Talk:UNRWA/Archive 3

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Emergency Services

The material in this section is quite out-dated. And, again, there is no reasons to stress WB and Gaza ahead of the other operating areas.

Deleted because of the undue focus on Gaza/WB - and because food distribution, job-creation, etc are included in the description of other programmes:

Since the outbreak of the Al-Aqsa Intifada in September 2000, UNRWA has been working to alleviate the impact of resulting curfews and closures on the refugee population in the West Bank and Gaza Strip. The effect of closures on the Palestinian economy has caused thousands to lose their livelihoods. It is estimated that more than 50 per cent of the population is out of work -putting over 60 per cent of the population under the poverty line with an income of below US$2 a day. The United Nations Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs reports that close to two million Palestinians, 62 per cent of the population, are considered "vulnerable" because they have inadequate access to food, shelter or health services. The United States Agency for International Development (USAID) reported a sharp growth in malnutrition and anemia among Palestinian children – marked by stunted growth or low body weights.[1]

As part of its emergency relief activities, UNRWA provides temporary jobs for unemployed breadwinners – a programme that has allowed the Agency to indirectly support 160,000 women and children in Gaza alone. UNRWA has also increased its provision of food aid. Before the conflict UNRWA distributed food to around 20,000 refugee families, it now targets 230,000 families across the West Bank and Gaza. UNRWA food parcels typically contain 50 kilograms of flour, five kilograms of rice, five kilograms of sugar, two liters of cooking oil, one kilogram of powdered milk and five kilograms of lentils.

The Agency assists the almost 30,000 refugees whose homes have been destroyed during military operations. UNRWA has provided tents, blankets, kitchen kits, medicines and drinking water, as well as cash assistance to help with renting a new home to those families made homeless. The Agency is also rebuilding and repairing shelters. The focus of the Agency's rebuilding work has been Rafah and Khan Younis in the southern Gaza Strip and in Jenin camp in the West Bank. In Jenin a donation of US$27 million from the United Arab Emirates Red Crescent Society allowed UNRWA to rebuild the homes, infrastructure and communal facilities of the camp that were destroyed by the fighting in April 2002.

UNRWA's health programme faces increased demands in the territories because of the injuries, stress and psychological trauma caused by the conflict. The economic impact of closures is also increasing the demands made on the Agency as refugees seek care from the Agency rather than from private providers. UNRWA ambulances and mobile medical teams bring healthcare to communities isolated by closures for long periods.

......

To fund its emergency activities in the West Bank and Gaza UNRWA has launched a series of appeals for funds. The first of these was a flash appeal in October 2000 for US$4.83 million. In November 2004 UNRWA launched an appeal for US$186 million to cover emergency operations during 2005.

Rather than deleting (see ellipsis ......) I have added an edited version of the following information to the education section:

The crisis has had a particularly marked effect on the refugee children served by UNRWA's schools. Teachers and pupils are often unable to reach their schools and thousands of teaching days have been lost. Schools have come under fire on many occasions and have been used as military outposts and detention centres. The violent events witnessed by the children have caused emotional and psychological trauma and many have suffered the loss of classmates or family members. Examination pass rates have collapsed because of the conflict and UNRWA is running remedial classes in each school to try to compensate for the time lost to education. The Agency has also hired teams of trauma counselors to work with those children who have been emotionally scarred by their experiences. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dian Kjaergaard (talk • contribs) 18:15, 25 August 2014 (UTC)

Not a notable campaign(UNRWA Reform Initiative)

UNRWA Reform Initiative is not notable and is added by those who want to promote it. The article has also been deleted (see UNRWA Reform Initiative). So Brewcrewer reverts me and says that "Middle East Quarterly is a pretty serious publication". Now, it isn't even mentioned in that article, and that alone would not make it warranted to be included here. This is about Center for Near East Policy Research's initiative. --IRISZOOM (talk) 22:50, 25 August 2014 (UTC)

Unlike in connection with a determination of the merits of a stand along article on a subject, notability is not terribly germane to a discussion of inclusion of content within articles. What really matters is that the content is verifiable with reliable sources. This clearly is. --brewcrewer (yada, yada) 23:32, 25 August 2014 (UTC)

Which RS? I haven't seen any on this and the one used here is a self-promoted piece. --IRISZOOM (talk) 00:11, 26 August 2014 (UTC)

[2] The Middle East Quarterly is a RS.--brewcrewer (yada, yada) 00:22, 26 August 2014 (UTC)

Again, what has that to do with the specific initiative we are talking about? Have you noticed that this is about the initiative "UNRWA Reform Initiative"? -IRISZOOM (talk) 00:38, 26 August 2014 (UTC)

Does not the source linked above not discuss reforming UNRWA?--brewcrewer (yada, yada) 01:38, 26 August 2014 (UTC)

The section was and is about a specific proposal. The text in MEQ has nothing to do with that initiative. --IRISZOOM (talk) 01:56, 26 August 2014 (UTC)

Okay then, I don't oppose deleting the information regarding the specific initiate as long as the jist of what is discussed in Middle East Quarterly remains. --brewcrewer (yada, yada) 02:35, 26 August 2014 (UTC)

If you see it fitting here, go ahead and include it in that section you think, because in it's current form, it is (in an unclear way) connected to the specific initiative. --IRISZOOM (talk) 03:26, 26 August 2014 (UTC)

I can't really follow this discussion, who is saying what, and why. I will repeat, however, to all of you that I will try to reduce the "specific reform" section - and perhaps integrate with Critics & Controversies and/or in Relations with Israel. The UNRWA Reform Initiative is not insignificant and has contributed to some of the decisions made to investigate or even reduce funding to UNRWA. But I will ensure that things are balanced. Dian Kjaergaard (talk) 13:33, 26 August 2014 (UTC)

The Wikipedia community judged that the URI is so insignificant that it doesn't even deserve its own article. Don't try to recreate that article inside this one. Zero^talk 14:31, 26 August 2014 (UTC)

I find Zero's tone inappropriate. I have never suggested recreating an entire article on the URI. I will work "specific reforms" - including URI activities and links - into a balance of criticisms, controversies, and attempts to address them. Dian Kjaergaard (talk) 09:01, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

Please see "Concrete Proposals section - what I have done and what is left" Dian Kjaergaard (talk) 10:50, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

Again, this initiative is not notable at all and it doesn't matter how you change this article. It looks like an ad, with only primary sources too. --IRISZOOM (talk) 15:03, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

