Talk:UN Watch

Wrong introduction
In the intro, it is said "Agence France-Presse has described UN Watch both as "a lobby group with strong ties to Israel"[12] and as a group which "champion[s] human rights worldwide"

I don't understand where the part "and as a group which "champion[s] human rights worldwide" comes from, there is not such a comment in the AFP article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Malaga345 (talk • contribs) 21:54, 13 October 2023 (UTC)


 * My thought process on this would be the following:
 * - The phrase "a lobby group with strong ties to Israel" is likely outdated, since UN Watch changed its management structure in early 2010s and doesn't seem to be under direct control of any Jewish organization as it was in the 2000s when the AFP article was written. The change on the part of UN Watch may have beem cosmetic, but fresh piece of evidence from a credible source would be necessary to reaffirm a similar claim. So it can possibly be moved into the main body in the past tense or removed altogether.
 * - I agree the unreferenced part can be removed. Glassface (talk) 13:35, 10 April 2024 (UTC)
 * If it is not in the main body, it does not belong in the lede either because the lede is supposed to summarize the body. --Hob Gadling (talk) 14:08, 10 April 2024 (UTC)
 * Agreed Glassface (talk) 14:34, 10 April 2024 (UTC)
 * Judging from their website, they are still pretty Israel-centered, and seem to pretty much replicate the official line of the state of Israel, so I would wager the AFP description is still accurate. As for the failed verification (claim not present in source, i.e. the unreferenced part), that needs to go. TucanHolmes  (talk) 16:47, 10 April 2024 (UTC)
 * I am not opposed to adding a quote tying it to Israel. I still think that after the 2013 reorg, we need fresh evidence to claim this in the present tense. I'm sure there are more recent quotes out there making similar statements. I also think @Hob Gadling makes a reasonable point that this shouldn't be in the lede. Glassface (talk) 07:15, 11 April 2024 (UTC)
 * No, and doubly so. If there is no substantial evidence to indicate that they have changed their mission, the 2013 source is still as relevant as ever. And, if something is not present in the article but is present in the lead, but what is in the lead is relevant, the encyclopedic way of fixing that would be to expand upon it in the body. This article in particular has been subject to relentless edits trying to turn the article into a promotion piece, so it's no wonder that it's in disarray. TucanHolmes  (talk) 12:59, 11 April 2024 (UTC)
 * Glassface, have you read the WARNING: ACTIVE ARBITRATION REMEDIES section at the top of the page? Sean.hoyland (talk) 13:07, 11 April 2024 (UTC)
 * Yes I have. Not sure how it applies to the talk page. If you're trying to tell me something, I'd appreciate if you just told me instead of hinting Glassface (talk) 13:49, 11 April 2024 (UTC)
 * The statement "You must be logged-in and extended-confirmed to edit or discuss this topic on any page (except for making edit requests, provided they are not disruptive)" applies to the talk page. Since you don't have the extendedconfirmed privilege it means a) you can't discuss the topic here and b) you can only make edit requests. Edit requests most likely to succeed are those that are 'Specific, Uncontroversial, Necessary, Sensible' per WP:EDITXY. Sean.hoyland (talk) 14:27, 11 April 2024 (UTC)
 * Thank you for letting me know. I didn't get that making edit requests was codified, so I get now that what I wrote here doesn't constitute an edit request. Lesson learned. How should I fix this - do I need to delete this whole conversation branch? Glassface (talk) 14:51, 11 April 2024 (UTC)
 * As far as I can tell, formal edit requests are most likely be picked up and handled by someone. But, if a comment closely resembles an edit request i.e. change a to b because c, it is often treated as an edit request. Specificity helps. In this case, I suppose the practical thing to do might be to bring the "fresh evidence" and "more recent quotes out there" from reliable sources, present them and request a specific change. If you can't gain consensus for the change, that will be case closed. Sean.hoyland (talk) 15:36, 11 April 2024 (UTC)
 * Alright, in this case my suggestion would be to replace:
 * "Agence France-Presse has described UN Watch both as 'a lobby group with strong ties to Israel' and as a group which 'champion[s] human rights worldwide'."
 * with
 * "Wall Street Journal has described UN Watch as a 'pro-Israel advocacy group'"
 * It retains the idea that this is a pro-Israel organisation and brings a much more up to date reference. Glassface (talk) 18:40, 11 April 2024 (UTC)

Article on Morris B. Abram?
I think an article on Morris B. Abram should be created or at least a redirect to this article from his name should be created. --99.241.52.92 (talk) 16:33, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

"Pro-Israel
I deleted the term "Pro-Israel" from the first line of this article since, although UN Watch does happen to take an active stand on issues related to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, being "pro" or "anti" Israel is not an explicit part of their mission statement. If we're going to include a description of every position the organization takes in the first line, we might as well include "anti-Genocide" or "pro-Human Right" in the first line as well. Jmv2120 (talk) 02:29, 23 February 2009 (UTC)


 * did you actually read anything on their site? like their selfstated "mission"? "...UN Watch is foremost concerned with the just application of UN Charter principles...equality within the UN, and the equal treatment of member states. UN Watch notes that the disproportionate attention and unfair treatment applied by the UN toward Israel over the years offers an object lesson...in how due process, equal treatment, and other fundamental principles of the UN Charter are often ignored or selectively upheld." --Echosmoke (talk) 20:26, 12 March 2009 (UTC)


 * A recent statement was against the supposed "freedom from religious defamation" resolution passed by the General Assembly. The organization pointed out that its supporters were the worst of the Muslim states, intending to imprison people (ie justify what is already being done) in extremist Islamic countries to stop (mainly) Christian missionaries from operating. Hardly Jewish proselytizers there anymore, I'm sure! So the pronouncement of pro-Israeli may be true, but they apparently have another side. Student7 (talk) 01:56, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

This should be re-added. Not only are they admittedly pro israel, but it is their defining issue 68.188.25.170 (talk) 19:45, 1 March 2011 (UTC)
 * I tend to agree, why remove it if it's how they characterize themselves? --Dailycare (talk) 21:29, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

Removed "Praise" section
I have removed this section from the article because it wasn't cited nor do I find it very useful:


 * Praise
 * UN Secretary General Ban Ki-moon


 * UN Watch praised Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon for speaking out for the victims of Darfur, confronting Sri Lanka over the killings of aid workers and acting to establish the international tribunal on the assassination of former prime minister Rafik Hariri of Lebanon. "Quietly but firmly, Ban is helping to confirm the UN's indispensable role in the world."


