Talk:United Nations Commission on Human Rights

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Matters are made worse on the Human Rights Commission by the representation on that body of a number of the world's most vicious and systematic abusers of fundamental freedoms. For example, Sudan -- whose regime has the dubious distinction of being a perpetrator simultaneously of genocide, slave-trading, terrorism and proliferation of weapons of mass destruction -- was voted onto the Commission on Wednesday. Others who should be in the dock, not on the members' dais, at the Human Rights Commission include: China, Cuba, Algeria, Syria, Libya, Pakistan and Vietnam. Human Rights Watch's representative at the UN, Joanna Weschler, has properly lambasted the Commission line-up as "a rogues' gallery of human rights abusers." [1]

Question, why are the two news sources offered both from markedly right-of-center sources? Could we balance the Fox News one with the BBC report or something? Also, why is the article so derisively worded? Sure, nobody's happy Sudan is representing human rights, but the argument that America has just as little ground is not wholly without merit. In whatever case, even the Fox News article notes that a slate of candidates was nominated and approved, and Sudan only got in on the backs of the others after several nations' efforts to find a replacement to contest Sudan failed. The Commission didn't willfully and under no duress appoint Sudan. Clear that up, please. Wally 22:12, 4 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]
The Fox news article is straight from AP. If they had changed it, the attribution would be Fox News, or the journalist, with an AP byline. Since there is no such thing, the article remains unchanged from the AP side. I find AP and Reuters to be pretty good in terms of reporting, especially when they essentially confirm each other's stories. -Vina 01:22, 3 Aug 2004 (UTC)

U.S.[edit]

Being so soft on the U.S. is a form of POV. The assumption is that the criticisms are overstated. --Daniel C. Boyer 20:09, 1 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Restructure the article[edit]

There's too much detail about how this UN human rights body is structured, and not enough material about:

  • which parties worked to establish it in the first place
  • what goals they wanted to achieve (or at least said they wanted)
  • a list of cases where the commission has succeeded in improving human rights in any particular country or situation (or at least condemned violations)
  • votes and other political maneuvers within the commission to cover up human rights violations - especially those committed within countries which have leadership authority within the body

According to The Washington Times:

The Bush administration has made reform of the discredited U.N. Human Rights Commission a top priority, demanding tighter membership rules and new powers to target individual governments. A number of leading human rights organizations say the current U.N. body has become a captive of the worst violators, who secure a seat on the commission just to block action against them. [2]

Naturally, US conservative criticism of the body should be balanced with any left-wing or other rebuttals or this criticism. I don't want Wikipedia to condemn the commission, any more than I want it to whitewash the commission. I seek a balanced, neutral article. --Uncle Ed 20:02, 16 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The north?[edit]

At the same time, human rights violations committed in the North, such as issues relating to torture, arbitrary detention, migration are rarely challenged. For instance, the Commission was unable to reach agreement on any text sanctioning the United States for its treatment of prisoners in the Abu Ghraib detention Centre or at Guantánamo Bay

What is "the North"? Is it sudan or what?--Doom Child 04:06, 17 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I sort of presume it is meaning the northern hemisphere (i.e. Europe, Russia, US, etc.), but not sure enough to change it, although clearly it needs clarifying. Sfnhltb 10:55, 17 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Alternate names[edit]

I see User:Alanmak added a template here, along with a bunch of alternate names. However, I have removed it - we do not list alternative-language names unless they are actually relavant to the article (e.g, giving the hebrew/chinese/arabic name for a hebrew/chinese/arabic person). In english, this body is known exclusively as the United Nations Commission on Human Rights, which is why we don't list 15 alternate-language versoins. Raul654 03:20, 4 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You can't really say that the names in Arabic, Chinese, French, Russian and Spanish are irrelevant, as they are the official languages of the United Nations. Almost all the conference and documents of the United Nations, which includes the United Nations Commission on Human Rights, are translated and given in all the six official languages. It has been a common practice in Wikipedia that, if an article is about a nation or an international organization, the name of that nation or organization in the official language(s) would be given. Several good examples are China, France, Shanghai Cooperation Organization. I think it is especially important to include the foreign-language names in the English Wikipedia, as English is becoming a common language for international communication, or even a worldwide language, nowadays. Unlike the Wikipedia in other languages, the English Wikipedia has a lot of contributors and readers from many different countries, which includes a lot of non-English-speaking countries. Based on all these reasons, I think the name in the other official languages of the United Nations should be added. I am putting them back to the article, and I hope that you can get a consesus first before deleteing useful information from the article. Thank you. - Alan 03:45, 4 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
This is the english Wikipedia - we use english. We give alternate names where they are relavant (as in your own examples, we give the French name for France and the Chinese name for China; notice that we *do not* give the arabic name for China and we don't give the portugese name for France. because they are not related). By the same token, these bodies are referred to by one and only one name in english; there is no point in giving the equivalent name in 5 other languages, it's not relavant. And, rather than pointing at some tiny company article that no one has ever heard of, look at (for example) Bank of China (Hong Kong), a featured article -- I don't see the chinese name anywhere in that article. Ditto for pretty much every big company you can think of (including Microsoft, the only other FA on a company). So your point is simply untrue. Raul654 03:55, 4 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, this is the English Wikipedia, and we are using English as the language in which we write the articles. And yes, we give alternate names where they are relavant. But it seems that you still didn't get my point. Arabic, Chinese, French, Russian and Spanish are relevant for the United Nations, as they are the official languages of the United Nations. For the article "China", contributors provide the Chinese name of China because Chinese is the official language of China, while Arabic isn't the official language of China. Similarly, for the article "France", contributors provide the French name of France because French is the official language of France, while Portuguese isn't. Even in the main article of the United Nations, the name in the other five official languages are already provided in the info box on the right hand side of the article. Providing the name(s) in the official language(s) has been a common practice in Wikipedia, and I don't see any point for why it is inappropriate or irrelevant. Actually, the issue of providing non-English official languages in the articles have been discussed before. For instance, in the "Inner Mongolia", I once asked why the name in both Chinese and Monglian, rather than either one, had to be provided. But other Wikipedians pointed out that both of them should be provided, as both are the official languages of Inner Mongolia. More specifically, there are two common styles in the Mongolian language - one used in Mongolia, one used in China. In the discussion, Wikipedians agreed that the Chinese-style Mongolian, but not the Mongolian-style Mongolian should be added, because the Chinese style is official in China, and Inner Mongolia is a region in China. For the article "Bank of China (Hong Kong)", contributors choose not to provide the Chinese name of the Bank of China, because the Chinese name is already very clearly shown in the two logos included in the article. In the case of Microsoft, it is an American company (as the owner, Bill Gates, is an American), and English is the official language for all the 50 states of the United States of America (with New Mexico has Spanish in addition to English, Lousiana has French in addition to English, and Hawaii has Hawaiian in addition to English). Therefore, only the English name has to be provided for Microsoft. If the majority of other Wikipedians think official languages are something that are totally irrelavent, that's fine, and we should remove "中國" from the article "China", "Bundesrepublik Deutschland" from "Germany", "République française" from "France", "भारत" from "India", etc. But at the mean time, while you still haven't got a community consensus for deleting the other five official languages of the United Nations from the articles about the United Nations, the information should stay there. If it turns out that all Wikipedians think that it is better to remove that information, that would be the time you should remove it from the article. - Alan 04:18, 4 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