The initiative is referenced by notices from the National Press Club, and an article by its founder in Jerusalem Post, there are a number of other sources too, Jerusalem Online [3] and Arutz 7 [4], both written by independent editors. This is more than sufficient for its proper inclusion here. Many have long called for reform on UNRWA, including a whole issue of articles in ME Forum as well as MEQ above, the congressmen's letter [5], a list of US State Dept concerns about needed reform [6] and attempted defence against reform by those who wish no change to UNRWA [7]. In this context, this is a highly pertinent, contemporary initiative that has had coverage, and properly sourced material has been removed, inappropriately in my view. As to the criticism that the original article on URI looked like an 'ad', I do not contest that, nor do I seek to reinstate the article, however it is remarkable how glowing and unblemished the descriptions of UNRWA are in the first paragraphs of this article, it too doesn't look objective, it too looks like advocacy, until one reaches the later paragraphs. I request an open disclosure of interests by the editors here. For myself, I declare I have no financial interest direct or indirect in UNRWA or URI. Cpsoper (talk) 19:50, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

None of them are reliable sources so it's not enough. Don't change the topic, this is not about other proposals that have discussed reform, but about this specific proposal. --IRISZOOM (talk) 20:08, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

@IRISZOOM:@Zero0000:IRISZOOM and Zero: Both of you keep harping on the URI article even though the community has been assured that no-one is trying to resurrect it. I have also assured you that I am working to provide good sources and balance, and have noted your criticism of parts of Cpsoper's input. But in the meantime, I hope you will read the article as it stands today. UNRWA's strong points have been made much clearer and there is much more balance in and documentation of the criticisms, controversies, and calls for investigation/reform. Attention:@Kingsindian: @Brewcrewer: @Cpsoper:

The problem is that the proposal is not notable at all so including it just for the sake of having more criticism is not acceptable. --IRISZOOM (talk) 23:19, 29 August 2014 (UTC)

"Textbooks" section of controversies and criticism

The first 3 paragarphs in the "Textbooks" section of controversies and criticism have been slightly edited. Dian Kjaergaard (talk) 16:37, 29 August 2014 (UTC)

Finished editing the textbooks section, adding more academic references and removing redundancies. Dian Kjaergaard (talk) 13:05, 30 August 2014 (UTC)

Hamas militants working in UNRWA

This edit is very very problematic. There have been concerns that people will be including stuff about UNRWA Reform Initiative in this article. Now we see that a piece by the Center for Near East Policy Research has been quoted extensively. There are multiple problems with this edit.

• No attribution to the source "Center for Near East Policy Research". All statements are listed as straight fact.
• Way way WP:UNDUE to list individual names like this.
• Gunness's statement denying the claims has not been included.

This part should not receive more than a sentence or two. I am reverting this edit until the major flaws identified above are not corrected. Kingsindian (talk) 21:07, 31 August 2014 (UTC)

Thanks, Kingsindian. Happy to discuss.

• First, the sources of the information are 3 Palestinian and 2 Israeli sources, cited by CNEPR and published in A7. We're not reliant on one source. How about publishing the separate sources? My Hebrew is modest and rather Biblical and it will take me time to confirm the Hebrew language source personally.
• Second, the source was attributed to the site in which it was published, with the author's identity. What's wrong with that? If the Times published an opinion piece by an officer of Amnesty International, would it be appropriate to cite AI, not the Times?
• Third, criticism about the naming of four documented instances of Hamas and other terrorists employed over long periods of time as prominent UNRWA teachers is highly pertinent to these criticisms. How is that undue?
• Fourth, where has Gunness denied their involvement? He reportedly acknowledged Suheil al-Hindi's involvement in UNRWA's leadership, where's the denial? Cpsoper (talk) 18:31, 2 September 2014 (UTC)

@Cpsoper: To your points.

• I did not ask to publish the separate sources. The article and sources were put together by the CNEPR and it should be that way.
• The source must be attributed in the text, not just the footnotes. See WP:ATTRIBUTEPOV. The text is stated as plain fact, without any indication that the source is CNEPR.
• It is undue to list all the names like this. Are we going to list all the employees of UNRWA? Confine yourselves to a summary of the points.
• The point that Gunness has dismissed the criticism has been made inside the text itself. There is a Hebrew article detailing his reply, cited in the article. See footnote 5. Here is the source. These allegations against UNRWA are long standing and have been responded to multiple times. I can't read Hebrew, but the machine translate like Google or Bing does an OK job to get the gist of it. There is also a link to UNRWA website in footnote 5, but it is broken. Perhaps some digging will find it. It is not permissible to simply dump the criticisms by a biased source like this without people being allowed a chance to respond. Kingsindian (talk) 18:57, 2 September 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for your swift reply.

• I suggested using the references cited, as the data can be confirmed from them directly. No need to rely on one author you distrust. It needs a little spadework.
• With respect, you haven't answered the question, but it isn't so important as determining what the original sources actually reported.
• It's hyperbole to claim we're interested in listing all UNRWA's employees - surely you see that. These are four specific and particularly egregious examples of the intermingling of UNRWA and recognised terror groups.
• Google translate is dire, we often end up with the most bizarre and incomprehensible statements. Gunness does acknowledge not deny that Suheil al-Hindi is involved with Hamas, Palestinian sources claim his involvement with Hamas is senior (I've archived this one before it too evaporates, search for his Arabic name 'سهيل الهندي' and see its proximity to the abbreviated reference to Hamas 'حركة' standing for

'حركة المقاومة الإسلامية' abbreviated in the article as 'حماس' which is identified earlier in the text [8] ). Gunness hasn't commented at all on the other four men. Where are the multiple responses to the very serious and thoroughly documented allegations that these four men act as terrorist coordinators and UNRWA teachers? Cpsoper (talk) 19:35, 2 September 2014 (UTC)

@Cpsoper: I will answer in prose form, since some of the points are related. It is indeed important to list the source who made the points, so the people can judge for themselves. This is what is meant by WP:ATTRIBUTEPOV. I am not sure how I didn't answer the point, when I specifically addressed that point; if there is something else you require, let me know. These "very serious and thoroughly documented allegations that they are terrorist coordinators" are of course the guy's opinions. I don't want to get into the methods of documentation here. "Terrorist" is thrown around willy-nilly based on the fact that one person participated in the first Intifiada, (the allegation against Zuhair al-Qaisi). The original source for the Zuhari al-Qaisi allegation is in Arabic and I can't make out exactly what it is saying, but this is my understanding. Any designation of whether something is "terrorist" should be clearly attributed. Many things which Israel regards as terrorist have no legal basis. Whether or not some person (al-Hindi in this case) praised suicide bombers (again the source is the guy himself in another article which Gunness is responding to), that by itself does not make him a terrorist. I will remind you that going back to the original sources is OK, as long as one refrains from editorializing about "terrorists", which is clearly this guy's opinion. Doing so would be WP:OR, which is why I stated that the person making the charges should be attributed. Kingsindian (talk) 20:14, 2 September 2014 (UTC)

