Talk:Hillel Neuer

Notability
I have removed the tag as no justification has been given anywhere for it. Neuer is the head of a major organization and featured in a remarkably ironic incident. If you want to restore the tag, give a reason. Mangoe 02:37, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

No justification for notability. UN Watch appears to have only one small offfice and does not seem to be a major organization.Jeanratelle 00:42, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

Overall Tone
When I created this page I offered what I think was a pretty unbiased presentation of the two main reasons why anyone would have heard of Hillel Neuer, to wit: his firebrand speech to the UN Human Rights Council and his arrest in Needham, Massachusetts. Since then, a couple of Mr. Neuer's supporters have gotten hold of this page and turned it into what comes across as campaign literature. The original two items in the article are now presented as evidence of Mr. Neuer's martyrdom. I read it and wonder to myself, who was mightier: Hillel Neuer or Mohandas Gandhi? Based on their Wikipedia entries, it's tough to tell.

So, there are now too many hyperbolic statements in this article to list; it would be nice if the article were presented in a toned-down, slightly more balanced way. I might try editing this myself...the next time I have a couple of hours on my hands!

Many critics of Mr. Neuer might observe that his strong human-rights record is marred by his unwavering support for the Israeli government and its countless violations of UN resolutions and, ironically, his defense of that country's violation of Palestinian human rights. It would be nice if something about this were presented in a balanced way; I'll try to write something myself but it's amazing how the defenders of Israel's weapons industry (and their political proxies) are quick to censor anything that makes them look bad. Hopefully, though, the editors here are all reasonable people (fingers crossed). Seinfeld1966 04:57, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

Objectivity and Precision
The facts show that Seinfeld1966 is interested to score partisan political points against a certain country (Israel) rather than to objectively describe a certain individual (Neuer). Seinfeld1966 claims that Neuer was essentially unknown before his March 23, 2007 speech to the UN. In fact, a quick search of the data shows that long before that testimony, Neuer was publishing books, confronting dictatorships at the UN, testifying before the U.S. Congress, being interviewed on CNN, and lecturing at major universities around the world. In September 2006, the chair of the US congressional sub-committee on UN and international affairs described Neuer as "a leading commentator on UN human rights reform, appearing on CNN and the BBC. As a former international lawyer, the U.S. District Court of New York cited Mr. Neuer for his superb work in human rights advocacy." The McGill Law School's human rights program elaborates on the same. 

But Seinfeld1966 shows himself entirely oblivious to and uninterested in facts, authoritative citations, or dates. He's looking for an ad hominem smear. Hence he plays up the Nov. 2 pizza lady's report that was quickly proven false by the Massachusetts state court, Boston's leading newspapers, and for which the police themselves expressed regret. Seinfeld1966's main motive is to attack Neuer for his support of a UN Human Rights Council that does something other than criticize Israel, a simple point shared by UN secretaries-general Kofi Annan, Ban Ki-moon, Amnesty International and Human Rights Watch. Seinfeld1966 can disagree, but that does not entitle him to distort a biography out of a biased political agenda.

"A pretty unbiased presentation" indeed!

Jeanratelle 12:41, 11 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Although I created this article, I'm not so sure that we've established Mr. Neuer's notability. Jean, could you reference a primary source to back up the statement that "the U.S. District Court of New York cited Mr. Neuer for his superb work in human rights advocacy"?  The two references you cite, i.e. a conference bio on the McGill webiste and an introduction read by Congressman Smith, were almost certainly composed by either Mr. Neuer himself or one of his assistants.  Is there any chance of linking to the original citation/commendation?  Seinfeld1966 10:20, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

The reference shows up in legal databases in the US district court ruling of Reynolds v. Goord, No. 98 Civ. 6722 (DLC), 2001 WL 118564, at *3 (S.D.N.Y. Feb 13, 2001). Jeanratelle 16:14, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

Discretionary sanctions
I have added a link to the top of the talk page describing the discretionary sanctions that cover this article. Compliance is mandatory.  Sean.hoyland  - talk 16:51, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

Zionist
It is quite clear Hillel Neuer is yet another Zionist who hides behind some phoney partisan human rights group to promote his views. A section should be added.
 * I don't know whether Neuer would describe himself as a Zionist but that is a matter for him. If you have a reliable source, for example, an interview with him where he describes himself as a Zionist, you can add it to the article.  Sean.hoyland  - talk 10:59, 26 May 2014 (UTC)

Reference issues
Why are there five references in the lead concerning the subject being the executive director of UN Watch? I do not see where this has been a concern so more than one relevant reliable source (References are usually found in the body of the article as the lead is just a summary) is citation overkill. Otr500 (talk) 09:09, 10 January 2018 (UTC)


