Talk:Occupied Palestine Resolution
| This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Occupied Palestine Resolution article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
| Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
.svg)
The "Controversy" section clearly written by someone with strong pro-Israel opinions, not at all up to Wikipedia's standards of objectivity. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2602:306:31E9:E460:C4A7:35B7:4F7F:9B5E (talk) 09:34, 8 February 2017 (UTC)
"Resolution" vs. "Decision of the Executive Board"
editAs far as I can se, the UNESCO document discussed in this article is formally a "Decision of the Executive Board". For example, the document "200 EX/PX/DR.25.2 Rev.", linked in the article from http://unesdoc.unesco.org/images/0024/002462/246215e.pdf, says: "Executive Board [...] Draft Decision".
Until recently, the article claimed the "resolution" was "formally ratified on October 26, 2016, by the General Conference of UNESCO." However, that seems to be wrong, as there was no General Conference in 2016 (they are only held bi-annually, last in 2015 and 2017), so I corrected that claim.
The article still calls the decision a "resolution" in various places. Should that also be corrected to "decision of the Executive Board"? On the one hand, that is what it is officially called - on the other hand, many sources call it a "resolution", so the renaming might be confusing. Or is there another definition of "resolution" I'm not aware of? Sebastian (talk) 10:14, 13 October 2017 (UTC)
Renaming
editI propose that this page be renamed to "2016 UNESCO resolution on Jerusalem's holy sites" The resolution was never known asthe "Occupied Palestine resolution." ImTheIP (talk) 17:39, 17 July 2020 (UTC)
synth
editsources connecting material to the topic of this article are required, we dont just include random tidbits that are unrelated. The removed material a. takes a primary source that never once mentions the subject of the article, and then b. takes other sources that never once mention the subject of the article, to put in to this article material that is not in any way related to it. That is indeed textbook SYNTH. nableezy - 19:50, 23 April 2021 (UTC)
- Right, and it isn't even necessary to mention that the sources do not support what is cited to them. Zerotalk 01:44, 24 April 2021 (UTC)
- Yep, that's my bad, I kinda jumped the gun. Honestly just saw swaths removed and figured something ulterior, which is not a legitimate excuse but, it's my excuse. Won't challenge this. Zhomron (talk) 18:25, 25 April 2021 (UTC)