There are arguments for both sides of the argument. The UN has many official languages, and thus the page should contain the translations. Raul's analogy that we should not include say, an Arabic translation on China, is not relevant, because Arabic is not an official language in China. So there is merit in adding the translations. However, I note that there are no translations on the United Nations page, so if we wanted something to follow, that would have to be it without the translations, although you can argue it either way really... But I think more discussion should occur before a revert war starts. enochlau (talk) 05:46, 4 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]


Copy from Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents:

  • I agree that the analogy "adding the Arabic name on China" doesn't make any sense.
  • No one is trying to add Japanese or German to the articles about United Nation. Only the six official languages are added. I have to emphasize, again, that this has been a common practice in Wikipedia.
  • The name in all the five non-English official names of the United Nations was already put in the info box (on the right hand side of the article) long time ago. It wasn't added by me. For a long time, no one suggested that we have to delete them.
  • As I said before, I would like people to discuss and seek a consensus before deleting any information from the articles.

- Alan 06:05, 4 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]


Thank you for adding the information on UNESCO's name in other languages. However, I don't see why it is so important as to be put in the very introduction to the article. It is simply not essential information, and for who wants to know those names, they are available in the left frame via other-language wikipedias. Jens Nielsen 08:34, 4 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Names in the other *official* languages, absolutely - why not (but not Klingon please) Agree w/ Jens that it should perhaps not be lead para, its just not 'the' most important thing.Bridesmill 14:10, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Exactly. How could official languages be omitted? Even the article "France" are allowed to have the name of France in French, which is the official language of France. It seems to be double-standard if we don't allow the articles about the departments, the branches or the agencies of the United Nations to have the name in the official languages of the United Nations. Furthermore, the names in the non-English official languages are useful to a certain extent. As a usual practice in Wikipedia, the name in foreign language(s) are added in brackets right after the bolded English name, which usually appears in the first sentence. It is also double-standard to push the foreign-language names away from the first paragraph. But the United Nations have six official languages - which is quite a lot, this seems to be a special case. I would suggest placing the name in the five non-English official languages at the end of the first paragraph, or at the end of the introductory section at the top of an article. - Alan 00:05, 6 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Um, no, they shouldn't be in any article at all. If someone wants to see the foriegn language equivalent, they can click the interwiki link. And was said previously, comparing the UN articles to country articles is apples to oranges -- the United Nations does not have a language of its own as France does. It adds nothing to the article and wastes space in the introduction. Raul654 00:10, 6 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

IMHO, it seems that you are relatively less familiar with the United Nations. Please carefully read the discussions above again to have some more background information first. Based on your opinion, I have the following comments:

  • "The United Nations does not have a language of its own as France does."
    The United Nations does have the languages of its own. As mentioned before, the United Nations have six official languages, namely Arabic, Chinese, English, French, Russian and Spanish. Almost all the conferences of the United Nations have real-time interpretations in all the six languages, and almost all documents of the United Nations have versions of all the six languages.
  • "comparing the UN articles to country articles is apples to oranges"
    No, official languages are something that both countries and international organizations can have. If you don't like to compare countries with international organizations, I have given an example of another international organization above, while you are not paying attention. The Shanghai Cooperation Organization is an international organization that invloves 10 countries, and the official languages of the organization are Chinese and Russian. The name of the origanization in Chinese and Russian are included in the article. In the German version of the same article, the name in Chinese and Russian is even placed in the first paragraph. Providing the names in the official languages is already a common practice in Wikipedia. There is no point for allowing double standard on the articles about the United Nations, which is one of the most important international organizations in the world.
  • "It adds nothing to the article and wastes space in the introduction. "
    This shows your prejudice against languages other than English. I don't agree that foreign languages are of no values at all. I also don't agree that foreign languages waste the space. (The German, Spanish, Chinese, Japnaese Wikipedias have a lot of articles that provide English names. Did anybody there complain that English wastes space?) If you think that foreign languages, it is perfectly fine that you can choose not to speak any. But if you are so "English-ism" that you want to delete "République française" from "France" or "Bundesrepublik Deutschland" from "Germany", haha...see what happen.
  • "If someone wants to see the foriegn language equivalent, they can click the interwiki link. "
    I have already responsed to this point before. You are just repeating the same point. Please kindly read the discussion above again. Thank you.