@Kingsindian: Thanks again. So I take it we may proceed here with the original sources, if you agree that they are RS for the data on Hamas and other groups they provide. The main problem we have both struggled with is some of the citations are not in English. The point I felt you didn't address was about a Times article quoting an AI officer being attributed to the Times not AI, a situation analogous to that we see in the A7 article - it is only a small thing. The criticism about WP:ATTRIBUTEPOV I accept, but that covers a somewhat separate area. Hamas and IJ are terrorist organisations, according to the US and the EU. It seems quite appropriate to describe prominent organisers of their activities, specifically illegal military activities directed at civilians as some sources reveal, here in talk as 'terrorists' it is far from being a 'willy-nilly' or partisan description. Suheil al-Hindi Zuheir is a senior Hamas advocate [9]- it is a terrorist group, he has given vocal support to its specific terrorist activities [10], what more is needed to describe him informally on a talk page as a terrorist? Al Qaisi is described as a 'martyr' in a list of fighting martyrs, he went whole time leading organised 'military work' 'بالعمل العسكري' for the PRC, just after resigning as an UNRWA maths teacher. According to the same report, he was killed in a targetted Israeli raid on 18th August 2012 for these very activities.[11]. I am prepared to use more sterile language about terrorists in a controverted article edit, although for candour's sake, is it appropriate here to object to what is mainstream opinion of Hamas, Islamic Jihad, the PRC and their principal activists and leaders? Cpsoper (talk) 22:20, 2 September 2014 (UTC)

@Cpsoper: No, we do not have agreement on whether to use original sources. I have no idea whether the Arabic sources are RS, nor (since I can't read them) do I care to speculate about the evidence of who is a terrorist or not. I have very little interest in the whole matter and I am not a lawyer. I am however, very aware of the problematic definitions of "terrorist" being used in this area. Being a member of Hamas is not the same as being terrorist. See Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style/Words_to_watch#Contentious_labels. The correct procedure is to use the secondary source, in this case CNEPR, and attribute any allegations of terrorism to them and the source provided, rather than go around digging in the original sources. And of course, Gunness's response must be included. Kingsindian (talk) 22:34, 2 September 2014 (UTC)

I have adjusted the subheadings in the material about being compromised by Hamas. In this particular section, Hamas as terrorists is less relevant than Hamas as Islamist (in the sense of wanting to force their version of Islam on people). So: Being compromised by sympathizers with Hamas's Islamist agenda. I've moved some material around, added some, and added references. Dian Kjaergaard (talk) 18:17, 7 September 2014 (UTC)

@Kingsindian:@Cpsoper: -I have tried to make a separate section to keep the discussions of tone and procedures separate from the in-depth discussion here about substance and sources - a discussion to which I will return shortly. Dian Kjaergaard (talk) 15:54, 7 September 2014 (UTC)

===Tone, procedures, source evaluation=== Dian Kjaergaard (talk) 15:54, 7 September 2014 (UTC) @Kingsindian:There is no section in the article called "Hamas militants working in UNRWA." What I have worked on is called "Being compromised by members of and sympathizers with terrorists, subsection Hamas sympathizers employed in and dominating UNRWA unions in Gaza" - I apologize for imprecise references in my own Talk entries.

The specific name and affiliation of the union leader is highly relevant.

The fact that the UNRWA reform initiative does not warrant its own article does not mean that its work is without merit. As I will show in future edits, the work of the Center for Near East Policy Research has informed many other calls for investigation and reform - not to "bash" UNRWA or destroy it, but to make it more accountable and improve the rights of Palestinian refugees. If you have a specific Gunness statement to deny what is written in this section as is - today - please supply it.

I believe you are starting an editing war - and not even notifying your co-editors. Please stop. Dian Kjaergaard (talk) 09:38, 1 September 2014 (UTC)

@Kingsindian:@Cpsoper:I have just now figured out how to see the edit by Cpsoper that Kingsindian reverted. I am willing to accept the removal of individual names other than the union leader. Halevi's work is often used by the Center for Near East Policy Research, but I understand that it was important to go back a step to the original work (which I have done) rather than only referring to the Center's reliance on him. In my reference for Halevi I have also given information on his credentials.

I still object to how Kingsindian is conducting him/herself: generalizations and an aggressive tone are not appropriate. Dian Kjaergaard (talk) 09:46, 1 September 2014 (UTC)

The big problem I see here is the treatment of CNEPR as an objective and reliable source. Any knowledgable person who spends 5 minutes on their web site will understand that the objectivity is just their constructed public image. In actuality (very much like MEMRI) they are a political organisation dedicated to the welfare of Israel as they understand it. This doesn't exclude their use on Wikipedia, but it means they have to be treated as a protagonist and not as an independent third party. Any "fact" from CNEPR should be "according to CNEPR" just like we do with Palestinian organisations. Zero^talk 11:00, 1 September 2014 (UTC)

@Dian Kjaergaard: As you have probably seen by now, the edit I reverted was not yours. Since you are a relatively new editor, I want to make some things clear to avoid miscommunication. Reverting an edit is the normal way to reach consensus on Wikipedia. See WP:BRD. The person whose edit I reverted is automatically informed. There is no edit-war, it only happened once, and I left a long explanation of the various flaws in the edit. About the tone, I am sorry if you found it aggressive, but such things happen in a collaborative project involving human beings. The edit was egregious, in multiple ways, and I felt it necessary to register a strong objection. All my reasons were sound and can stand on their own, even if you discount the tone. Regards. Kingsindian (talk) 11:26, 1 September 2014 (UTC)

@Zero0000: I disagree with your evaluation of MEMRI. But never mind, I am absolutely in favor of being totally clear about "who" asserts what - regardless of how openly - or covertly - partisan a source is. I think on subjects like this, if you scratch under the surface, there are almost always axes to grindDian Kjaergaard (talk) 14:48, 1 September 2014 (UTC) @Kingsindian: Thanks for following up. It was very helpful on many accounts. I look forward to learning more about how the community and the technical platform work. Dian Kjaergaard (talk) 14:48, 1 September 2014 (UTC) - small errors corrected - Cpsoper orientedDian Kjaergaard (talk) 14:51, 1 September 2014 (UTC)@Cpsoper: Dian Kjaergaard (talk) 14:51, 1 September 2014 (UTC)

Call for assistance with formatting of references and Thanks!

