Talk:Ruud Lubbers

message: —Preceding undated comment added 01:44, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Untitled 

message: Following an article in the Australian press which referred to to the investigation of Ruud Lubbers on sexual harassment charges while he was High Commissioner for refugees, I consulted the entry in WP and found that it was mainly promotional material as well as unreferenced statements.  I edited out the promotional material, signposted unreferenced assertions, and added  referenced facts about the sexual harassment case.  Meanwhile an anonymous   user  at the IP address 84.104.54.237 added much of the previous promotional and unreferenced material that had been deleted and removed the referenced facts without any explanation.  Looks like another attempt to rewrite an unfortunate history.--Joel Mc 21:58, 6 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Promotional Material

message: Hi Joel, 
You are obviously interested in this complaint against Lubbers, but you quote quite selective. Remarkable is that OIOS officer Barbara Dixon claims that she wrote the OIOS report herself.
The same Barbara Dixon handled the so-called West Africa Scandal. Dixon claimed that refugees were sexually abused by UNHCR-workers. This claim turned out to be not sustainable. The then High Commisioner Lubbers refused to do as if UNHCR-workers were culprits. After that Dixon behaved as if she had to settle an account with Lubbers. To start Dixon suggested a link between the Brzak case and the West Afrika Scandal in her leak to the New York Times.
If you read Dixon's report on Lubbers, you will notice that besides speculations, the report consists only two facts: the statements of the two witnesses present at the formal meeting in the UNHCR-office where the incident would have taken place. In Dixon's wording: one witness states that he did not see Lubbers touch Cynthia Brzak at all; the other witness states that Lubbers made an overly familiar gesture; but definitely not a gesture as meant by the sexual harassment claim of Cynthia Brzak.
Even worse: Before, during and after the investigation both Barbara Dixon and the former Chairman of OIOS Dileep Nair briefed the New York Times and Dutch media that Lubbers was quilty. Doing so, they suggested that there were a number of anonymous cases. But in reality, there was only one complaint, that of Mrs Brzak which proved to be not sustainable.
When subsequently UNHCR Staff urged the Inspector General to do an inquiry into these leaks OIOS instructed the Inspector general not to do so. In the analysis of Max van der Stoel you can read that OIOS used the Dutch journalist Bob Kroon to be instrumental in a witch-hunt in the Dutch media.
As former Executive Secretary of the SCHR you must know that both Barbara Dixon and Dileep Nair had to leave office because of abuse of authority. See also the article of Claudia Rosett of june 13, 2007. (http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,282014,00.html)
All in all it is not surprising that first Max van der Stoel, then Stephan Schwebel and finally Kofi Annan concluded that the complaint against Lubbers could not be substained.
User:Columbo85 14:34, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Welcome to the discussion, Colombo85 and welcome to Wikipedia as these seem to be your first edits.  I am not sure what my previous professional life has to do with this discussion, particularly when I retired two and a half years ago.  One of the nice things about this community is that you are judged on your edits and not your degrees or previous positions.  I can say, however, that I had never heard of Barbara Dixon before I started to edit this page on 27 October 2007 and I am not in position to comment on your uncited accusations.  If they add balance to the article then by all means add them with references.  As to the number of "facts" in the report why not let others make their own judgement after reading the report.  I have already explained elsewhere on this discussion page how I came to edit the entry on Mr. Lubbers. For some discussion points on how we might move forward please see below. Joel Mc (talk) 16:45, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Barbara Dixon

message: Looking back in earlier versions of this page, I find that the same anonymous user at the IP address 84.104.54.237 also removed referenced material about the sexual harassment case on 1 October 2007.  There is clearly a move to whitewash the issue.  The IP address is linked to 
Multikabel QuickNet in the Netherlands.  The same machine has been used to edit the NL page of Lubbers.  I am unable to read Dutch to know if it is also promotional material.Joel Mc 22:58, 6 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Rewriting History