Anyway, I hope we could try our best to avoid edit wars. - Alan 00:38, 6 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • I don't see the relevance of names in other languages than this Wikipedia is written in. Official language of an independent nation and a working language of an international organization are two entirely different things. This is just silly. --Bjarki 10:09, 6 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I tend to agree with Alan that the official languages of an international organisation are analogous to that of a sovereign state, and should be included. But in the UN-multilingual template, do we really need both simplified and traditional Chinese? The Chinese which is used at the UN follows that used in the People's Republic of China. Official documents of the UN are published in Simplified Chinese. If the basis of including alternate names is the official nature of the language, then Traditional Chinese should be removed. The exclusion of Traditional Chinese would go a little way to clearing up space in the introduction. Yeu Ninje 22:17, 6 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Here from RfC. I think this is a tough one. Alan raises some good points. But I think in the final analysis, WP is about readability, getting the best, most important info to people in the fastest, most efficient way. The multi-language version doesn't do that, it actually makes the intro harder to read (anyone here read all those languages?). And it's not necessary; anyone who is using the English WP can read English, presumably. No one needs that info, so it can go elsewhere, maybe in a box or logo off to the side. IronDuke 03:51, 7 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
(response to Yeu Ninje's message at 22:17, April 6) The UN has not yet specify whether simplified or traditional is official, although reportedly they're planning to do so (cf template talk:UN-multilingual). — Instantnood 20:21, 7 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Whilst the UN may not have specified whether simplified or traditional is official, it uses simplified on all its official documents and has done so for the last two decades at least. I think that should be sufficient basis for using only simplified in the UN-multilingual template.Yeu Ninje 21:15, 7 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

We cannot be speculative. Yes they're publishing Chinese texts mostly with the simplified script, but they've yet to officially recognise it as its sole official standard. Let's wait till they actually do so. — Instantnood 21:52, 7 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
It's not a matter of speculation. I'm not suggesting that Chinese simplified will become official or otherwise. But I do think the template should reflect the usage of the UN, hence it shouldn't include traditional Chinese. Yeu Ninje 21:57, 7 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
We may say simplified characters is practically the usually used standard, but procedurally we've yet to prove if the simplified script is "more official" and more widely recognised than the traditional counterpart. — Instantnood 22:38, 7 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Are you next going to argue that it should also appear in Queen's English and Quebecois French as well? Don't be ridiculous. SchmuckyTheCat 23:19, 7 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Is traditional Chinese characters to simplified Chinese characters Queen's English to English or Québécois French to French? — Instantnood 10:49, 8 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I believe Alanmak that including these translations is useful information - however, I don't like seeing it inline. Maybe someone needs to take up creating UN Commissions infobox template. SchmuckyTheCat 23:22, 7 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

There's no need to get bogged down in semantics. Whilst the UN has not made a pronouncement what version of Chinese is "official" for its purposes (nor do I think it's likely to do so in the near future), it's pretty clear that it uses Simplified Chinese. As Schmucky points out, there are many versions of English too. The UN hasn't specified which dialect of English is official either, so is that a reason to provide both American English and British English? This discussion contributes very little to the substantive content of Wikipedia, so let's stop wasting time on it. Let's just go with the most obvious, and the only version of Chinese the UN uses: the Simplified one. Yeu Ninje 08:18, 8 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
For the names of UN organs, American and British English differences is only reflected by spellings. Most UN organs officially adopt one way or the other, e.g. Organization vs Organisation. The UN does not use only simplified Chinese characters. — Instantnood 10:49, 8 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
(response to SchmuckyTheCat's comment at 23:22, April 7) Many users have demonstrated their reservations towards the infobox style. Many of them prefer the inline style. — Instantnood 10:49, 8 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
It would be following normal practice on Wikipedia to have the translations inline, but I'm just a little worried that the first sentence could become rather long. enochlau (talk) 11:36, 8 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

There is no such a regulation that all foreign-language names have to be added inline. A lot of Wikipedians from different countries have created numerous info boxes for showing foreign-language names. Examples are {{Koreanname hanja noimage}}, {{Koreanname}}, {{Chinese}}, {{Japanese}}, {{Vietnamese}}, {{Chinese info}}. Info boxes are also used in the articles Spratly Islands, Chopsticks and Rice congee to display the foreign-language names. This practice has been used for many times already. Instantnood keeps saying that many users are opposing the use of info boxes for foreign-language names, I wonder if there is really many. If so, why didn't anybody go and delete the Korean-language info box? Why didn't Instantnood go and delete the Korean-language info boxes from the articles, but keep deleteing the foreign-language info box that I created? Is that fair? In fact, Instantnood was the one who proposed using a info box (like that one for Korean names) for Chinese names at the early beginning. But now he is denying that it was his idea, and get mad when other people are creating info boxes. I really don't know what he wants.

