Etzel48

Welcome!

Hello, Etzel48, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your messages on discussion pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask your question on this page and then place {{helpme}} before the question. Again, welcome! Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 08:41, 11 July 2008 (UTC)Reply

Your note edit

Latest comment: 15 years ago2 comments1 person in discussion

Hello,
Thanks for inviting me to inspect something you care about, I'll give it a look and may weigh in.

On a side note, I thought I will suggest to you to possibly reconsider your user-name as I'm sure it will cause some side effects such as reverts regardless of your edits being neutral and based on sources.
Regardless of the situation, keep WP:COOL and try to get wider community input (see WP:DR).
Cheers, Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 08:52, 11 July 2008 (UTC) clarify 08:53, 11 July 2008 (UTC)Reply

Personal interpretations edit

I'm thinking you found something interesting with the 181 source. However, part of what you added to the article is indeed categorized as original research and needs a reliable source to rectify your claim. I'm addressing the paragraph which starts with "The effect of which is to ensure that"[1] which I don't see any reference for. This text has some reason, but since this material would clearly be contested, there should be some citation next to it. To be frank, my eyes got tired after that part so I'd suggest you start by cutting the blockquote down a little (a lot) and finding a source that discusses the material within that paragraph I just mentioned. Once you do these two, post the changes on the article's talk page and notify me so I can review the changes along with others who might be giving it a look.
Cheers, Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 09:10, 11 July 2008 (UTC)Reply

Thanks for your input.

Trouble is, it most assuredly is 'original research', that is, I can find no suggestion anywhere online that anyone has yet looked at the consequences of looking at UNGAR 194 from an International Law perspective, which requires that such be construed in light of that which proceeded them. In this case, it requires looking at UNGAR 181, which is an extremely detailed document, heavy on legalese and specificity. From the aforementioned legal perspective, it is dynamite. It addresses the ever-present assertion that because no definition of 'refugee' is included in UNGAR 194, that it includes anyone who wishes to claim the status, by requiring that the term be read in light of who is entitled to what under UNGAR 181 (this is standard, everyday construction of a document. Unless it is a one-off, such things are not construed as operating in a vacuum). Trouble is, how to write that without being viewed as being argumentative - it is difficult for me to write in a non-argumentative manner, that is what I am trained to do.

As to modifying the block quote, it is difficult to know where that could be done without altering the meaning of the remaining text or leaving one open to suggestions of having selectively edited the same. Frankly, I think that at least the one entire paragraph is necessary, it isn't exactly light reading, but from a legal viewpoint, it is extremely well written (especially for the times). The amount of detail and the forethought that went into that document is incredible, it has dealt with potential problems that have still not yet arisen.

Perhaps it will need someone who can look at it from a different angle to work out how best to present it. The simple fact is that given the intransigence of the PLO at Oslo, it is vital that it be known that this does counteract, even negate, the oft-cited UNGAR 194. That may actually give the next leader of Israel some chance of reaching agreement with the Palestinians.

Add topic