 * User:Otr500, please make sure to sign your comment at the end. Also, while I disagree there's a clear over-citation, I will try to implement your suggestion to move some sources to the body of the article. Regards, Shalom11111 (talk) 07:08, 10 January 2018 (UTC)
 * My bad--- I am just curious, you don't see 5 references as overkill, the first of which backs up content that nobody (that I saw) questioned, and four more that are just links advancing the subjects UN Watch agenda? So as an editor what would you consider overkill, 7 or 10 --- or maybe any number allowed that advances a biased view? Otr500 (talk) 09:09, 10 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Thanks, no big deal. Regarding the citations in the lead, the first one is for the fact he is an international lawyer, not just the head of an organization, so I find it relevant. The later 4 (which I agree could be reduced to 2-3) are provided not because the content is questioned, but because the content's existence (or notability) itself is. So for now it's important to provide sufficient sources amid the current deletion discussion. The organization itself has an agenda of course, and naturally most sites that would cover it will support its actions, but there's no selection on this article - for example the first external link I added is from an extreme-left site. Shalom11111 (talk) 10:20, 10 January 2018 (UTC)

Resume
, the problem with your edit is that indeed it's a resume entry unless you provide secondary sources. For appearing before the UN you link to YouTube which has, I suppose, footage of it--but beside the fact that using YouTube on Wikipedia and especially in BLPs is strongly discouraged if not forbidden (there are many good reasons for it), it is primary. We should not be using primary sourcing, because if we did, and if we considered that primary sourcing is sufficient, we can basically cite every single life event--"sourced" to Twitter, YouTube, Facebook, the family photo album, someone's resume at some file service, a scan of someone's syllabus (I have seen the latter being used in that way). Something similar applies to "is regularly quoted by major media outlets including the Jerusalem Post"--sourced to, of course, the Jerusalem Post. If a secondary source said this, and you would cite that, I wouldn't have a problem with it, and my problem is not that it is somehow doubtful that the JP quoted him if the link proves it, but that we shouldn't be making the judgment that this is worth listing in the article--again, are you listing everything? And "regularly", isn't that really original research? What is regularly? So what you have reinstated is indeed a resume, reciting facts from someone's life that are not substantiated (or given weight) by secondary sources, and thus essentially you are promoting the subject. Especially in BLPs that is just a real serious problem. I will not revert right now though I think it is serious enough--it's not even a content dispute, since it touches on matters of policy. Drmies (talk) 16:56, 10 January 2018 (UTC)


 * - thanks for bringing this up here, I was actually going to write on your talk page about this article, but will now do it here instead. Allow me to start earlier, with an edit of yours from several month ago in which you virtually deleted the entire article without any discussion - not even on the talk page, and furthermore skipping the Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion process - and redirected the page elsewhere. This is a rather shocking move I have not seen a precedent of on Wikipedia yet: making a 11,000 word article that existed since 2007 just disappear like that. It's sad that it went unnoticed; also while I do not assume bad faith here as I see you are not a user with a specific agenda against the subject, just make sure not to do such moves again.
 * As for the coverage section, you said several things.


 * YouTube - the site is appropriately used on many pages, but I won't fight over a single link (his videos appear all over the web) if you think it shouldn't be here.
 * I shall note that I didn't create that coverage section but mainly improved its structure with sources.
 * The article has more than a few secondary sources, in some he is the subject manner (such as in this CJNews article or this Jpost one) but this is not a requirement for his article to say he is quoted by other news orgs. News articles don't typically say "[this man] was quoted by Jpost as saying...", journalism just doesn't work this way - they site the man directly. (The University of Winnipeg page provided in the lead details who Hillel writes for, and does say he is "frequently quoted for his analysis of UN affairs by major media organizations around the world, including the New York Times, Die Welt, Le Figaro and Reuters. In the past year he has debated UN human rights issues on CNN, Fox News, and the BBC").
 * As for the doubts whether "this [his Jpost appearance] is worth listing" in the article, I think if a highly respected [inter]national paper like the Jerusalem Post has cited Mr. Neuer 51 times, then it is not only worthy of mentioning, but an essential part of his biography.
 * By the way, see other examples, such as William A. Jacobson, which provide a slightly different format but also give an even more uncut list of publications that cited the subject.
 * Therefore, it is by no means a resume or a Wiki policy issue. If you think a certain news source cited in that section is of less weight and importance, than it is very possible to delete it, but not the entire thing all together as happened in the past. Shalom11111 (talk) 07:22, 11 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Thank you for the pointer to the Jacobson article; I have brought that article a bit more in line with Wikipedia policy and guideline so that it's less a resume now. The bottomline is secondary sources are what matter. You can link to an archival search of JPost, but then you are doing original research. So I think my point still stands. There is a big difference between a resume (with links to primary sources) and an encyclopedic text (which uses secondary sources for verification). The first results in a link dump, the second in proper tertiary writing. Drmies (talk) 16:42, 11 January 2018 (UTC)