 * UN Watch also praised Secretary-General Ban for following in the steps of his predecessor, Kofi Annan, in denouncing Holocaust denial and confronting the global scourge of anti-Semitism.


 * Former UN Secretary General Kofi Annan


 * UN Watch praised the work of Mr. Kofi Annan. "On Darfur, Mr. Annan is certainly one of the most outspoken leaders on the international scene." In "Time to Rally for Annan's Human Rights Reform," UN Watch praised Mr. Annan's reform efforts.


 * UN Experts Asma Jahangir and Hina Jilani


 * UN Watch has several times spoken out for the rights of the "hero" Asma Janhangir, and her sister Hina Jilani, both of whom are UN human rights officials who have been subjected to arrest and detention by Pakistan. During a peaceful protest in support of women’s rights held in Lahore on May 14, 2005, Ms. Jahangir and Ms. Jilani were among several women who were publicly humiliated, beaten and arrested by Pakistani police. UN Watch confronted Pakistan over its actions at the June 2005 annual session of UN human rights experts in Geneva, causing Pakistan to issue its first apology for the “extremely unfortunate” incident.

I also removed a few duplications in the article as well as two other unsourced quoted. --John Bahrain (talk) 03:46, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

Request for additional non self-citations
Right now the article consists of mostly self-citations. This leads to a low quality article. It would be good to find additional mentions of UN Watch in reliable sources. Excessive self-citations, if not addressed, often indicates that there is self promotion going on (we don't have to reproduce the whole UN Watch website, if people are that interested, they can just read the UN Watch website directly), or that there isn't enough external interest in UN Watch to justify a lengthy article in Wikipedia. --John Bahrain (talk) 03:46, 23 February 2009 (UTC)
 * I've just cleaned up the references which makes it clear how dependent the current article is on self-citations: 9 out of the 14 citations are self-citations. --John Bahrain (talk) 04:06, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

Removed "criticism" section
This section simply stated that UN Watch is pro-Israel. It did not cite any specific accusations or criticisms about relating to the organization's activities. Jmv2120 (talk) 19:38, 19 March 2009 (UTC)


 * I have added the criticism section back in and it is now provides some citations. --John Bahrain (talk) 14:25, 17 August 2009 (UTC)


 * It has been removed again in the last couple of days, The whole article now reads like a press handout by UN Watch.  You might want to consider putting it back.  Devils Advocate1000 (talk) 12:03, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

AJC press release on the history of UN Watch
From this AJC press release:

http://www.ajc.org/site/apps/nlnet/content2.aspx?c=ijITI2PHKoG&b=849241&ct=866815


 * With the beginning of the New Year, UN Watch has become a fully integrated partner of the American Jewish Committee.




 * Since the creation of UN Watch, much of its efforts has focused on monitoring the continuing discriminatory treatment of Israel in the UN system and attitudes toward Jews in the world body, as well as those matters which concern American interests. UN Watch has also tackled such issues as reform, gender equality, protection of religious liberty, and promotion of tolerance.




 * The reach and activities of UN Watch evolved in conjunction with the expansion of the American Jewish Committee’s international diplomatic programs during the past decade.


 * After the passing of Ambassador Abram last March, David A. Harris, AJC’s Executive Director, was elected Chairman of UN Watch, and currently is spending a sabbatical year in Geneva where he has been deeply involved in the activities of the organization. Michael D. Colson, a Canadian-born attorney, has served as executive director of UN Watch since 1997.




 * UN Watch was established with the generous assistance of Edgar Bronfman, President of the World Jewish Congress. Eighteen months ago, the American Jewish Committee and the World Jewish Congress reached an agreement, approved by the international board of UN Watch, to transfer full control of the organization to AJC, an agreement that went into effect on January 1, 2001.

I am using this as a source and undoing the last edit of Hyperionsteel. --John Bahrain (talk) 14:01, 18 August 2009 (UTC)


 * I have restored my insertions that referenced the above press release (see here .) I request that user who removed it and accusing me of POV, please state exactly why it is POV to have the above facts in the article.  Mentioning the above seems to me to be factually accurate and not a POV issue.  --John Bahrain (talk) 16:23, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

A choice of two sentences, feedback requested
An new user insisted on the inclusion of this sentence:


 * It became the most written-about NGO speech in the history of the United Nations, earning praise from the editorial and opinion pages of the Wall Street Journal, the New York Sun, the Washington Times, Canada's National Post, Italy's Il Foglio and numerous other newspapers in Canada, Australia and around the world. Major blogs that praised the speech included Commentary, Foreign Policy, Atlantic Monthly magazine, and the on-line magazine Slate, which reported on the speech's blog coverage in its "Today's Blogs" column.

I feel that the above sentence is POV because it makes claims that are not supported by the citations its provides. Neither citation makes the claim that it is the "most written-about NGO speech in the history of the United Nations" and the large majority of the rest of the claims of this sentence also are not backed up by citations.

Because I viewed the above sentence as not really appropriate for the high standards of WIkipedia, I instead suggested the following replacement sentence:


 * The speech was mentioned positively in an editorial by the now defunct New York Sun newspaper and by Michael Weiss in the on-line magazine Slate, which mentioned the speech as part of its "Today's Blogs" feature.

My sentence makes two claims, both of which follow from the citations provided. My change was reverted as POV back to the original, and I feel inappropriate version above. I don't see the POV in the sentence I wrote, but rather in the sentence the new user is insisting upon.