Anyway, I see no problems for using info box to display foreign-language names in general. But in this case, the name in Russian is pretty long. This is a concern for using info box. - Alan 21:17, 8 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm afraid I can no longer assume user:Alanmak is acting in good faith. He has been told before that the infobox-style for Korean is already a community consensus and is part of the manual of style for Korea-related articles. He knows this is not the case for Chinese and many other languages. He can actually tell how many articles are actually using {{Vietnamese}} and {{Japanese}}, comparing with {{Koreanname}}. I did mention about the possibility of using the infobox-style, but I've never expressed any preference, nor any intention to replace the inline-style with infobox-style. — Instantnood 23:37, 8 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Japanese-related articles are mostly using {{Nihongo}}, which is using an inline style. Vietnamese-related articles are using inline-style too, although without a template, e.g. Hanoi, Haiphong, Hue, Ho Chi Minh City. — Instantnood 10:12, 9 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Hey Alan don't go away and avoid this. :-) — Instantnood 19:03, 11 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

English Wikipedia[edit]

This is the English Wikipedia. There's no need to translate things into other languages unless necessary or relevant. If you're going to include the French translation, why not include the German? And Swedish? How about Hindi? See where this is going? Just can't do it. AucamanTalk 04:43, 7 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You fail to see that the United Nations has a limited number of official languages; the name of the institutions in these languages *is* relevant. I'm strongly in favour of including the names in other languages. —Nightstallion (?) Seen this already? 08:21, 7 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I fail to see how it's relevant. This is the English Wikipedia. How many different languages are we talking about? And can you give me some sources that these are the official languages of UN? AucamanTalk 21:20, 7 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Are you suggesting French name of Louisiana or the Spanish name of New Mexico should be removed from those articles? — Instantnood 21:52, 7 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
There are five official languages. See Department for General Assembly and Conference Management - Frequently Asked Questions. Yeu Ninje 21:55, 7 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
It says there're six. :-D — Instantnood 10:49, 8 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Okay fine, you get to do whatever you want. Seems pretty silly though. I'm done with this "debate". It doesn't really make a difference to me. I just thought it would look better if we took out all the languages. Do they have to be in the first sentence of the article? AucamanTalk 23:53, 7 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Several comments:

  • What kind of attitude is that? When other people disagree with your opnion, do you have to say something negative like "okay fine, you get to do whatever you want. Seems pretty silly though"? This is definitely not an appropriate tone for a civil discussion.
  • The argument "This is the English Wikipedia. We use English." has been used by a lot of different users previously in this discussion, and the users who support providing the name in the five non-English official languages have already responsed to that. Please read through the previous discussion before the same point is being repeated over and over. If the same thing is repeated over and over, this would not be an effective discussion.
  • I have already pointed out that it has been a common practice in the English Wikipedia and the Wikipedias in some other languages that the name in the official language is provided even if the official language is not the language in which the article is written. No one cares about it, and a lot of users continue to push the point that "English is the best. All other languages are of no value." Is this the way to discuss?
  • Two users above, namely Bjarki and Aucaman, are saying that other people are silly. I wonder if they think they are genious. But in my opinion, if they were genious, they should have known that they should read the discussion above carefully and patiently and made sure that they understand other people's points. I wonder who is the silliest.

- Alan 20:44, 8 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I did not intend for my comments to be misinterpreted. I said the whole discussion seems silly, not the people involved! As far as I care it's not worth fighting over. There's no need to overreact and engage in poisoning the well just to get your point across. AucamanTalk 21:34, 8 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
"This is the English Wikipedia. We use English." has been used by a lot of different users previously in this discussion, and the users who support providing the name in the five non-English official languages have already responsed to that. " - yes, and this response (which basically boils down to "but non-english speakers might come here too") is meaningless hyperbole. If they come to the english wikipedia, they will (surprise!) be reading english. You are practicing a hypocritical argument, complaining that others keep repetaing themselves while you are doing the exact same thing. "I have already pointed out that it has been a common practice in the English Wikipedia and the Wikipedias in some other languages that the name in the official language is provided even if the official language is not the language in which the article is written." - *this* claim HAS been responded to several times. You draw no distinction between articles about locations that use different names in native languages (like French for France or Chinese for China); however, you would be hard pressed to find a single non-location page that does this. The UN Security Council is *not* France; it's an organization, much akin to (as I cited above) the Bank of Hong Kong, which *does not* give the Chinese equivalent of the name. Raul654 21:24, 8 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I feel sorry for you, as you only understand one simpliest point out of the many explanations that other users have made. I had to repeat the same response over and over, because you didn't understand, you didn't read the previous discussion, and you pushed your one single point "This is the English Wikipedia. We use English." over and over, despite being responsed to for many times. Again, your argument "The UN Security Council is *not* France" has also be responsed for many time. Please read the entire discussion again before talking to other people with a bad attitude. Thank you. Also, while the consensus has not yet been made, you have deleted the information from several articles for many times. Despite being an admin, you didn't really care whether that would invoke an revert war. I cannot see your willingness to discuss in a civil manner at all. If this dude continues to invoke any revert wars, I think other admins should block him for a certain period of time. - Alan 01:27, 9 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, it is you who are ignoring previous responses. Every time someone says this is the english wikipedia, you point to your previous comment "that non-english speakers may read this", to which I have already responded - yes, but we do not cater to nonenglish speakers, as this is the english wikipedia. If they want to read their own language, they are free to go to any of the several-hundred other-language wikipedias. Furthemore, you have not repsonded -at all - to the distinction put forth that a place is not hte same thing as an organization. Yes, China and France have other-language equivalents; however, organizations, people (with non-transliterated names), 'etc - do not. You, however, have simply been aggressive and dismissive of people hwo disagree with you, using the "I already responded to that!" argument to try to dismissve the claims you haven't actually responded to; not to mention the ridiculous distortion of my previous comments, such as when I said adding the translations "wastes space in the introduction.", you then tried to claim I said that other languages are worthless. Your arguments are empty, and your argumentative techniques are a transparent attempt to push your way through on this issue. Raul654 02:18, 9 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You think other people's auguments are empty, just because you don't agree with them. It's true that every time you pushed your point of view over and over, other people have responsed to that already. We have been reminding you about that for many times. But you still don't want to read the entire discussion again, and scold other people for reminding you. This is sad. One of the evidences which shows that you haven't read the previous discussion carefully is the statement "If they want to read their own language, they are free to go to any of the several-hundred other-language wikipedias." The non-English official names is not there to help foreign readers understand the English text. In your reply, you used to lot of arguments to scold other people, like "Your arguments are empty, and your argumentative techniques are a transparent attempt to push your way through on this issue." But I do hope you understand that...those statements describe you very precisely. You just get pissed off because other people don't agree with you. I think a normal admin wouldn't be so agreesive to an extent that he invokes an revert war when other people don't agree with him, right? - Alan 02:53, 9 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