As a new editor, I have not yet learned a number of finesses. I hope that at least some of those following this page will help out, although our collaboration on creating good content is obviously more important. Thanks Dian Kjaergaard (talk) 10:52, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

I can see that some people have been helping to standardize the references. I still can't read the Talk and comparisons precisely, so I just want to say thanks to whoever has/have been doing this! Dian Kjaergaard (talk) 15:57, 7 September 2014 (UTC)

@Dian Kjaergaard: I have fixed 3 or so references for now. Unfortunately, the main tool for standardizing references is down at the moment. I suggest that you use the template "cite news" for future references. See Template:Cite_news. If you haven't yet, I suggest turning on the edit toolbar in your preferences. It makes citing stuff easier. Kingsindian (talk) 19:53, 7 September 2014 (UTC)

@Kingsindian: - Thanks for the help and the tip! I can't promise that I have enough brain-power to think (think about what I am writing) and use the "cite news" template consistently and correctly at the same time, but I sure will try. Dian Kjaergaard (talk) 20:29, 7 September 2014 (UTC)

Reform initiative

I have added a short section about the Center for Near East Policy Research's UNRWA reform intiative, with secondary sources as references.Cpsoper (talk) 21:26, 9 August 2014 (UTC) Clarified the connection to Israel Resource News Agency. Added a primary link to the UNRWA reform initiative for more info. Dian Kjaergaard (talk) 06:43, 12 October 2014 (UTC)

I don't believe this is appropriate. (1) Style requirements are for external links to be in the "External Links" or "References" sections of articles. (1) We do not advertise advocacy organisations and usually links to them only occur on articles about them. See WP:EXTLINKS, the first sentence and items 4 and 19 of the section "Links normally to be avoided". Zero^talk 07:35, 12 October 2014 (UTC)

Requested move

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: consensus to move the page, per the discussion below. Dekimasuよ! 22:23, 4 November 2014 (UTC)

---

United Nations Relief and Works Agency for Palestine Refugees in the Near East → UNRWA – Per WP:COMMONNAME. Given the unwieldy nature of the full name, the acronym is widely used as the primary name of the organization, similar to NATO or OPEC. Oncenawhile (talk) 22:33, 28 October 2014 (UTC)

• Suggest UNRWA - United Nations Relief and Works Agency for Palestine Refugees in the Near East as per "united nations relief and works agency for palestine refugees in the near east" (unrwa)Gregkaye ✍♪ 02:28, 29 October 2014 (UTC)
  • That isn't a title, it's two titles at once, which makes no sense. —innotata 20:21, 2 November 2014 (UTC)
• Support mv → UNRWA, pr User talk:Oncenawhile, -Huldra (talk) 22:25, 29 October 2014 (UTC)
• Support — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 16:57, 30 October 2014 (UTC)
• Support Use the common name for the agency—which is used widely for the sake of concision, something we also value. —innotata 20:21, 2 November 2014 (UTC)
• Support - Reminds me of UNAMIR, another title I'm very surprised is not at its common name.--Yaksar (let's chat) 04:52, 4 November 2014 (UTC)

---

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

"Operations" section

Could someone with more experience help me to figure out how to get the public comment / warning removed? The comment reads "This article needs additional citations for verification. Please help improve this article by adding citations to reliable sources. Unsourced material may be challenged and removed. (August 2011)" - but clearly refers to the Operations section.

For some months now it has been stated clearly that the material summarizes UNRWA's own description of itself. I think it is important to give an idea of the variety of tasks being done, but I am more than willing to trim it even more: as somebody said at some point, there are so many details that it is impossible to keep updated.

And of course, I am happy to wait to get the comment / warning removed until the trimming is finished.

Thanks.

Dian Kjaergaard (talk) 11:24, 14 December 2014 (UTC)

Bassem Eid

I have added his recent comments, given they represent a significant and noteworthy level of criticism of UNRWA. It would of course be appropriate to add some of Gunness' and UNRWA's response, I have not attempted this as yet.Cpsoper (talk) 14:23, 14 December 2014 (UTC)

I wonder if that is not WP:UNDUE, given that mr Eid seems to represent a minority opinion, take this debate, where 82% of the audience rejected his suggestions ( much the same as in the article), Huldra (talk) 16:36, 14 December 2014 (UTC)

Irrelevant, anecdotal. Plot Spoiler (talk) 19:09, 14 December 2014 (UTC)

Is Electronic Intifada a forum by which general opinion is judged? Chris Gunness clearly considered Bassem Eid's opinion neither irrelevant nor anecdotal.Cpsoper (talk) 20:39, 14 December 2014 (UTC)

Here are some of his tweets, which someone may wish to edit into a proper, measured response:

• @Jerusalem_Post which employs pro-Jewish terrorism journo has article accusing UNRWA of supporting Jihad.I was not asked for quote of course — Chris Gunness (@ChrisGunness) December 4, 2014
• Ultra-right @Jerusalem_Post carries anti-UNRWA garbage boycotting me ie no quote. Ask @stevelinde y Boycott the JPost! Don't read their lies — Chris Gunness (@ChrisGunness) December 4, 2014
• Unbalanced journalism @Jerusalem_Post which carries rabid anti-UNRWA piece without quoting @ChrisGunness. Ask editor @stevelinde why. RT — Chris Gunness (@ChrisGunness) December 4, 2014
• @Jerusalem_Post with Jewish terror supporting staff accuses UNRWA of Jihadism. Utter rubbish which we reject. Shame on @stevelinde RT — Chris Gunness (@ChrisGunness) December 4, 2014
• I passionately believe in freedom of the press but I am equally passionate about fair and balanced journalism, which I will always demand RT — Chris Gunness (@ChrisGunness) December 4, 2014.

They reveal just how seriously he took the article, though he indicates his dissent.Cpsoper (talk) 20:46, 14 December 2014 (UTC)

Huh? Firstly, The Doha Debates are anything but anecdotal. To dismiss them, but finding some tweets significant; seriously ....!

Secondly, you seem to confuse “being taken seriously” with “being representative”. Not only Chris Gunness, but also Ali Abunimah takes Bassem Eid seriously in the sense that they meet him in discussions. (See eg. Bassem Eid v Ali Abunimah, The Guardian). That does not mean that his views are representative (they are clearly not: something which the article fails to mention). If the views of Bassem Eid is to go into the article, then so should those of his critics. His critics are simply not heard at the moment. I`m taking the whole paragraph out until we can agree on balanced paragraph.