Do others have suggestions on how best to present this information in a non-POV and full cited fashion? I much prefer not to get into revert wars. --John Bahrain (talk) 16:28, 14 September 2009 (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 14:33, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

Disruptive editing (refer to discretionary sanctions)
Barcelona.women has recently been repeatedly restoring material to the article that is not in line with WP:V since citations provided do not support contentions forwarded. If there is a real dispute as to content, this is the space for it. However, the present form of the text, to which I've just restored the article, represents my take on what the sources really do say - with further improvement needed as indicated by the tags. --Dailycare (talk) 19:37, 9 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Without commenting on the charge of disruptive editing, I agree with you content-wise that Barcelona's "criticized by the governments of..." sentence is unsourced and needs to be removed (as I tried to do). I will also note, though, that your version misrepresents Ian Williams' opinion on UN Watch (he actually supports its criticism of the UN, but he also accuses UN Watch itself of hypocrisy regarding Israel), and includes the opinion of eminently non-notable Spinwatch, thus seemingly violating WP:UNDUE. Jalapenos do exist (talk) 23:01, 9 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Looking at the substantive side, as I repeatedly have now mentioned BW's edits are a violation of WP:V. Going through the case in order:


 * Iran in the source says they "reject unsubstantiated allegations". This is not "attacking UN Watch" as BW would have it.
 * Cuba in the source says exactly what I've entered in the article: that UNW is a false organization, that it's funded by Mossad etc. The source does not imply that relates to anything they said about Cuba, rather the discussion revolves around Israel (which is probably why Mossad, an Israeli spy organization, is named.)
 * The source to Sri Lanka says, also, what I entered into the article, namely that they questioned the sources of UNW's funding and said UNW denigrates the council (something the Cuban said, too). This "source" however is a summary of the meeting prepared by UNW, which is not acceptable.
 * The claim that Muhammad Idrees Ahmad would have criticised UNW is completely unsupported by sources.
 * Williams said Hamas won the elections fairly, which is what everyone else said as well. Also here, there is no evidence presented for "repeated attacks" as BW would phrase it. Williams says that "UN Watch is an organisation whose main purpose is to attack the United Nations in general, and its human rights council in particular, for alleged bias against Israel". That's what I entered in the article.
 * BW has forwarded no reasoning for repeatedly removing Spinwatch from the article. Reverting without explanation is against WP:REVERT. --Dailycare (talk) 17:18, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

Vandalism by Dailycare
Dailycare has without any explanation repeatedly ignored requests to explain why it deleted citations with no explanation; why it cites the non-notable and politically partisan "Spinwatch" website as an authority; why it deleted the highly pertinent pro-Hamas and pro-Hezbollah citations regarding his so-called authorities; why it accuses UN Watch of being a "front group" for an organization with whom it openly affiliates, as published on its own website; and other similar simple requests.

This is just some of the relevant, referenced material that it deleted without offering any explanation:

Hamas and Hezbollah supporters have also attacked UN Watch, including Muhammad Idrees Ahmad, a documented member of the "Spinwatch" front organization who defends Hezbollah as a "non-violent...resistance movement" and praised its leader Hassan Nasrallah as a "modest Shia cleric [who] is a living legend," whose "pronouncements are invariably thoughtful, nuanced and carefully worded [and] grounded in fact," and for having a "reputation for saying only what he means and promising only what he is able to deliver." Likewise, left-wing blogger Ian Williams, who once praised the election of Hamas as "a victory," has attacked UN Watch on several occasions. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Barcelona.women (talk • contribs) 03:07, 10 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Okay, thanks for joining talk. A few things.
 * 1. Please read Vandalism so that you can avoid using the word incorrectly. That will assist collaboration.
 * 2. Make sure that you read Sock specifically "Contributing to the same page with multiple accounts: Editors may not use more than one account to contribute to the same page or discussion." as you appear to be editing using several accounts.
 * 3. I'm pretty sure that Dailycare is a human being rather than an AI machine. Referring to a person as an object is offensive in every single culture I have lived in around the world so not doing that might help.
 * 4. Please make sure that you read Requests_for_arbitration/Palestine-Israel_articles. Your edits appear, to me at least, to be biased. If you are unable to edit the article in a way that complies with WP:NPOV then you shouldn't edit it as the sanctions clearly state.
 * 5. Regarding the content itself, I personally have little interest in the content issues, I'm more interested in ensuring neutrality, curbing POV pushing and behavior inconsistent with the sanctions. Can I ask you to join the content discussion in the section above as article specific issues have been raised there ? I am however strongly in favour of combining pros/cons into a single reception history per WP:CRIT without subsection headers. This however has been repeatedly reverted. I'll make some comments about the content issues. I don't know Spinwatch or Ian Williams very well and I don't know whether they are suitable sources. That can be discussed in the section above.
 * Comments
 * This article is not a UN Watch press release. We don't need to fill it with praise sourced from their site. An equal amount of reliably sourced positive and negative commentary is what we should be aiming for.
 * Spinwatch a) Your presentation is hopelessly biased. You need to stick to the source or not use it. Muhammad Idrees Ahmad views on Hezbollah (which of course he is perfectly entitled to hold) have nothing to do with this article about UN Watch.
 * Williams a) "left-wing" is unsourced and meaningless. Left wing in the US is usually moderate in Europe and much of SE Asia. This is a global encyclopedia. b) Williams didn't "praise" the election of Hamas as "a victory,". He simply referred to them winning an election. That is commonly referred to as a victory. It does not indicate praise. c) Making that kind of edit repeatedly is entirely inconsistent with the sanctions.  Sean.hoyland  - talk 16:53, 10 November 2009 (UTC)
 * If you respond please do so in the "Disruptive editing (refer to discretionary sanctions)" section above to keep the discussion in one place.  Sean.hoyland  - talk 17:25, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