A way out of this argument that I can see is if we take the dispute out of this page and into a more general arena. We could add some new provisions to the WP:MOS. enochlau (talk) 04:08, 9 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, the official guidelines of Wikipedia - for instance, Wikipedia:Naming conventions#Organizations (such as political parties) - has already clearly explained the necessity and convention of providing non-English names for organizations. In the guidelines, it is mentioned that you should "name your pages with the English translation and place the original native name [ in this case, the other five official languages of the United Nations ] on the first line of the article unless the native form is more commonly used in English than the English form." It was just some user who didn't read the guidelines or the previous discussion, invoked an revert war, and then accuse me and some other users of being agreesive. If he continues having such an bad attitude, it is pretty hard to have a civil discussion or make a consensus. - Alan 04:30, 9 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You just made my point for me. There is no "original native name" - the UN has no natives (please show me one native of the United Nations). The names were chosen specifically to match among the differnet official UN languages; the translations are identical in meaning, and adding them adds nothing to the articles that cannot be gleaned by going to the interwiki links. Raul654 04:36, 9 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
It's irrelevant whether we have to cater the need of non-English native speakers. For places and organisations which have official names in other languages, we include all of its official names. The EU and its related organisations are perhaps exceptions, since it's quite impractical to include 21 official names (and some more in the officially recognised regional and minority langauges). It's definitely practical for UN-related articles to do so. — Instantnood 10:19, 9 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
There is a already separate article listing the names of the European Union in all of its official languages. See List of names of the European Union in the official languages. No matter whether you think it is practical or not, the information has already been provided. If one allow the non-English official names of the European Union to be provided in the English Wikipedia, it seems to be double standard if he doesn't allow the non-English official names of the United Nations to be provided in the English Wikipedia. I am not implying that we should start a new article just for listing the names of a department of the United Nations in Arabic, Chinese, French, Russian, Spanish. But anyway, we can figure out the best way to display the information for different situations. - Alan 02:32, 10 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry are you responding to my message immediately above? — Instantnood 19:03, 11 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I just did a google search on the Russian name for Unesco, ЮНЕСКО. As you might have guessed, I could not find a single English-language reference to Unesco by that name, and of course, it is not the proper English name for Unesco, and it is accordingly only relevant to Russian speakers. I can't imagine that even one in a thousand Wikipedians would know all official UN languages, or even read their alphabets for that matter, so what is the use for listing those languages? It's just pollution and they are available in the left frame interwiki links anyway, so why not use the precious space on really relevant information that many people can at least read, and probably find useful? Jens Nielsen 11:09, 9 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

For the Russian acronym "ЮНЕСКО", you probably have to read some Russian web site to find it. Let me remind you, again, that not every United Nations-related article in the English Wikipedia have a corresponding article in the other five official languages of the United Nations. And again, the name in the non-English official languages of the United Nations is not intended for helping foreign-language speakers to understand the English text.- Alan 02:32, 10 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
This discussion seems to be very long and circular. A lot of people keep repeating the same points. Maybe a ballot is in order? Jun-jun 15:42, 9 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, a lot of people are repeating the same point. I have reminded some of them to read the previous discussion before they commented, but some hot-tempered users, such as Raul, were scolding me for doing that. I find it very ridiculous. However, in the official guidelines, it has been said that Wikipedia is not a testing place for democracy. Does the idea of having a ballot violate this principle? - Alan 02:32, 10 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
People seem to be talking past each other without any consensus on even the most basic aspects of the argument. A vote wouldn't be conclusive, but it could given an indication of the general community feeling on this general issue of non-English language names at the start of articles about non-governmental international organisations. Jun-jun 11:10, 10 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The UN is a supranational organisation, I'm afraid. :-) — Instantnood 19:03, 11 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Officialism[edit]

One thing I don't get about the whole debate is the supposed importance of "official names" when it comes to organizations. I edit mostly at the Icelandic Wikipedia, a language which is not an official language of the UN. Does that mean that we should move the article there to Организация Объединённых Наций because our Icelandic name for the UN is not a valid one? Of course not, the Icelandic name is just as valid as the name in any other language including the six that are designated as official within the organization. The only language relevant to the Icelandic article is the Icelandic one and the same goes for the English article or any other language version. Consider also the purpose of an official language within an international organization. It is merely a distinction made to simplify and standardize the communications within the organization. The designation of the UN of these 6 languages as official was not meant to indicate that they were in some way superior to any other language, let alone that the name of the organization translated into these 6 languages should be considered to be of higher validity then the name in any other language. --Bjarki 20:47, 12 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Poll[edit]

Ok, as discussed above, let us conduct a poll. I'll put the three options mentioned - (1) yes, the artilce should contain the template, (2) yes, but not in the introduction, or (3) - not at all. It will pertain to all articles that use (or could use) template:UN-multilingual. The poll will last one week. Raul654 19:09, 11 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This is only a non-binding straw poll. In any case, the poll carries no effect and number of votes for each option is meaningless. — Instantnood 18:15, 14 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

<copied from below - Piet 06:53, 13 April 2006 (UTC)>[reply]

  • The poll is about whether or not UN articles should contain alt-language equivalents in any form (regardless of whether it done with a template or substitute directly into the text) besides interwiki links. The options are, believe it or not, 'yes' and 'no'. Raul654 17:19, 12 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment[edit]

The relevant Wikipedia policies, guidelines, naming conventions and manual of style regarding official names in languages other than English should also be mentioned here, so that people will vote after considering what the policies and guidelines have prescribed, and avoid any inconsistence. The poll should be suspended until this is done.