In fact, the whole “Criticism and controversies” section is insanely inflated; why on earth do we quote Aruz 7 and Frontpage´s Arlene Kushner at such length, and verbatim? Absurd. The whole article needs an {{unbalanced}} -tag. Huldra (talk) 23:13, 5 January 2015 (UTC)

Make consensual edits, Huldra, please don't vandalise. Cpsoper (talk) 19:50, 7 January 2015 (UTC)

Accusing other editors of vandalising is a very serious charge. Please back that up with diffs, or withdraw it. And there was no consensus for including your Bassem Eid-quotation; so why did you? Please answer my above objections, thanks, Huldra (talk) 21:43, 7 January 2015 (UTC)

Btw, User:Baatarsaikan is a banned sock, Huldra (talk) 21:47, 7 January 2015 (UTC)

WP:vandalism 'Vandalism is any addition, removal, or change of content, in a deliberate attempt to compromise the integrity of Wikipedia', despite a plain lack of consensus you completely removed indisputably well sourced data, and did not even reference that removal here. Please forge a consensus before reiterating this. Cpsoper (talk) 22:41, 7 January 2015 (UTC)

Note the crucial word "deliberate". I reiterate: you did not have consensus for adding this stuff; by your "generous" interpretation of "Vandal", I´m afraid you fit the bill as much as anyone else. Again: please address my concerns above: we don´t just insert one sides opinion in Wikipedia, note e.g. this, Cheers, Huldra (talk) 22:53, 7 January 2015 (UTC)

Huldra, how about adding your reference from Chris Gunness after Eid's contribution, rather than hacking out large sections of well referenced text? Cpsoper (talk) 11:41, 14 January 2015 (UTC)

It is the responsibility of the person adding new stuff to get it balanced, i.e. your responsibility. But heck, who cares, when we have the IP-socks of a banned user "helping" us, eh? Proud of yourself, User:Cpsoper? Huldra (talk) 22:19, 14 January 2015 (UTC)

Huldra, this article was published after my original edit. Nevertheless at your request and for the sake of balance I have added it. Cpsoper (talk) 06:03, 16 January 2015 (UTC)

bombing of schools

That rockets etc have been found in, or near, empty UNRWA schools is now used to justify the bombing of crowded UNRWA schools? Lovely. Huldra (talk) 22:38, 14 January 2015 (UTC)

Still waiting for answer here. Huldra (talk) 21:25, 17 January 2015 (UTC)

It doesn't legitimize any UNRWA school as target but only if their is intelligence it is used by militants. The fact rockets were found in the past make it clear that UNRWA claims the facilities are not used by militants, are false. Ashtul (talk) 22:27, 17 January 2015 (UTC)

Huh? AFAIK, it has always been UNRWA itself who has complained and informed the world when they have found rockets close to their school-facilities which were not in use. School facilities *in use by civilians* have not been used by militants AFAIK. And I´m sorry, but I have no idea as to what "but only if their is intelligence it is used by militants" means. Huldra (talk) 23:01, 17 January 2015 (UTC)

Rockets were found in the schools, not "close to" them. Also, rockets were found between two schools populated by 1500 civilians. “WarKosign” 07:41, 18 January 2015 (UTC)

Why the heck is so called "journalist Arlene Kushner " quoted? Or MBA student Rana Baker?? This article is filled with garbage

The only thing I can find from " journalist Arlene Kushner" is on Aruz 7 and other partisan places. Absolutely nothing to indicate here noteworthiness. Same for this MBA student. Seriously?? If nobody can give a serious reason for keeping them, I´m taking them out. (And hope some are not so cheap as to rely on the normal army of socks to keep them in) Huldra (talk) 21:33, 17 January 2015 (UTC)

I hope this will help. Ashtul (talk) 22:23, 17 January 2015 (UTC)

Not really, quoting her verbatim is completely WP:UNDUE (though I agree with a link to the article), and quoting this MBA student at all is also WP:UNDUE, Huldra (talk) 21:46, 18 January 2015 (UTC)

This part of article present controversy, to the whole article. WP:UNDUE seems to be irrelevant. Ashtul (talk) 10:04, 19 January 2015 (UTC)

WP:UNDUE is relevant to all parts of all articles. Zero^talk 10:19, 19 January 2015 (UTC)

Unbalanced article?

There is a prominent notice on the top of the article page saying that the article is unbalanced - the date of this notice is "January 2015". It is very hard to help without knowing what the notice-poster is referring to. It might also help to know who is responsible for this evaluation and why. Dian Kjaergaard (talk) 13:31, 5 February 2015 (UTC) - something nasty seems to be going on - I will investigate further. Dian Kjaergaard (talk) 13:34, 5 February 2015 (UTC)

The "Critisism" section is vastly inflated with activist sources, which A. is WP:UNDUE and B: they should at least acknowledge that they are activist sources. I just checked one: the UNRWA Reform Initiative: who is behind? the Middle East Forum (read: Daniel Pipes) and something called "Israel Resource News Agency" run by David Bedein. He has been found to have links to the banned Jewish terrorist organisation Kahane [12]. For a start: Before these Kahane-sourses goes out, the "unbalanced" tag stays. Huldra (talk) 20:22, 5 February 2015 (UTC)

Can we have better substantiation for this allegation than an UNRWA spokesman please? Cpsoper (talk) 13:56, 11 February 2015 (UTC)

Criticisms - changed to criticisms and controversies - and drastically shortened

Most of the following deletions are due to their including way too many details - and/or insufficient documentation in this context:

In 2006, the UNRWA drew criticism from then-US Congressmen Mark Kirk (R-IL) and Steven Rothman (D-NJ). Their letter, sent to the US Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice, stated in part: "After an exhaustive review of the UN's own audit, it is clear UNRWA is wrought by mismanagement, ineffective policies, and failure to secure its finances. We must upgrade UNRWA's financial controls, management and enforcement of US law that bars any taxpayer dollars from supporting terrorists.". There has been extensive criticism of the statistics, data collection techniques, and definitions concerning Palestinian refugees by the UNRWA.Historians, such as Martha Gellhorn and Dr. Walter Pinner, have also blamed UNRWA for distortion of statistics and even of sheer fraud. Pinner wrote in 1959 that the actual number of refugees then was only 367,000.

In 2012, Kirk, now a Senator, created an amendment to the fiscal 2013 State Department and foreign operations appropriations bill that would require the State Department to report on how many of the millions of people currently supported by UNRWA are actually people who were physically displaced from their homes who lived in the area between June 1946 to May 1948 or fled, and how many are descendants of original refugees. Kirk's spokesperson Kate Dickens explained that the purpose was not to affect U.S. policy on UNRWA or cut funding to UNRWA, but rather to create more transparency within the organization. The amendment was accepted by the Senate. The official language is as follows:

The Committee directs the Secretary of State to submit a report to the Committee not later than one year after enactment of this act, indicating –

(a)the approximate number of people who, in the past year, have received UNRWA services –
(1)whose place of residence was Palestine between June 1946 and May 1948 and who were displaced as a result of the 1948 Arab-Israeli conflict; and
(2)who are descendants of persons described in subparagraph (1);
(b)the extent to which the provision of such services to such persons furthers the security interests of the United States and of other United States allies in the Middle East; and

(c)the methodology and challenges in preparing each report.