Neither Sean.hoyland nor Dailycare address the 4 substantive issues I addressed, and raise unrelated issues. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Barcelona.women (talk • contribs) 00:48, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

Representative Introductory Description
There seem to be disputes about the introductory description. I added reference there to the organization's official affiliation with the American Jewish Committee, a relevant fact. At the same time, previous edits were not representative of the organization's overall product, and focused solely on its projects connected to Jewish-Israel matters. A fact-based examination of its work demonstrates that this is not representative. For example, a review of its 105 submissions to the United Nations shows that only 13% dealt with this issue, while 87% dealt with a broad range of UN and human rights matters.[http://www.unwatch.org/site/c.bdKKISNqEmG/b.1313923/k.EF0C/Testimony_at_the_UN/apps/nl/newsletter2.asp link UN Watch list of speeches] Similarly, the majority of its reports deal with diverse UN and human rights issues. UN Watch reports The previous edits purported to quote UN Watch's own description, but used a selective approach, ignoring the organization's principal descriptions, and arbitrarily highlighting quotes that were made to seem representative, but which factually were not. A fair description includes the full range of its official mandate, actual work, general and specific. Fionnuala.Leclerc (talk) 01:28, 19 November 2009 (UTC)


 * While a Google test is very far from conclusive, an initial scan would suggest the group is somewhat centered on Israel:


 * A separate Google News search yields the following:


 * So while you have said 13%, Google would give very rough estimates of 39.8% of their testimony and 41.6% of their recent coverage in media (which seems to be much higher than other subjects). The news coverage of UN Watch and Israel is actually even higher if you factor out simple occurrences of "UN. Watch". Given the predominantly Jewish makeup of the founder and board, that the group looks for volunteers who have a specific interest in fighting "anti-Semitism and anti-Israel bias", as well as ties to the American Jewish Congress through David Harris and Alfred Moses, the Google results shouldn't be too startling.


 * I am actually agnostic about the two versions of the introduction though. Using other information from the group's mission and mentioning the AJC seems fine, and I don't have any preference for one introductory description over another. But I do think the 13% may be a bit low-ball. The best thing to do would be to find some of their work outside their website and get that added here. Perusing their work with the International Red Cross and Red Crescent Movement, Freedom House, UNHCR, the Internation YMCA, etc. might be a good starting point.--71.156.89.167 (talk) 02:37, 3 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Please note that Fionnuala.Leclerc is a blocked user. See Sockpuppet_investigations/Jeanratelle/Archive.  Sean.hoyland  - talk 02:44, 3 December 2009 (UTC)
 * I just tried to intergrate some of the old description, and then I just saw this.
 * I don't understand why so many people trying to advance a cause think that the best way to do it is through non-transparent means. To me it damages their own argument and/or credibility. I am slightly less inclined to go with the version advocated if it comes from an apparent sock who was intentionally or unintentionally misrepresenting the group's work, but I am also really agnostic one way or the other as I don't really see much of a difference.--71.156.89.167 (talk) 04:10, 4 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Hoperfully Bob3579 isn't a sock as well? Hate to feel like a paranoid schizo, but yeah.--71.156.89.167 (talk) 04:39, 4 December 2009 (UTC)
 * I find re:Fionnuala.Leclerc etc a bit puzzling too. This particular user's behavior is quite difficult to understand. Even if someone takes the extreme battlefield view that the world is full of enemies of Israel trying to fill Wikipedia with propaganda and that they are therefore duty bound to combat it in a righteous battle, you'd think that the discretionary sanctions covering this conflict topic and the various mandatory policies governing neutrality, sourcing, collaboration, sockpuppets etc would make them have second thoughts about whether their approach was likely to be the best strategy to achieve their objectives. Oh well. Still, I don't think that's any reason to treat their comment above differently.  Sean.hoyland  - talk 05:56, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

Work at UN
Here were some links that could potentially be integrated in to the article: I think it would be best to use third-party publications when possible, and use UN Watch when third-party publications are unavailable or when they are making a response to a claim in another source. --71.156.89.167 (talk) 16:06, 14 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Photo of Hillel Neuer
 * U.N. Watch in U.N. Committee Quadrennial Report
 * UN Department of Public Information: 25 NGOs newly associated
 * UN HRC: "In response to a question concerning allegations that remarks made by a representative of the group UN Watch had been stricken from the records of the Human Rights Council, the Spokesperson later obtained a clarification from the Human Rights Council that the remarks had not been stricken from the record."