message: There has been some news coverage about modifications to this article in the Dutch media lately. (Only in Dutch, I'm afraid.)
* NRC. "Wikipedia-biografie van Lubbers op slot." 
* NRC. "Wikipedia herstelt ook reputaties."  Sjeng (talk) 23:37, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: See also my contributions above. ;-) Mtcv (talk) 23:57, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  News coverage about this article 

message: I expect that the block will be lifted sometime and I would like to initiate discussion about future edits after the block is lifted.
At the moment there are no references at all in the whole article.  However, the controversial part clearly focuses on the sexual harassment case and the resignation of the High Commissioner.
The facts seem to me to be straight forward:
*A complaint was brought by a UNHCR staff member against Mr. Lubbers for sexual harassment.
*The complaint was investigated by the UN Office of Internal Oversight Services which concluded that the allegation was substantiated.
*The UN SG disagreed with the confidential OIOS report, concluding that the complaint against Mr. Lubbers could not be sustained by the evidence.  At the same time, he is reported to have sent Mr. Lubbers "a tough message" admonishing him for his behavior during the course of the investigation which is mentioned in the report. 
*The conclusions of the report and the SG's decision were made public when they were transmitted to the UN GA in the OIOS Annual Report, 27 October 2004.
*In Feb 2005, after the British newspaper, The Independent, reported details in the OIOS report, Mr. Lubbers met with the SG and then resigned.  Both he and the SG indicated that  resignation should not be seen as an admission of guilt.
All of the above can be referenced in UN documents and press reports from major international newspapers.
Issues to be discussed:
*Balance and a neutral point of view: I hope that we are all trying for that but surely the best approach is not to remove referenced facts, but to add other references if possible to restore the balance. Colombo85 complains of selective quotes, but having scoured the sources, I have found little else.  
*Issues about the fairness of the investigation and the quality of the OIOS report seem to be  POV issues.  The Director of Investigations has said that every word in the report is true publicly in a press conference and one of the investigators has given his view of the process in a newspaper interview.  A different POV is given by Max van der Stoel who was handed  the confidential report by Mr. Lubbrs and asked to comment on it.  Van der Stoel's comments should be linked to the article, but the best I could find was:  Review of OIOS report by van der Stoel according to "The Volkskrant" (in Dutch) I have been unable to find an English copy of his comments.  However in fairness we should also add the POV of the plaintiff  which is extensively covered in her deposition to the US Supreme Court.  I am unaware that the SG ever criticised the OIOS procedure or the contents of the report, if he did it would be useful to have a reference. We should have a reference about Stephen Schwebel's advice to the SG if it is referred to. 
*Links to the OIOS report.  A good way to resolve debates about the quality of the report would be to let people read it and judge for themelves.  The link to the full report has been removed.  Should it be put back?  If there is a legal question since it was originally a confidential report, then that should be pointed out.  In any case as mentionned above, the OIOS annual report to the UN GA is a public document and a link could be provided to that.
*Links to newspaper reports: three links to the press were also removed: 1) NYT in July 2004 reporting that the SG had cleared Lubbers; 2) Washington Post Feb 2005 reporting the resignation of Mr. Lubbers and 3) an AP report that the SG defended the resigned Mr. Lubbers. Should these be put back?
*Heading about the case and resignation.  The section heading "Sexual Harrassment Charges" was replaced by "Resignation After Negative Media Coverage Regarding an Unsubstantiated Complaint".  This seems to be clearly a POV heading besides being rather unwieldly. (i.e. negative to whom?)  But if there is opposition to reverting to the former heading, perhaps it could just be called "Resignation".
*US Supreme Court case: the paragraph about the US courts is misleading.  First of all only Mr. Lubbers was accused of sexual harassment and the others of retaliation.  But most importantly the court rulings were not about the OIOS report nor its procedures, but were related to jurisdictional and diplomatic immunity questions. It doesn't seem to be relevant to the case, but if it is left in, then it needs to be clarified.
Joel Mc (talk) 16:45, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Future Edits