Unnecessary examples: A United States Senator claims that UNRWA is an example of a United Nations anti-Israel bias, and that Palestine refugees should be treated the same as all others with refugee status around the world.

For example, according to former Israeli ambassador to the United Nations Dore Gold (in 2005):

Although education was one of the fields in which UNRWA was supposed to provide aid, the agency did nothing to alter Palestinian educational texts that glorified violence and continuing war against Israel.

Deleted because it is really quite minor - and Israel also shows maps from the river to the sea In May 2013, Israel's UN ambassador sent a letter to UN secretary-general Ban Ki Moon complaining that UNWRA Lebanese director for Palestinian refugees, Ann Dismorr, had posed beside a map that showed "Arab Palestine" from the Mediterranean to the Jordan River. UNRWA "categorically reject[ed]" the charge, saying that that the object was an embroidery of a pre-1948 map from before Israel existed.

Unnecessary details - historical and otherwise For historical reasons UNRWA schools followed the Jordanian curriculum in the West Bank and the Egyptian curriculum in the Gaza Strip and this practice continued under the Israeli control of those areas between 1967 and 1994. Since 1994 the Palestinian Authority has progressively been replacing the old Jordanian and Egyptian textbooks as new PA-produced textbooks become available.

In 1998, two years before the Al-Aqsa intifada, US Congressman Peter Deutsch (D-FL) and other Congressmembers pressured the State Department to ask UNRWA to investigate evidence that Palestinian Authority school books used in UNRWA-run schools contained anti-Semitic statements. The allegations surfaced in reports compiled by the Centre for Monitoring the Impact of Peace, an Israeli-American NGO. The last of the older Jordanian and Egyptian textbooks were phased out of UNRWA schools in the autumn of 2004.

However, in an exchange with CMIP Brown notes "my criticism that CMIP's work is 'tendentious and highly misleading' was made before CMIP issued its 2001 report and could hardly have referred specifically to it."

On 23 May 2010, a group of 30 armed masked men set fire to the construction site of an UNRWA summer camp in Gaza City, destroying it. The arsonists left a letter addressed to UNRWA head John Ging, threatening his life. Four bullets were attached to the letter. Hamas condemned the arson but tried to minimize its importance. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dian Kjaergaard (talk • contribs) 20:42, 25 August 2014‎ (UTC)

Good job. We really don't need every single point of criticism American and Israeli politicians have about the UN aiding Palestinians. Bataaf van Oranje (talk) 15:45, 1 October 2015 (UTC)

UNRWA social media incitement etc.

I have reverted the edit. Firstly, UN Watch is not reliable for assertions like this. Secondly, there is no evidence that UNRWA is involved. If some UNRWA employees post something on Facebook/Youtube, that is not evidence that it is UNRWA's doing. Thirdly, some of the evidence is laughable: some guy changed his Facebook "Like" icon to one holding a knife: that is supposed to be "incitement". Kingsindian ♝♚ 17:06, 22 October 2015 (UTC)

UN Watch (a UN accredited NGO) is certainly reliable for what's in reports they submitted. It's attributed, which according to you makes almost everything usable, so what's the problem here? No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 17:34, 22 October 2015 (UTC)

I already gave the problem. What does this have to do with UNRWA? UNRWA employees are not forced to censor their political thoughts on Facebook. Kingsindian ♝♚ 17:51, 22 October 2015 (UTC)

UN Watch thinks UNRWA has something to do with, and UNRWA responded to this report, so it's quite obviously relevant. What UNRWA employees are supposed to do (and you're mistaken about how they're allowed to voice their "political opinions") is not relevant. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 17:56, 22 October 2015 (UTC)

Here's a UN spox addressing the matter and admitting it happened. Good enough? No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 19:15, 22 October 2015 (UTC)

Seems good enough. Kingsindian ♝♚ 20:22, 22 October 2015 (UTC)

Here's a couple more sources discussing this [13] [14] No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 19:13, 4 November 2015 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on UNRWA. 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:

• Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20070814193807/http://www.refugees.org:80/article.aspx?id=1109&rid=1179 to http://www.refugees.org/article.aspx?id=1109&rid=1179

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: 5 June 2024).

• 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 II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 15:22, 27 February 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 14 external links on UNRWA. 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:

• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.un.org/unrwa/publications/pdf/uif-june04.pdf
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://weekly.ahram.org.eg/2009/942/re63.htm
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://reliefweb.int/report/occupied-palestinian-territory/employees-un-agency-palestinian-refugees-strike
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://data.worldbank.org/indicator/DT.ODA.ODAT.PC.ZS/countries/1W-PS-CF-ET-CI-AF?display=graph
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://wdi.worldbank.org/table/6.11
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.un.org/unrwa/news/letters/NobelPeaceLaureate_oct06.html
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.un.org/unrwa/news/letters/sg-14march05.html
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.un.int/bangladesh/statements/57/unrwa.htm
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.norway.org.ps/Press%20Release/UNRWA.htm
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.un.org/unrwa/publications/pubs07/GF-20082009.pdf
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.bond.senate.gov/atwork/recordtopic.cfm?id=226255
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20081205060706/http://impact-se.org/research/pa/index.html to http://www.impact-se.org/research/pa/index.html
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.unrwa.org//newsroom/press-releases/unrwa-condemns-placement-rockets-second-time-one-its-schools
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://press.org/events/unrwa-reform-initiative

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: 5 June 2024).