Robinson Medal of Freedom
When discussing the Robinson Medal of Freedom, we need to briefly include the reason she was provided with the award and a few opinions about why she was given the award. This would be consistent with Wikipedia's policies on reliable sources and especially neutral point of view.--68.251.188.242 (talk) 14:43, 23 January 2010 (UTC)
 * absolutely, but not here. all the controversy, pros and cons, belongs to Robinson entry. i put a "see also" link to the relevant section. --Sceptic from Ashdod (talk) 17:13, 23 January 2010 (UTC)
 * I don't understand why contextual information would not be provided. The see also link is helpful, but the U.N. Watch reaction doesn't seem notable unless the event itself was notable. For example, if reasonable coverage of Barack Obama's statements about why she was given the award aren't notable enough for inclusion, then why is UN Watch's reaction notable enough for inclusion? Also, at a minimum, why wouldn't we include the response from the White House or Robinson to the criticism?--68.251.188.242 (talk) 20:43, 24 January 2010 (UTC)
 * right, Obama's statement about the award does not belong here too. all the context is (as should be) in the Robinson article (and btw, it is ok to add info and citations, but it is absolutely not ok to delete info that you don't like). if some of the UN Watch opponents had been debating their opposition directly, then it would have been worthy of inclusion. --Sceptic from Ashdod (talk) 12:57, 25 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Could you cite a policy for why absolutely no contextual information about the initial event would be given? Summary style suggests that text can be summarized from the present article and a link provided to the more detailed article.
 * Also, Wikipedia's policy on reliable sources says "Wikipedia articles should be based on reliable, published sources, making sure that all majority and significant-minority views that have appeared in reliable, published sources are covered".
 * Wikipedia's policy on neutral point of view says "All Wikipedia articles and other encyclopedic content must be written from a neutral point of view, representing fairly, proportionately, and as far as possible without bias, all significant views that have been published by reliable sources. This is non-negotiable and expected of all articles and all editors.".
 * I am the same editor who initially added the tag. Wikipedia policy would have me believe that not only UN Watch's point of view should be represented in the article. If we remain unable to reach a consensus, I think it might be best to seek a third opinion.--149.166.35.137 (talk) 16:39, 25 January 2010 (UTC)
 * You don't get it, do you. What you write is 100% valid, but not in this entry. If we insert the full context, meaning who is Robinson, why she was awarded, who welcomed the award and why and who opposed, we'll end up with the double of the Robinson entry. This is why the most simple thing to do is mention UN Watch's view and redirect to the Robinson entry for the full story. The sentence below has nothing to do with UN Watch. "When asked about the opposition to the award, White House Press Secretary Robert Gibbs replied "Mary Robinson was the first female President of Ireland, and she is somebody whom we are honoring as a prominent crusader of women's rights in Ireland and throughout the world". I'll keep the 1st sentence of the para. and summary of the UN Watch view, Robinson's dismay doesn't belong in the entry about UN Watch, it was not a response to UN Watch. Trust me, you don't want me to copy-paste entire paragraphs of the open letter. That said, any of you are always welcome to seek opinion of the 3rd party. --Sceptic from Ashdod (talk) 18:54, 25 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Get what? I feel that there wouldn't be any reason to include the full letter as you suggest for some reason, WP:FU and WP:NOFULLTEXT outline why we wouldn't include the full open letter from UN Watch. The reliable source policy and neutral point of view policy both seem to imply that if there is a response to the criticism which is available in reliable sources then it should be given. The White House and the former President of Ireland both seem like reliable sources to provide a response.--149.166.35.137 (talk) 03:24, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

<- 149.166.35.137 asked me for my opinion. So, here it is for what it's worth. Keep it simple and focused on UN Watch. For me, the key bits are the what and why, something like below.
 * the what (=neutral context) -> UN Watch opposed the United States government awarding Mary Robinson, the former President of Ireland and former United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights, a Presidential Medal of Freedom for her "attention to international issues".
 * the why (=UN Watch POV) -> UN Watch opposed the award because of her position as head of the World Conference against Racism 2001("Durban 1") stating that she had failed to confront purveyors of anti-Israel rhetoric and that she "may not had been the chief culprit of the Durban debacle, but she would always be its preeminent symbol."

I think we then need to balance the UN Watch POV somehow. Not sure how best to do that and we shouldn't drown out the UN Watch POV. The Gibbs statement is pretty general so I don't think that helps much in this article although of course it's relevant for the Robinson article. The JPost's "A group of Israeli human rights organizations supported Robinson in a letter to the American president." is interesting context/contrast but it's I guess it's highlighted by JPost because they're an Israeli media outlet. It doesn't mean we need to highlight it. UN Watch isn't an Israeli human rights organization. Having said that, I think the part currently in the lead is quite good for an overview The Jerusalem Post reported that UN Watch split with "Israeli human rights groups and others" and joined with other "pro-Israel advocates" in opposing... Perhaps that could go in the 'why? bit. Robinson's statement seems the most pertinent here in the sense that at least it's Robinson directly responding to her critics. I should just say that I don't have much interest in the content of this article other than ensuring it isn't turned into another partisan battleground in the Israel-Palestine conflict. The article has been subject to persistent sockpuppetry abuse by single purpose accounts and it's likely to attract non-neutral editors and remain a flashpoint for non-neutral editing.  Sean.hoyland  - talk 06:37, 26 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Also, Sceptic, "Trust me, you don't want me to copy-paste entire paragraphs of the open letter."...sigh. That reads like a threat to battle for article real estate with an perceived enemy editor. The IP is trying to work with you, not fight you.  Sean.hoyland  - talk 07:06, 26 January 2010 (UTC)
 * For 149. IP and Sean - indeed, 149.IP's tone is constructive and I apologize if my previous answer to him sounded threatening. I got angry because someone (apparently someone else, not him) deleted contents that he didn't like from Robinson entry. Anyway, as I said before (and seems like Sean kind of understands what I try to say) - everything that is not connected to UN Watch doesn't belong here. You can say, for the sake of the context and neutrality, that the award raised controversial reaction with both supporters and critics. UN Watch was among critics because what Sean wrote was its position. For more details look in the main article. I won't touch it for now, to give IP.149 time to respond. --Sceptic from Ashdod (talk) 17:22, 26 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Clarification - unlike Sean I argue that Robinson's response to the critics definitely doesn't belong here. She doesn't answer UN Watch specifically. Her words belong to the section in Robinson's entry, not here. On the contrary, UN Watch's open letter came chronologically after her response to the critics. --Sceptic from Ashdod (talk) 17:28, 26 January 2010 (UTC)
 * ...yes, it wouldn't make sense to include Robinson's statement in that case.  Sean.hoyland  - talk 02:20, 27 January 2010 (UTC)
 * I'd like to note I appreciate Sceptic's constructive tone, I think we just needed someone else to reset the conversation. I just think there we need to briefly incorporate more than just UN Watch's POV (whether through a Robinson comment, WH comment, Israeli HRG comment, etc.) while Sceptic just wants to keep it brief and direct to UN Watch
 * I will confess I don't understand why Robinson's response to criticism from Jewish groups shouldn't be included whether it is before or after the UN Watch statement chronologically (specifically because the open UN Watch letter appears to be in response to her statements). I tried another writing which might be closer to alleviating all concerns though. I'd be open to more proposals in this regard if necessary.--149.166.32.121 (talk) 17:13, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