message: :As this seems to be your first edit, it is not clear for whom you are speaking.  It seems to me that it should be up to the Wikipedia authorities to make that explanation.  
:Fortunately, in Wikipedia there is a historical record.  There you will see that I have edited the article only on two days: 27 October 2007 (my edits are explained above on this page) and 6 November when I reverted anonymous edits which had  removed inter alia all references that I had put in without out offering any discussion for such drastic changes.
:My revert inadvertantly removed a sentence in the ecology section which ended with the unreferenced statement: "...Mr. Lubbers is acknowledged as one of the most influential persons in Dutch society." which had been added by the anonymous editor.
: I doubt that any of  this warrants the accusations of "manipulation" "monopoly" or "manipulative edits". The edits have already been explained on this page. I am not sure that engaging in personal attacks really advances us, whether it is used to cast doubt about the good faith behind my edits or to undermine people involved in the sexual harassment case.
:The term "Charges" is taken directly from the NYT headline:  "U.N. Investigating Top Refugee Official in Sex Harassment Charge" 
: From my experience the best way to restore balance in a Wikipedia article is to add referenced material rather than remove other referenced material.  I have tried to initiate a discussion above on how we might move forward.--Joel Mc (talk) 08:41, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Joel, I support your view of things, especially your assertion that more referenced content is better than less. As long as all of the information is presented in an organized way, and NPOV is respected, the reader will be able to make up their mind for themselves. In the case of Mr Lubbers, I think the evidence will always result in a hung jury; the evidence seems to show that he had an extraordinary life of public service, and some unfortunate bad habits in private which finally were exposed by impartial investigation. I suppose we will always end up with polarized views of such a person. Thanks for sticking with this. I look forward to seeing your contributions when the article is unlocked. Jra (talk) 21:51, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Response

message: Almost two months ago, I proposed for discussion a text for the section "Resignation After Negative Media Coverage Regarding an Unsubstantiated Complaint".  I had hoped that there might be suggestions for improvements.  On 7 January Columbo85 proposed an alternate text which has been criticised by hbijloo and is really inappropriate for an encyclopedia for a number of reasons.
*The section head is not only unwieldly but it expresses a point of view i.e. no third party references for “Negative” nor “violation”.  I do feel that my suggestion of “Resignation” is more neutral.
*References are mainly to Mr. Lubbers explanations and should be included, but are not sufficient for the accusations against the OIOS, i.e. “that it didn’t live up to its obligations” or that “OIOS entertained regular contact with Bob Kroon” etc. Such types of accusation do not really belong. I did include quotes from Mr. Lubbers in the para Criticism of the OIOS report, with links to his whole response.
*Like hbijloo I take the van der Stoel note seriously which is why I quoted him in my proposed text with a link to the note.  Unfortunately, the report is not strengthened by the fact that the first page is missing (thus we do not really know to whom it is addressed) and that it is signed “Max” which seems to be more in the nature of a personal note rather than a report. It is not clear what obligation the SG had to followup on the van der Stoel recommendations.
*It is not really up to an encyclopedia article to judge quality of the report nor to find out who made leaks, but to point out that there are those who raise such issues—which I believe I did in my suggested text.
Suggested changes to my proposed text would be: 
*To add a reference to van der Stoel's   accusations about leaks.
*to provide the link provided by Colombo85 to the actual letter (rather than quote the NYT).
*to replace the last sentence quoting Kofi Annan in his letter to UNHCR staff with the quote from the press conference in Geneva provided by Colombo85 which also refers to media pressure.
 