• 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) 05:34, 20 May 2017 (UTC)

Tunnels under UNRWA schools

@Zero0000: - This is not off-topic - UNRWA itself strongly condemned this use - [15]. Placing a military tunnel (which are typically actually quite shallow - which is why it was discovered by UNRWA during repairs) under an UNRWA school, would make the school a valid military target (or at least the portion above the tunnel) - for aerial bombardment. This is a severe cause for concern to UNRWA, specifically since its schools (though not these two specifically) are used as refugee centers (for internally displaced persons) during conflicts. Jeopardizing UNRWA's neutrality non-combatant status (a matter which is already in peril due to previous use of UNRWA's schools as rocket depots [16] [17])) - would severely compromise the organization's ability to function in its humanitarian role.Icewhiz (talk) 12:13, 11 June 2017 (UTC)

This in UNRWA's full press release with condemnation - [18] - calling this a "NEUTRALITY VIOLATION" and condemning it.Icewhiz (talk) 12:24, 11 June 2017 (UTC)

You even put it into the article in two different places, but basically it is not about UNRWA but about Israel using any excuse to bash UNRWA. I will agree to the paragraph I took out if you take out the other one. Netanyahu's moronic comments about it are predictable and boring. Zero^talk 12:46, 11 June 2017 (UTC)

Also, Wikipedia articles are supposed to have a stable length suitable for an encyclopaedia. They aren't supposed to grow endlessly by addition of every soon-forgotten event. This material does not belong per WP:NOTNEWS. Zero^talk 13:00, 11 June 2017 (UTC)

UNRWA actually condemned this use (supposedly after a spontaneous discovery, though I would suspect otherwise (it was probably told to look or...), but this isn't sourced) on the 9th- two days before Israel used, on the 11th, the incident to bash UNWRA and call for its dismantlement. I didn't quite put it in two different places - I put Israeli calls for dismantlement (+UNWRA's response) - without any details on the tunnel itself (besides "Following discovery of a tunnel underneath UNRWA schools" - should we cut that out from there?) under Israel/UNWRA , and details of the tunnel in Hamas use of UNWRA's facilities. I did so - to follow the existing structure of the article (which is in general messy, and separate abuse by Hamas and Israeli reactions). Where should I lump this all together? Under "Relations with Israel", "Relationship with Hamas", or "UNRWA facilities being abused by Hamas militants"? All three are relevant here. Frankly - I think the article should be re-worked so that the Hamas/UNRWA/Israel triangle is all bunched together - but this is a major edit to an article I haven't edited much yet.

Regarding NOTNEWS - this is a highly notable event, which will be notable a month and a year from now (and I didn't add these as they broke - but waited a few days following UNWRA's condemnation on Friday). Both violation of UNWRA's neutrality, and calls for dismantlement (by a side that has control over flow of goods and cash to a major portion of UNWRA's activities (Gaza & West Bank)) - is of lasting significance.Icewhiz (talk) 13:04, 11 June 2017 (UTC)

I placed the whole block under "relations with Israel"(will following discussion and possible 1RR) - seeing that rockets (firing from, depot) use from schools is also bunched there (so at least the two are consistent). I think that in terms of article flow - this is wrong - it would make sense bunching Israel/UNRWA/Hamas issues into a more coherent location (at present - these are split between the various sections, which are also space widely apart).Icewhiz (talk) 13:09, 11 June 2017 (UTC)

Camps are still Distinguishable

Refugee camps, which developed from tent cities to settlements indistinguishable from their urban surroundings, house around one third of all registered Palestine refugees.

This sentence is probably not correct. While many camps, such as Shatila, Al-Shati Camp and Amman New Camp are surrounded by urban areas, they are still clearly distinguishable from their surroundings. You can verify that either by looking at images of infrastructure in the camps or by using google maps. See fe [19]. ImTheIP (talk) 14:21, 12 June 2017 (UTC)

From my experience in Gaza and the West Bank (I would need to RS that of course to place in an article - and a google-map lookup probably isn't a good source) at least some, and I'd even say many of the refugee camps are indistinguishable from surrounding low-quality slums. This is probably different in Lebanon (where segregation policies are quite pronounced - including the recent wall building - e.g. [20] (Daesh and other threats)). Note that the camps are quite distinguishable from the city center or high-quality neighborhoods - but tend to be indistinguishable from poor "newer" neighborhoods that were built without planning in a haphazard fashion in the past 70 years or so. In any event - at least in Gaza and the West Bank - these are permanent structures usually built from cement blocks, often multi-story (2-5 would be typical).Icewhiz (talk) 14:30, 12 June 2017 (UTC)

Yes you are right. Although the locals are perfectly aware of were the camps are and knows that it is more dangerous for outsiders (Jews especially) to visit them. Perhaps we can agree on a more neutral wording? Such as: "Refugee camps, many of which has developed from tent cities to settlements surrounded by urban growth, house around one third of all registered Palestine refugees."? ImTheIP (talk) 16:16, 12 June 2017 (UTC) And here is the cite for the 1/3 number: https://www.unrwa.org/palestine-refugees

Camps, on average, do tend to be more dangerous slums, however there are exceptions to the rule, and there are dangerous slums that are not camps. I can see why dropping indistingushable would make sense, as we debating the point and one would need a strong source to claim all are such. Change settlements to dense urban settlements and I am on board.Icewhiz (talk) 17:45, 12 June 2017 (UTC)

Went ahead and modified this a bit - [21] - indistinguishable was a bit too firm (while true for some camps, this is not true for all camps).Icewhiz (talk) 19:04, 12 June 2017 (UTC)

I guess it's better than nothing. But of those camps I've visited, they had more in common with favelas and it wasn't very hard to see were the exact borders of the camps were. ImTheIP (talk) 20:05, 12 June 2017 (UTC)

Contributions in 1950-1955

Some data: 1951 - $43,506,092 1952 - $49,289,106 1953 - $23,144,847 1954 - $24,708,708 1955 - $23,847,097 --ארינמל (talk) 13:10, 9 November 2017 (UTC)

Please change 4 times UNWRA to UNRWA

Thanks --Wurgl (talk) 09:35, 12 November 2017 (UTC)

Done.Icewhiz (talk) 10:57, 12 November 2017 (UTC)

Thanks (from german WP) --Wurgl (talk) 22:55, 12 November 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 9 external links on UNRWA. 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:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120327182038/http://www.europa-eu-un.org/articles/en/article_286_en.htm to http://www.europa-eu-un.org/articles/en/article_286_en.htm
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120111161416/http://www.carim.org/public/polsoctexts/PS2JOR016_EN.pdf to http://www.carim.org/public/polsoctexts/PS2JOR016_EN.pdf
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130724143501/http://www.mopanonline.org/upload/documents/MOPAN_Common_Approach_-_UNRWA_Report_2011_Part_1.pdf to http://www.mopanonline.org/upload/documents/MOPAN_Common_Approach_-_UNRWA_Report_2011_Part_1.pdf
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130724143501/http://www.mopanonline.org/upload/documents/MOPAN_Common_Approach_-_UNRWA_Report_2011_Part_1.pdf to http://www.mopanonline.org/upload/documents/MOPAN_Common_Approach_-_UNRWA_Report_2011_Part_1.pdf
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110916223046/http://fr.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?pagename=JPost%2FJPArticle%2FShowFull&cid=1211872830830 to http://fr.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?pagename=JPost%2FJPArticle%2FShowFull&cid=1211872830830
• Added {{dead link}} tag to http://fr.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?cid=1159193338901&pagename=JPost%2FJPArticle%2FShowFull
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120415032604/http://www.pcdc.edu.ps/brown_research_summary.htm to http://www.pcdc.edu.ps/brown_research_summary.htm
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20051016221049/http://www.ipcri.org/files/4%269report.pdf to http://www.ipcri.org/files/4%269report.pdf
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20161225175621/http://www.ochaopt.org/documents/ocha_opt_gaza_humanitarian_situation_report_2009_02_02_english.pdf to http://www.ochaopt.org/documents/ocha_opt_gaza_humanitarian_situation_report_2009_02_02_english.pdf
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20060529233649/http://unrwa.un.org.sy/ to http://unrwa.un.org.sy/

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: 5 June 2024).