Meanwhile, should the discussion here be moved to template talk:UN-multilingual or Wikipedia:centralised discussion instead? It affects not only the Human Rights Commission article, but probably all articles on UN organisations and other supranational organisations. A notice should be put up on the talk page of every affected article. — Instantnood 19:18, 11 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

In addition to my previous comment immediately above, I'd like the urge the community to suspend the poll. The poll is meaningless unless voters first familiarise themselves with the policies and guidelines before they vote. — Instantnood 21:08, 11 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with Instantnood that a lot of people are not going to read the previous discussion above, because most people are too lazy to do so; and most people don't care about the official guidelines of Wikipedia, because they are too long to read. Furthermore, a lot of people don't understand the fact that Arabic, Chinese, French, Russian, Spanish are official languages of the United Nations, and they don't know that it has been a common practice and part of the official guidelines to include non-English official names for nations and international organizations. It is pretty haste them to force everybody to make a decision. Also, if it is already part of the official guidelines to include non-English official names for nations and international organizations, we should follow the guidelines, instead of deciding whether we should follow the guidelines by having a ballot. Also, it was Raul who suddenly put up a ballot here, without seeking community consensus. The official guidelines of Wikipedia also stated that Wikipedia is not a testing place for democracy, and disputes should be solved by discussion. As I can see from the discussion above, no many Wikipedians support using a ballot as the way to solve the dispute. I think that is an abuse of the power of administrator. I also hope that the community can suspend the ballot. Anyway, I voted, because Raul has the habit of not caring about what other people says and push his own idea by force. A good evidence was that Raul invoked an edit war, although other people told him to stop and discuss. He also didn't read the opinion of the Wikipedians who hold an opposite view, and repeated his same point over and over. I am worried if Raul will just ignore what I and Instantnood said and insists to use the result of the ballot as the final solution. - Alan 21:47, 11 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]


It is unfair to split the votes for "yes" into two categories while centralizing the votes for "no" in one category. Also, it seems that the community has not yet agreed to use a ballot as a solution to solve the problem. - Alan 19:44, 11 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Re [3] - This is probably a non-binding straw poll. Even if the "yes" option is split, it can still clearly show whether the community prefer the "yes" options combined or the "no" option. — Instantnood 21:34, 11 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • This question is very confusing. Option (1) is "Yes, the article should contain the template". Of course the article should contain the template. The question is whether the template should contain the names in all these languages? The remark It will pertain to all articles that use (or could use) template:UN-multilingual certainly seems to indicate so. It think the intro here should be rephrased to make clear if we are talking about this article or about the template. It's a bit sad that the poll has started without clarity on what is polled. Piet 08:18, 12 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    The poll should not have started, and should not be started here. It should not continue. — Instantnood 17:12, 12 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • The poll is about whether or not UN articles should contain alt-language equivalents in any form (regardless of whether it done with a template or substitute directly into the text) besides interwiki links. The options are, believe it or not, 'yes' and 'no'. Raul654 17:19, 12 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    The relevant policies and guidelines must be included when any poll is started. The poll affects many UN articles, and probably articles on many international organisations, and therefore should be conducted at a more appropriate location. A notice should have been put up on the talk page of every affected article. If you've missed any of the above, the poll, whether binding or not, is meaningless. — Instantnood 19:15, 12 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • I have gone ahead and posted a link to all the pages currently using the template. The location of the poll, however, is irrelvant. It would make have no effect on the outcome of the poll if it were conducted on this talk page, or at a central location, and in point of fact, there are many precedents for doing it this way. As to including the revalant policies, (a) no you don't, that's a requirement you simply made up, and (b) even if we do, we already have ad-nasueum above. Raul654 19:43, 12 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This poll is now closed. Clearly there is no consensus to include the names. Raul654 08:35, 19 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yes - the official names should be included[edit]