→Before resetting this dipute again, please try to understand - we are having a conversation on a talk page of the article about UN Watch. It should incorporate encyclopedic info connected to UN Watch and should not include info not directly related to it. This is how wiki works. The Gibbs statement is important to the article about Robinson, but it doesn't mention UN Watch and thus doesn't belong here. If you have any source that answers UN Watch directly - it belongs here. You can't though balance UN Watch's POV with something abstract, not here. Gibbs, Amnesty, Irish times are excellent in the Robinson article, not here. Still not convinced - find any experienced pro-Palestinian anti-Israeli editor and I'm sure he will tell you similar things. --Sceptic from Ashdod (talk) 19:59, 30 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Could you read the section? It has a new wording which doesn't include Gibbs or Amnesty. I think you would also agree that the section has to maintain a neutral point of view by presenting multiple points of view. I think that the current version is better, and if you would like to make suggestions then proposals would be welcomed. Saying what you are against doesn't improve much though.--71.156.84.44 (talk) 02:07, 1 February 2010 (UTC)
 * OK. Missed your edit. Read it now. It definitely looks better. I can live with the concept. Several notes (that I could do myself but will refrain to save 20 sec.): 1. JPost is a RS, no attribution to it is required. We can start simply by "UN Watch split with..." 2. to say that it is UN Watch vs human rights groups is simply dishonest. If you mention the supporters, mention the opposers. 45 Republican lawmakers and Bolton are worth mentioning and I'm not sure they automatically can be defined as "pro-Israel advocates". --Sceptic from Ashdod (talk) 02:15, 3 February 2010 (UTC) JPost old articles are currently unaccessible with their regular URL, but the one we use can be seen here.--Sceptic from Ashdod (talk) 02:23, 3 February 2010 (UTC)
 * glad you saw improvement, thanks for the link, and i don't care one way or the other about Jpost attribution so that is fine.
 * we just need a wording which shows that there were supporters of the award and critics of the award and that UN Watch was one of the critics. i'd be fine with about any wording. if we include multiple critics then we should also multiple supporters. if we don't want to include any specifics of either that is also fine. i think including one representative example of each could be brief and informative (whether the critic example would be Bolton, EJC, "Jewish groups", etc seems inconsequential to me)--71.156.84.44 (talk) 03:40, 4 February 2010 (UTC)
 * My focus was shifted and I didn't follow. I see the section got inflated now. It is written in rather balanced way, and I can live with it as it is. Still I think, from strictly the encyclopedian pov, it would be better to make it concise by trimming away all the supporters and critics who are farely presented in a Robinson entry. --Sceptic from Ashdod (talk) 18:59, 22 February 2010 (UTC)
 * I think the section could be trimmed to one representative of supporter and critic, but since we all agree that it is balanced I think it might be best to just leave it as is.--134.68.140.112 (talk) 21:26, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

→nothing new, just another source. --Sceptic from Ashdod (talk) 13:21, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

A few reminders on sourcing
Wikipedia articles should be based on reliable, published secondary sources and, to a lesser extent, on tertiary sources. All interpretive claims, analyses, or synthetic claims about primary sources must be referenced to a secondary source.

Self-published media, whether books, newsletters, personal websites, open wikis, blogs, Internet forum postings, tweets, etc., are largely not acceptable--71.156.84.44 (talk) 19:20, 5 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Which sources are you concerned about ?  Sean.hoyland  - talk 20:06, 5 February 2010 (UTC)
 * I had been concerned with the usage of Youtube, Digg, Europe News, and a groups of links which came directly from UN Watch's website. The first group don't seem acceptable in many situations at all, while material from UN Watch's website seems like it should only be used if it is imparting information about the group itself (Board, etc) or if it is being used as a supporting reference to something which a reliable secondary source found notable enough to publish.
 * I think that the article as a whole is in reasonable shape and that most of my concerns were addressed. Just want to make sure the article stays in line with WP's policies on reliable sources, which means limiting primary sources and self-published sources.--71.156.84.44 (talk) 22:41, 5 February 2010 (UTC)
 * I tend to agree with you. There should be more of an effort to use reliable secondary sourcing to establish notability and to minimise the risk that the article is used for advocacy and as a means of disseminating UN Watch's view of the world. They already have they own sites to do that, it would be WP:SOAP here and I think in general people do a pretty good job to make sure that the articles for NGO's like HRW, B'TSelem etc etc aren't misused to promote the views of the organization (although perhaps the NGO Monitor article is a notable exception). To be fair, the youtude ref did go to UN Watch's own channel and I think I replaced it anyway. I'm more concerned with a lack of consistency of material and sourcing across wiki articles that are addressing the same issues. It's a pain.  Sean.hoyland  - talk 06:30, 6 February 2010 (UTC)
 * I didn't notice that was the UN Watch channel on YouTube. It could be treated as an extension of the UN Watch website/blog rather than as a random video published by anyone as I had been arguing.
 * In general, I hope you or anyone else didn't feel the reminder was aimed anyone in particular and I'm glad that we agree that the article should be careful about sourcing. Thanks,--71.156.85.18 (talk) 14:52, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

I moved the following material from the article to the talk page:"In 2009, the group had more than 3,700 fans on Facebook, almost 1,800 subscribers on YouTube and over 350 followers on Twitter." I would refer any interested editors to the following discussion.--71.156.85.18 (talk) 17:13, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

Recent edits
Some of the most recent edits to the article broke a number of the references and removed material from the article without a discussion, (e.g., , ..), etc.