Revised Proposed Text for Section "Resignation After Negative Media Coverage Regarding an Unsubstantiated Complaint"
Change section title to "Resignation"
In May 2004, Lubbers was accused by a UNHCR employee, Cynthia Brzak, of sexual harassment. The complaint was reported in the media, and at the end of the month Lubbers informed UNHCR staff about the charges. On this occasion, he vehemently denied any wrongdoing and rejected the allegation against him. On 2 June 2004, United Nations Office of Internal Oversight Services (OIOS) sent its report to SG Kofi Annan.   In its public annual report to the UN Secretary General (presented to the UN General Assembly), the OIS reported concerning the case that they had "submitted a report to the Secretary-General supporting the allegations and recommended that appropriate actions be taken accordingly. The Secretary-General reviewed the report and the responses of the High Commissioner and the senior manager to the report, and decided that the complaints could not be substantiated by the evidence and therefore closed the matter."A/59/359*  Report of the Office of Internal Oversight Services to the UN General Assembly, p. 31 
Criticism of the OIOS report [Supreme Court Annex 1 p.35
Mr. Lubbers responded to the report  in a letter setting  out to " (a) deny acts of sexual harassment or abuse took place; b) establish that such "evidence" of the alleged misconduct as is said to exist is insufficient and flawed; and (c) conclude that the report itself would appear to be based on an irregular statutory basis and also flawed by errors of law and resoning."   
Mr. Lubbers asked Max van der Stoel, former High Commissioner for Minorities, to comment on the confidential report.  He concluded that: "the OIOS report is deficient in objectivity and impartiality." Furthermore he accused UN officials  of leaking information to the press and recommended that an investigation of the leaks be undertaken. 
However, in February 2005, the case was in the news again when the British daily The Independent obtained a copy of the OIOS report and published its contents. In the absence of support from the UN Secretariat, Mr. Lubbers on 20 February 2005 decided to resign. The UN S-G's office issued a statement the same day which stated, that the High Commissioner's resignation was in the best interests of the UNHCR.Washington Post 2005-02-21  In his letter of resignation, he stated that this constituted no expression of guilt, but that he had become the victim of smearing, adding that he had resigned “in the interest of the organisation”.   In October 2005, S.G. Kofi Annan went on record, stating that the resignation by Mr. Lubbers should not be considered as the result of any ill-doing, but was only the result of ongoing media-pressure. 
   —Preceding unsigned comment added by Joel Mc (talk • contribs) 09:24, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: A revised proposal

message: I have added most of the references in the form of footnotes and have tried to put it in encyclopedic language mostly following what had been on the disc page.  However I did leave out unsubstantiated accusations as well as personal attacks, i.e. Dixon, etc.  This doesn't really belong in an encyclopedia even if it could be referenced.  I haven't included the statement that van der Stoel's recommend investigation of leaks did not take place as we can't really know that it didn't, and besides it isn't really very relevant to the entry. I have left in place the last para in the new press reports subsection, but am not really very comfortable.  It gives the implication the the US Supreme Court dismissed the case because of the lack of merits of the accusation when in fact it did so because of jurisdiction questions which are linked to issues of diplomatic immunity.  But maybe others have some views.  One only has to look at the complaintant's submission to the US Supreme court to conclude that she did not withdraw her complaint because she accepted the SG's decision.  Joel Mc (talk) 12:54, 8 April 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Addition of References etc.

message: Today I have tried to reorganized some of the sections.  I hope that the logic is acceptable.  It is mostly time based: i.e. I put the block quote later since the public did not know its contents until the Independent published.  I have put back the heading now sexual harassment complaint to take into account the opposition above to the word charges.  I am afraid that I have only just come from behind the Great Firewall of China and was unable to do any editing...--Joel Mc (talk) 15:34, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Reorganization of sections

message: Hi guys. I don't know how to do it, but maybe someone could upload this photo: http://www.flickr.com/photos/ter-burg/6832764615/
It's CC-licensed. It's not such a nice photo composition-wise but the current one is 27 years old! 83.80.199.59 (talk) 19:27, 8 May 2012 (UTC)
thread_title: Photos

message: "Shortly after the election of 1982 incumbent Prime Minister and Leader Dries van Agt unexpectedly announced he was stepping down and Lubbers was anonymously selected as his successor as Leader and the de facto next Prime Minister. Following cabinet formation of 1982 Lubbers formed the Cabinet Lubbers I and became Prime Minister of the Netherlands taking office on 4 November 1982." 
In bold, was this anonymous election or unanimous election. Perhaps a citation will help make this clearer. SrUncleMel (talk) 16:57, 24 September 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Odd use of Word "anonymously"