commentary? The purpose of the Wikipedia talk page is to "provide space for editors to discuss changes to its associated article or project page" see WP:TALK Jurisdicta (talk) 21:58, 10 April 2022 (UTC)

Richard A Falk

He was appointed and re-appointed despite everyone knowing that he was personally unacceptable to the Israeli government, so it almost seems that he was appointed because he was personally unacceptable to Israel (much like Cornelio Sommaruga earlier)... AnonMoos (talk)

AnnonMoos, I am failing to see what you are trying to advocate for in your comment. Are you asking for a change to be made or just giving commentary. The purpose of the Wikipedia talk page is to "provide space for editors to discuss changes to its associated article or project page" see WP:TALK.Jurisdicta (talk) 21:56, 10 April 2022 (UTC)

Afaics, the undated commentary is from 2019 and nothing came of it, anyway. Selfstudier (talk) 22:01, 10 April 2022 (UTC)

James Comisky

article states that a James Comisky can sit without term limits. There is no evidence for this. 69.27.29.194 (talk) 16:49, 8 April 2022 (UTC)

This looks like posted in the wrong article altogether.Selfstudier (talk) 22:04, 10 April 2022 (UTC)

Implication of "suspend the rights and privileges" in the UN HRCouncil?

cf the article "the General Assembly can suspend the rights and privileges of any Council member that it decides has persistently committed gross and systematic violations of human rights during its term of membership." Can anybody explain what effect this has? Is this an international criteria for financiers to stop loans or so to the country's regime? How has this proven to help the population in the country? Thy, SvenAERTS (talk) 13:19, 10 June 2022 (UTC)

Sub heading change

Instead of allegations off bias against Israel, it should just be "Bias against Israel" for all the reasons listed.2603:8081:6B04:5300:7473:57D3:4961:B84E (talk) 13:26, 7 December 2022 (UTC)

They are allegations, it is not an established fact merely because the US and Israel (principally) make such accusations. Selfstudier (talk) 13:37, 7 December 2022 (UTC)

The examples listed are proof and U.N Watch the respected NGO has documented them.2603:8081:6B04:5300:789B:3889:6DC7:78CE (talk) 23:11, 7 December 2022 (UTC)

None of the UN Watch sources currently cited on the page appear to say this. If you have references that expand upon this, you should provide them. Iskandar323 (talk) 03:49, 8 December 2022 (UTC)

The statement are proof enough. I call for a vote of consensus.2603:8081:6B04:5300:E498:66B4:4B6A:BBF2 (talk) 19:22, 9 December 2022 (UTC)

The case has not been made. Rather ignored is the other side, namely that Israel is in breach of many resolutions over a long period of time and that is a documented fact. If there is bias, it can be just as well argued that the bias is in the failure to do anything about that. Selfstudier (talk) 22:40, 9 December 2022 (UTC)

@2603:8081:6B04:5300:E498:66B4:4B6A:BBF2: we don't "vote" here - consensus is not a vote. That's not how it works. Please read and understand WP:CON. It appears here that there already is consensus in this matter, so the problem appears to be that you simply don't want to accept the current consensus. Nothing it helped here by personally attacking other editors - keep the discussion on content. Article talk pages are WP:NOTAFORUM. You need to walk back your comments and work constructively. ButlerBlog (talk) 18:24, 13 December 2022 (UTC)

Since there has been no counter argument, I will make the change that was suggested.98.186.29.6 (talk) 15:57, 29 December 2022 (UTC) Seflstudier is engaged in editing abuse. I ask an administrator to ban the user.JerusalemisthecapitalofIsrael (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 22:56, 30 December 2022 (UTC)

Since there has been no counter argument is false and anyway you are not allowed to edit here so reverted. Selfstudier (talk) 16:11, 29 December 2022 (UTC)

I agree with the earlier posts. Sefstudier is abusing his editing privlidges — Preceding unsigned comment added by JerusalemisthecapitalofIsrael (talk • contribs) 00:10, 30 December 2022 (UTC)

"Allegations" must be included. We do not draw conclusions. O3000, Ret. (talk) 23:10, 30 December 2022 (UTC)