When removing text, it is typical to specify a reason in the edit summary so that other editors understand the rationale of the removal. It is also strongly encouraged to discuss edits that are likely to be controversial on the article's talk page first. The Wikipedia tutorial and policies on neutral point of view and reliable sources are also very useful reading for new users.--71.156.85.18 (talk) 00:34, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

90.41.199.62, please could you stop reverting to your preferred version without discussion, a behavior which is unfortunately very familiar on this page. The UNHRC Gaza Conflict Report section needs to be aligned with the main article that deals with this issue, the United Nations Fact Finding Mission on the Gaza Conflict article which has already been worked on extensively. That is what my edits tried to do. If you would like something changed then please discuss it and explain why. If you won't discuss it your edits won't be retained. That's just how it works.  Sean.hoyland  - talk 03:53, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

Comment
71.156.85.18, I reverted a few of your recent changes because they violate policy. I explained the rationale, in brief, in my edit summaries. Another editor has recently reverted some of your new attempts to make the same changes. I'm not quite sure what to make of your...um, peculiar post on my talk page, but I assume it has to do with you having concerns about this. If so, I suggest you bring them up on this talk page, where I will be happy to discuss them at length. Additionally, if you intend to continue working on this article for a while, I suggest that you create a username, as this will assist fellow editors in distinguishing you and addressing you. Best, Jalapenos do exist (talk) 20:19, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

More edits
I made a bunch of edits to the article recently. Because of the messy history of this article, and to possibly avoid future mess, Sean has urged me to make a note regarding these edits, since (for some reason) he believes I explain things coherently. Obviously I can't detail everything, but I will try to outline the main things I did. Of course I'll be here if anyone wants any further explanation. Hope this helps. Jalapenos do exist (talk) 01:09, 9 February 2010 (UTC)
 * 1) Addition of Non-Profit Organization infobox, with basic details regarding UN Watch, consistent with articles on similar NPOs.
 * 2) Fine-tuning structure of lead according to WP:LEAD and the contents of the article. At the moment, there is one paragraph defining the group, one detailing its activities, and one summarizing its reception. The basic principle is that only the most important elements in each field should be in the lead. The group is defined in many ways according to the context, it has done a great many things, and quite a few people have commented on it. According to this principle, the lead should include one, main definition, the most notable of the group's activities, and the opinions of the most notable people who have expressed one in this regard.
 * 3) Renaming of some of the sections to closer reflect their contents.
 * 4) Additions to activities section and subsequent reorganization of section. Mainly, I added a subsection on joint reports by UN Watch and Freedom House on the 2007, 2008 and 2009 UNHRC elections, as well as a subsection on UN Watch's position regarding human rights abuses in Congo. I also restored a previous subsection on UN Watch's activities regarding Darfur, and provided additional sourcing.
 * 5) Ordering and filtering of reception section. I ordered the section according to source; specifically, UN sources in one paragraph and journalistic sources in another. Additionally, I removed opinions by non-notable (in this context) figures. This included a positive assessment in Slate, a mixed negative-positive assessment by one Ian Williams, and an apparently negative assessment by one Alex Helmick (misattributed to NPR, probably because it appeared there).
 * Thanks.  Sean.hoyland  - talk 02:04, 9 February 2010 (UTC)
 * I just looked over the changes and the majority of them seem very useful (specifically the third party sources for Sudan, Darfur, etc). I apologize for any initial problems, the article has previously been subject to edit by a number of sockpuppets.
 * Could you briefly explain why a blog in the New Republic and Claudia Rosett seem worthy of inclusion but Ian Williams for example does not? Also, could you explain why you think it is worth mentioning Jewish groups and a legislative letter but not Dick Durban or Israeli human rights groups? I am rather busy and should have more time to examine the article in a few days.
 * Thanks,--71.156.85.18 (talk) 03:07, 9 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Yes, I explained these things in my edit summaries, but I'll go into more detail here.
 * Your first question refers to the "Reception history" section. I filtered the commentators according to a basic notability criterion. Specifically, first I checked whether the person or publication in question has a Wikipedia article. Then I checked if there are good reasons to suppose that those with articles should not have them, or that those without articles should have them. I did not find any such persons or publications, so I went with the article criterion. TNR and Rosett have articles, and Williams does not (nor did the pro-UNW Slate writer, whose name I forgot). Two other things bear mentioning in this context. First, staff-written articles should be ascribed to the publication in which they appear, while articles written by named individuals should be ascribed to the individual in question. Second, while a different standard for notability could be used - and I would suggest stricter rather than lighter, especially as more information is added to the article - TNR and Rosett seem to be more notable than Williams and Slate guy by any reasonable standard. TNR goes without saying; Rosett was a staff writer for a major publication (The Wall Street Journal), while Williams has never been. There are additional considerations, but I don't want to get into them here.
 * Your second question refers to the "Robinson medal" section. I left all the responses mentioned in the cited Jerusalem Post article that came from American sources, and removed those that didn't (all the responders were reasonably notable). The reasoning was that the Presidential Medal of Freedom is inherently an intra-American issue, and UN Watch's position was in the context of an intra-American debate. Writing about the the comments of non-Americans is getting too far into the issue of the PMoF itself, which is not the topic of this article. I don't believe I removed Dick Durbin, but if I did, then that was a mistake. A final note: there could, of course, be other notable American commentators who took positions on this issue, but I didn't research this, other than to scan the existing JPost article
 * Jalapenos do exist (talk) 21:07, 9 February 2010 (UTC)
 * The "Reception history" rationale seems fair enough, I just needed a more detailed elaboration.
 * The Robinson medal section is described in more detail at Mary_Robinson. American supporters could include "United States Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi,[33] United States Senate Assistant Majoriy Leader Dick Durbin[34], and some other legislators[35] welcomed the presenting of the award to Robinson."[36]" "In a letter to President Obama, Nancy Rubin, a former American ambassador to the UN Human Rights Commission, welcomed the award and praised Robinson as a "dedicated crusader for human rights for all people" I also think that because it was criticism of being anti-Israel or bad on human rights it could be worth including the reaction of Amnesty International or Israeli human rights groups, but I am not hard set on this. I just think it would be inaccurate to say Nancy Pelosi and the White House did yadda yadda, everyone else opposed it.
 * "Neuer's speech was praised by The Wall Street Journal,[69] and became "a major hit on YouTube"[70]. The New York Sun called it a rare "diplomatic moment to remember", and published the full text of his remarks.[65]" also seems to be sourced strictly to editorials. If we are using these outside of the reception section I think it might make sense to say "An editoral appearing in the journal said..."
 * Beside that I would need to do a detailed reading and just some minor tweaking. I do think the article is significantly improved.--71.156.85.18 (talk) 01:04, 10 February 2010 (UTC)
 * If Durbin, other legislators and Rubin commented on the Robinson prize, they certainly belong. Like I said, I didn't do any research on this other than to scan the already cited JPost article. I have no problem with stating that the WSJ and Sun remarks were in editorials, as long as its clear that they were staff editorials, which have the publication's name behind them, as opposed to editorials by individuals, which can be contrary or unrelated to the publication's stance. The guy from the National Post is not notable enough to cite his opinion, but his op-ed is used to establish a matter of fact, for which notability is irrelevant; only reliability is needed, which the NP has. I wouldn't strongly object to writing "according to so-and-so, the speech became a major hit on YouTube", though I think that would be unnecessary, especially since the claim is easily checked. Jalapenos do exist (talk) 12:32, 10 February 2010 (UTC)
 * I'll probably try to make edits along these lines in the next few days then. Again, I think the Congo and Darfur information from Reuters was a wonderful contribution to the article. Thanks,--71.156.85.18 (talk) 16:12, 10 February 2010 (UTC)
 * You're welcome. Thank you for the kind words. Jalapenos do exist (talk) 23:52, 10 February 2010 (UTC)
 * I was finally able to get around to making the edits. I think they are as we discussed.--70.225.142.161 (talk) 17:17, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