  1. Useful info, but not of paramount importance, hence pointless clutter of the intro. With respect to the EU argument below, we do have names of cities and organizations and personal names, etc., rendered in several languages. Any analogy is a stretch. Each case must be judged by its own merits. 5 is not 20. `'mikka (t) 19:26, 11 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Arguably useful, but not in the lead section (although I am not looking forward to {{EU-multilingual}} appearing in European Court of Justice and other articles relating to the EU, showing their official names in Spanish, Danish, German, Greek, French, Italian, Dutch, Portuguese, Finnish, Swedish, Czech, Estonian, Latvian, Lithuanian, Hungarian, Maltese, Polish, Slovak, Slovene...) -- ALoan (Talk) 20:11, 11 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  3. The languages should definitely be included. I tend to think that five languages is not too onerous a burden for an introduction to bear, but if it clearly clutters up the intro then perhaps the ohter languages could be appended in the notes section. Yeu Ninje 20:51, 11 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  4. A lot of reasons have been mentioned in the discussion above, although a lot of people don't read them. Again, it has been a common practice in Wikipedia to include non-English official languages of countries and international organizations. It is just allowing double standard if you don't allow the United Nations-related articles to have the official languages of the United Nations. - Alan 21:30, 11 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Comment: Please cite the relevant policies and guidelines. — Instantnood 21:34, 11 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  5. I have been making audio recordings for the pronunciation of foreign names - especially Chinese names - in Wikipedia. A lot of articles that I contributed to, such as Sino-British Joint Declaration, Mainland and Hong Kong Closer Economic Partnership Arrangement, Chinese People's Political Consultative Conference, do include the names in the original language, which is also the official language of the party involved. I have read the discussion above and tried to understand why French, Chinese, Spanish etc. have to be added. It makes sense. I might make some recordings for the pronunciation of the names. P.S. Did somebody say that the ballot is suspended? - Audioman 22:00, 11 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Yes, but with severe reservations. It should not be in the intro and should not clutter top of the page with an infobox either. The information is relevant, but far less relevant to the UN than, say, the Japanese translation is for the name of Japan—while all examples of countries and official languages cited so far have had non-English names, the UN does have an English name. As such, I think it is a special case, and we can move the list of other names of any UN organisation to a subsection or some place informative but subordinate to the significant information in the article. — Saxifrage ✎ 22:02, 11 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Comment: Louisiana has both English and French names, and New Mexico has both English and Spanish names. Ireland has both English and Irish names, and New Zealand has both English and Māori names. — Instantnood 22:17, 11 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Yes, those are the official languages of the organisation so I think that they should be included. Although like Saxifrage I'm not sure that the intro is the best place for the translations. Jack-McLangley 13:28, 12 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Useful, and I don't trust interwiki links, English has ten or one hundred times more articles than any other language wiki. For all I know, the interwiki link points to "List of UN Commissions" on the other wiki - which isn't a translation of "United Nations Commissions on Human Rights" at all. SchmuckyTheCat 15:27, 12 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  9. It should be included, since they are, in fact, the NAMES of the organization. If there was an article about ME, and I were Chinese American, and my name could be spelled in both Chinese and English characters, I would expect my article to list both of my names, since I would be both Chinese, and American! The UN is of many languages, and has many names, each as relevant as the other, even to those who don't speak those other languages. Why do the English-centrics think those other names are irrelevant? Phidauex 16:59, 12 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Do you think fr:Cour internationale de justice is "French centric". Note the word "Court" (with a "t") does not appear once in that article. I'm fine with that, because I don't expect English names in French Wikipedia, when there is an official French name to use. --Rob 20:29, 12 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Anglocentrism is one of the biggest flaws of the English WP, and of Wikimedia in general. This poll is one of the examples for it... —Nightstallion (?) Seen this already? 21:59, 12 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • Oh yes, we expect people to use english on the english wikipedia. What the hell were we thinking? Raul654 22:03, 12 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  10. Weak yes, Other official names can be included in the infobox or in the article but should certainly not clutter up the lead section. --Donar Reiskoffer 09:15, 13 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  11. Weak yes. This poll was badly done. The use of the template was very badly done. The information should be present in the articles in such a way as to not hurt the article. As it is the poor user is subjected to gobble-de-gook that they must wade through to get to the end of the first sentence? This is plain wrong. Imagine if the Automobile article started with loud audio of a car horn. Or Color flashed the screen a few times. Integrate the information, don't force feed it to readers. 行吧? Shenme 07:44, 14 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  12. Yes but with the errata that it shouldn't be in the intro and should be tucked into a nice pocket of some UN related article. I say this because they are official working languages which makes it different than having the article on iron start talking about the French name. I also think thos poll should be split into "Yes - intro", "Yes - somewhere", and "Nowhere". gren グレン 06:13, 16 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    That is, in fact, how this poll was originally structured. Alanmak changed it. Raul654 08:29, 17 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  13. Yes, agreeing with Yeu Ninje. --Pjacobi 23:46, 16 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  14. Although users can look at interwikis, including the alternate languages gives priority to the five official languages of the UN. Jun-jun 19:19, 17 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No, they should not contain it at all[edit]