The whole section suupports my edit Bias against Israel. No one has given an argument against. Three posters agree with me. The change should be made.JerusalemisthecapitalofIsrael (talk) 23:12, 30 December 2022 (UTC)

Please provide reliable sources that make clear that the bias is not just alleged. EvergreenFir (talk) 23:14, 30 December 2022 (UTC)

The sources are there. Read the section. I am removing one word which changes from a POV to NPOV. What is the problem.JerusalemisthecapitalofIsrael (talk) 23:16, 30 December 2022 (UTC)

@JerusalemisthecapitalofIsrael The WP:BURDEN is on you to back up your claim. EvergreenFir (talk) 23:18, 30 December 2022 (UTC)

which I have done.JerusalemisthecapitalofIsrael (talk) 23:20, 30 December 2022 (UTC)

@JerusalemisthecapitalofIsrael - I have not seen you provide any sources at all. EvergreenFir (talk) 23:22, 30 December 2022 (UTC)

These are the sources

Speaking at the IDC's Herzliya Conference in Israel in January 2008, Dutch Foreign Minister Maxime Verhagen criticized the actions of the Human Rights Council actions against Israel. "At the United Nations, censuring Israel has become something of a habit, while Hamas's terror is referred to in coded language or not at all. The Netherlands believes the record should be set straight, both in New York and at the Human Rights Council in Geneva", Verhagen said.

At UNHRC's opening session in February 2011, U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton criticized the council's "structural bias" against the State of Israel: "The structural bias against Israel – including a standing agenda item for Israel, whereas all other countries are treated under a common item – is wrong. And it undermines the important work we are trying to do together."

In March 2012, the UNHRC was criticized for facilitating an event in the UN Geneva building featuring a Hamas politician. Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu castigated the UNHRC's decision stating, "He represents an organization that indiscriminately targets children and grown-ups, and women and men. Innocents – is their special favorite target". Israel's ambassador to the UN Ron Prosor denounced the speech stating that Hamas was an internationally recognized terrorist organization that targeted civilians. "Inviting a Hamas terrorist to lecture to the world about human rights is like asking Charles Manson to run the murder investigation unit at the NYPD", he said.

The United States urged UNHRC in Geneva to stop its anti-Israel bias. It took particular exception to the council's Agenda Item 7, under which at every session, Israel's human rights record is debated. No other country has a dedicated agenda item. The US Ambassador to UNHRC Eileen Chamberlain Donahoe said that the United States was deeply troubled by the "Council's biased and disproportionate focus on Israel." She said that the hypocrisy was further exposed in the Golan Heights resolution that was advocated by the Syrian regime at a time when it was murdering its own citizens. JerusalemisthecapitalofIsrael (talk) 23:23, 30 December 2022 (UTC)

@JerusalemisthecapitalofIsrael Those are politicians' comments, not reliable sources. We can report those as allegations, but not as fact. If we reported what politicians say as fact, then global climate change would be simultaneously real and a New World Order conspiracy. EvergreenFir (talk) 23:26, 30 December 2022 (UTC)

It seems the bias is alleged. I don't support your proposed edit. CT55555(talk) 23:26, 30 December 2022 (UTC)

Well you at least will discuss it. Please explain, as the the statements say they only have these issues with Israel , no other country. Look like bias not alleged bias.JerusalemisthecapitalofIsrael (talk) 23:45, 30 December 2022 (UTC)

We use reliable secondary sources. Read WP:RS. O3000, Ret. (talk) 23:58, 30 December 2022 (UTC)

Some facts about the racist UNHRC. https://www.adl.org/resources/backgrounder/united-nations-israel-and-anti-semitism204.9.220.42 (talk) 13:47, 31 December 2022 (UTC)

That article says at the top it was published on 09.17.2013 and yet it includes all sorts of material after that. It cites Ban Ki-moon in 2013 and 2017 in support of the accusations but missing, among other things, is Ban Ki-moon changing his mind in 2021 and saying that Israel is practicing apartheid, how about that? We can include this into the article since ADL remains RS provided that we include contrary material as well (see section below). Selfstudier (talk) 14:31, 31 December 2022 (UTC)

Both 204.9.220.42 and JerusalemisthecapitalofIsrael blocked. Appears to be block evasion. O3000, Ret. (talk) 15:14, 31 December 2022 (UTC)