• 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) 15:31, 2 December 2017 (UTC)

"UNRWA is the only agency dedicated to helping refugees from a specific region or conflict and is separate from UNHCR."

In this sentences in lead there is no source. The cited source has no content about this sentence. only agency in the world? or only UN agency for a specific region? Please correct the error.Oskimua (talk) 17:14, 21 February 2018 (UTC)

Only UN agency. Fixed.Icewhiz (talk) 19:23, 21 February 2018 (UTC)

More recent budget figure (for 2016)

"2016 Pledges to UNRWA's Programmes […] as 31 December 2016" provides a figure of some $1.24 billion for 2016. -- 2003:C0:173B:F18E:1CE:8E6D:A922:E373 (talk) 18:17, 4 August 2018 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 1 September 2018

In the sentence "UNRWA was specifically designed not to proscribe how the outcome of an agreement would take shape," the word <<proscribe>> should be changed to <<prescribe>>. Kabulykos (talk) 19:50, 1 September 2018 (UTC)

Correct! Done! Thanks! Zero^talk 06:07, 2 September 2018 (UTC)

"Both UNRWA and UNHCR allow refugee status to be inherited by descendants" - are they?‏

This is a mistaken and misleading sentence. It should be changed or erased. you may argue about it being misleading (depending on your opinions,) but you cannot argue about it being mistaken. It is mistaken because if you closely compare the references: UNRWA : "Palestine Refugees, and descendants of Palestine refugee" UNHCR : "...the head of a family... his dependants..." - there is no word about descendants!!! It is misleading because this sentence only purpose is to give the reader of the article the illusion that there is no much difference between UNRWA and UNHCR. if you closely examine and compare these two agencies articles you will clearly see that while UNHCR is pursuing resettling the refugees, UNRWA has no such intentions. If you know a little about history and politics you will figure it out for yourself.

I removed it. Not only is it not relevant here and doesn't appear anywhere in the body of the article, Chris Gunness does not speak for the UNHCR so his opinion is nothing more than his opinion. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 22:38, 8 April 2018 (UTC)

Gosh, I thought that someone (like Chris Gunness) who is chief spokesperson for the UNRWA, actually spoke for more than himself? Huldra (talk) 22:56, 8 April 2018 (UTC)

Does he speak for UNHCR? No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 23:15, 8 April 2018 (UTC)

This is the article on UNRWA, and saying that its spokesperson opinions is "nothing more than his opinion" is ok, is it? Huldra (talk) 23:23, 8 April 2018 (UTC)

UNRWA's spokesperson's opinions on UNRWA are relevant here. His opinions on other things are probably not. He is a reporter who became a spox. Is he an expert on UNHRC? No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 23:38, 8 April 2018 (UTC)

Just noticed this. Of course Gunness is an expert on refugee issues not only on UNRWA. Zero^talk 06:47, 2 September 2018 (UTC)

Not at all. Gunness was a long time BBC journalist who (a natural transition between being a media person to PR) became a spokeperson for UNRWA. Any statement he makes is WP:BIASED towards UNRWA's view (which employs him to make such statements), and he is most definitely not an expert on refugees outside of the UNRWA context.Icewhiz (talk) 06:55, 2 September 2018 (UTC)

Unexplained {​{unbalanced}​} template still needed?

For more than three years, the {​{unbalanced|date=January 2015}​} has been sitting on top of the article. However, there is no discussion on this talk page as to why the article might be unbalanced. (From what I can see, the article adequately describes UNRWA’s mandate, its work, and the ample criticism directed at the agency. What’s wrong with any of that?) I suggest removing the template. Failing that, proponents of leaving it should discuss their rationale. —ThorstenNY (talk) 01:13, 24 October 2018 (UTC)

You put your finger on it with the words "ample criticism". The amount of criticism, much of it repetitive and some from people whose opinions are not noteworthy (such as random US politicians) is at least double what a balanced article would have. Zero^talk 02:04, 24 October 2018 (UTC)

Whether all criticism items are noteworthy can be discussed, but I don’t see how having non-noteworthy items in the Criticism section makes the entire article unbalanced. In a way, I think the article reflects the situation very well: UNRWA steadily and quietly does its work (as described in the intro and first five sections) — while a lot random U.S. politicians heap a lot of repetitive criticism on the agency. If anything, having {​{unbalanced}​} suggests that the intro and first five sections (which appear to be perfectly fine) may not accurately describe the topic. That can’t be right. I say remove the template and let the repetitive critics have their repetitive Criticism section. —ThorstenNY (talk) 13:39, 24 October 2018 (UTC)

UNRWA has faced quite a bit of criticism - not just from US politicians. Icewhiz (talk) 13:46, 24 October 2018 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 19 January 2019

Change spelling of 'compliess' to 'complies' 92.208.21.175 (talk) 21:54, 19 January 2019 (UTC)

 Done aboideau^talk 00:02, 20 January 2019 (UTC)

"strip Palestinians of their refugee status"

… of UNRWA's refugee status. Notice eg. how the source writes "for Millions of Palestinians", not "for [all] Palestinians", which is what the Wiki phrasing suggests.

As to that, Kushner & co. cannot possibly strip those who would still fall under the different UNHCR status ("UNRWA should […] unwind itself and become part of the UNHCR […] Coates wrote"), esp. given the fallback cause in the UN's refugee convention (§1 D., phrased generally but essentially written in anticipation of UNRWA's end). The millions referred to are eg. the 70%+ of Jordanian Palestinians (1.5m+) who have been holding Jordan citizenship (largely now for generations), which generally automatically disqualifies from UNHCR status. -- 95.90.221.96 (talk) 21:26, 3 February 2019 (UTC)

no need to develop about MOPAN

> MOPAN is network of donor countries with a common interest

The article is about UNRWA, not about MOPAN... --Wisdood (talk) 09:50, 12 April 2019 (UTC)

Unbalanced tag

Anyone know anything about this? It's been there for a good while now and there is nothing here on the talk page, any reason to keep it?Selfstudier (talk) 14:52, 23 April 2019 (UTC)