  1. Raul654 19:07, 11 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Computerjoe this is the English Wikipedia. Not any other language. Computerjoe's talk 19:50, 11 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Garion96 After reading this talk page and especially after reading ALoan's comment for support. The EU is a good example. you don't mention all the names in all 20 official languages there. Garion96 (talk) 20:25, 11 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  4. 'Tis unnecessary. --Osbus 20:48, 11 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  5. --Neutralitytalk 21:28, 11 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Someoneinmyheadbutit'snotme 21:47, 11 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Not necessary. That's what we have interlanguauge links for. Kaldari 22:48, 11 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Its more of a concept than an actual name like of a country --Chroniclev 23:05, 11 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  9. bcasterline t 23:27, 11 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  10. Uncessary, confusion-creator, space-waster. + above comments. &#150;Tutmøsis · (Msg Me) 23:40, 11 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  11. No, exactly per Computerjoe, his statement is perfect. This is the English Wikipedia, and if you want to write the other language article you can link it right on the left-hand bar by including access to the other language Wikipedia version. Staxringold 00:19, 12 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  12. Miguel Andrade 02:47, 12 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  13. I do not feel it has been demonstrated to satisfaction that the official languages of the UN is somehow different from the official languages of a country and as such it is IMHO a viable comparison. Switzerland and Belgium both have a substantial part of the intro dedicated to translations into several languages and in the spirit of conformity I consider that similar practices ought to be implemented in the UN article. However, Wikipedia is not a rigid system of rules and as such this practice enjoys several exceptions based on aesthetics, usability etc. i.e. the EU article; it is simply neither practical nor useful to have all 21 official language equivalents listed in the intro. It is my belief that these exceptions apply to this case as well and that the UN article should not have the translation in the intro since the official name is comparatively large and would take up a great deal of space reducing the overall quality of the article. The optimum solution would IMHO be to displace it to a sub page i.e. “Official names of international organizations” and using that page as a reference point throughout Wikipedia whereby usability and conformity in similar articles could be ensured. Regards, Gardar Rurak 02:52, 12 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  14. In agreement with ComputerJoe. (^'-')^ Covington 04:43, 12 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  15. Westfall 05:01, 12 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  16. It doesn't seem helpful to include these names. When a country or work of art has its official/primary name not in English then that is worth including, but in this case the official name is in English (one among many official names). So the analogy to those situations is flawed. If the information is included, it should not clutter the lead and absolutely should not be in template form. Christopher Parham (talk) 06:41, 12 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  17. Batmanand, but certainly not for Computerjoe's reasoning. 07:51, 12 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  18. Per Garion96's reasoning (#3). AucamanTalk 09:09, 12 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  19. Should NOT be included. Those names are excessive cluttering useful to only the tiniest fraction of multilingual wikipedians, and the information is available in the interwiki links anyway. Jens Nielsen 10:09, 12 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  20. While I like the idea of covering all official languages, I must reluctantly vote no. 6 languages is too many, and it disrupts the article. --Danaman5 15:48, 12 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  21. Agree with Computerjoe Scott 16:05, 12 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  22. Seems like needless clutter to me. If English wasn't one of the official languages, I would support both English and non-English names being shown. But English is an official language, this is English Wikipedia, and therefore English is the only name that serves a purpose. Our purpose here is to inform people, in a concise manner, meaning we tell people info they most wish to know first. --Rob 20:00, 12 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  23. This may be justifiable on some occasions but 6 languages is pushing it, it results in excessive and unneeded clutter. --Bjarki 20:07, 12 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  24. No. Nein. Non. Coffee 21:15, 12 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  25. Agree with Christopher Parham (#16) though not with Computerjoe (#2). All names could be given in the main UN article, but don't mess up the template. Piet 07:02, 13 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  26. This is the English language Wikipedia. This action was seriously over the top. CalJW 23:27, 13 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  27. One other language perhaps, but not four. Osomec 10:15, 14 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  28. You can visit the other Wikipedias for other languages. 68.166.50.142 15:45, 14 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  29. No. Completely unnecessary. --NormanEinstein 17:51, 14 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  30. No, it's cute and very UN-like, but not Wikipedia-like. JamesHoadley 19:43, 14 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  31. This is the English Wikipedia. User:Zoe|(talk) 21:54, 15 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  32. This is the English Wikipedia. Sorry for the repetition. Sandstein 12:46, 16 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  33. No, but per reasoning of Gardar Rurak. And because chinese is a row of question marks in my OS :( --Quiddity 07:09, 17 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  34. No, make the point that there are five official languages in the main article and leave it at that. We don't need hundreds of practical demonstrations. Choalbaton 08:27, 17 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  35. We have a facility to create links to other-language Wikipedias at the end of each article. Doing that would be a helluva lot more relevant than these translations. Cynical 20:41, 18 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Bricker Amendment[edit]

For some time I have been working on revisions to the Bricker Amendment article. I finally posted it and have a PR at Wikipedia:Peer review/Bricker Amendment/archive1. I'd welcome comments. I know all those references may seem extravagant, but I'm hoping to get it as an FA and those voters want lots of footnotes. PedanticallySpeaking 16:28, 1 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

CHR's embarrassing obsession with Israel[edit]

In the criticism section, the article's failure to note the fact that a HUGE plurality of the Commission's activities were devoted to criticizing a single state -- Israel -- to the almost literal exclusion of all other states (and total ignorance of all other world conflicts) in the face of a number of human rights travesties is remarkable. The obsession included an entire agenda item (and Israel was criticized in the other items as well, of course), something which no other state (except a 5-minute formality on Cyprus) has ever received -- not Sudan, not Libya, not Congo, not Cuba, not Sierra Leone... none. J21 21:39, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

news article[edit]

Reform Run Amok

Scientologist edit?[edit]

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=United_Nations_Commission_on_Human_Rights&oldid=7425451 --Adamrush (talk) 07:33, 2 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

60th Session controversy[edit]

The sources to this paragraph don't seem to have any connection to the text. Also, the text had better say explicitly that the muslim's position was adopted, if that was the case. --Jonund (talk) 19:43, 17 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

60th Session Controversy[edit]

Footnotes 13 and 14, of the section on the 60th Session Controversy, redirect to the WHO. But on that WHO site, I can find no explicit reference to the controversy, much less the quote that it's supposed to lead to. Anyone have a good alternative source for such information, or can add the actual source of this quote? —Preceding unsigned comment added by LordSabron (talk • contribs) 00:14, 16 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Historical membership[edit]

Would it not make sense to include historical membership of the Commission in this article? Or to create a new page for this as has been done for the Security Council. Data for the WEOG members can be found here. Bluecurrent (talk) 17:59, 20 March 2011 (UTC) Has now been created.Bluecurrent (talk) 21:07, 24 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 3 external links on United Nations Commission on Human Rights. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

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. —cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 09:03, 28 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on United Nations Commission on Human Rights. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

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.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 04:00, 2 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on United Nations Commission on Human Rights. 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, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

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) 23:41, 20 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on United Nations Commission on Human Rights. 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) 12:23, 5 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Absenteeism?[edit]

I am trying to make sense of this sentence:

From 1947 to 1967, it followed the policy of absenteeism, which meant that the Commission would concentrate on promoting human rights and helping states elaborate treaties, but not on investigating or condemning violators.

It has remained unchanged in the article since it was introduced in this edit in 2006. But it doesn't make any sense at all to me. Now I realise this is an article about a body which was phased out in that year but don't we have reason to make sure that any WP article makes sense in English?

The only sense I can make of it is that there might have been a policy of trying to shame countries by putting them on a council which they couldn't absent themselves from if they they were guilty of human rights abuses. I know nothing about this council apart from the current flurry of interest but that interpretation seems almost possible. But it has very little to do with institutional policies on absenteeism as used in schools, for example. So the link is misleading.

Can someone who has more knowledge of the subject please improve this paragraph? Chris55 (talk) 07:45, 21 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:United_Nations_Commission_on_Human_Rights&oldid=1203123132"