comments on sockpuppets

 * To clarify "subject to edit by a number of sockpuppets". That's an understatement if I've ever seen one. It would be more accurate to say that it has been subject to abuse by an obsessive, politically motivated and in my view, spectacularly non-neutral single purpose account apparently intent on turning this article into yet another dimwitted agitprop battleground in the Israel-Palestine conflict by advancing a political agenda. They had no reservations whatsoever in ignoring numerous mandatory policies, creating a very large number of sockpuppets, lying about peoples edits, lying in their edit summaries, refusing to discuss anything like a rational human being who wants to improve wikipedia, misprepresenting living people's statements, coming close to violating BLP policies and in general behaving like one of the worst POV-warriors I've encountered (and I've seen plenty)....and the funny thing is that they probably thought that they were being 'pro-Israel' by behaving this way. Very sad. That's just my view though.  Sean.hoyland  - talk 04:41, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the work you guys have done on this. As for agitprop I was accused a while back of being a sock puppet and banned without being notified of the allegations. Much of the agit prop is directed against Israeli related topics. The shit flies both ways but there isa lot fo Christian-European prejudice which makes the situation worse. . Telaviv1 (talk) 06:26, 9 February 2010 (UTC)
 * To clarify any possible misunderstanding, the sockpuppets I was referring to may be found explicitly here, i.e. I wasn't trying to mean or accuse you and I hope I didn't come across that way. It's not about any direction, it's simply about consistency with policy. I don't think any of us would agree with sockpuppetry in about any direction.--71.156.85.18 (talk) 12:30, 9 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Maybe a bot blocked you because it didn't like your name. I uploaded this picture the other day for the Meir Dizengoff article and later a bot changed my Tel Aviv category assignment to Tel Aviv-Yaffo without even asking me. I suspect some kind of anti-Tel Aviv without the Yaffo bot campaign.  Sean.hoyland  - talk 17:23, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

Lead: perceived human rights abuses in Congo and Darfur
I am new to this, so I am sorry if this was discussed before. Do we really need the word "perceived" here? Does anyone have doubts that human rights abuses ooccurred in Congo and Darfur? Maybe there is some disagreement over the scale and gravity of these abuses, but surely not that those abuses have taken place?! —Preceding unsigned comment added by BorisG (talk • contribs) 17:09, 9 February 2010 (UTC)
 * While I wouldn't have any specific problem with this, the use seems to be for neutral point of view and "human rights abuse" according to whom. Perhaps we could just fill in a short quote from UN Watch or another relevant source here.--71.156.85.18 (talk) 01:22, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

Question
Can the following anonymous and redlink users please state now if any of them are the same person, or, conversely, affirm that they are not the same person as any of the others? There is nothing wrong with using multiple accounts as long as it's out in the open. Thanks, Jalapenos do exist (talk) 21:41, 9 February 2010 (UTC)
 * 71.156.85.18
 * 71.156.84.44
 * 90.41.199.62
 * 83.201.23.112
 * Goodbeak


 * I am 1 and 2, and I'd be willing to try to find the others if you need. My Internet Service Provider uses dynamic addressing. 3 and 4 also appear to be the same person in France, which may or may not also be Goodbeak. I was worried that Goodbeak could be a sockpuppet, but I was waiting for problematic editing and more signs before raising any issue. Thanks,--71.156.85.18 (talk) 00:45, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

Williams op-ed
Since there has been a minor back-and-forth about Williams in the edit history, I started a discussion here to get some more input.--70.225.142.161 (talk) 20:07, 19 February 2010 (UTC)
 * I took a look at the discussion and there's very little I could add to what Barnabypage replied and you confirmed. Since there's no entry on Williams, it would require to mention his credentials (..."president of the United Nations Correspondents Association"...). --Sceptic from Ashdod (talk) 19:08, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

UN Watch designation
starting compilation. Geneva-based human rights group UN Watch. --Sceptic from Ashdod (talk) 03:25, 23 February 2010 (UTC); UN Watch, a Geneva-based human rights group; highly respected UN Watch; Human rights group, UN Watch, UN Watch, an independent human rights group. --Sceptic from Ashdod (talk) 13:21, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

Iran
Sceptic, I see that you added a section outlining UN Watch's position on Iran. I'm a bit concerned that sections like this cross the line that separates neutral meta-information about UN Watch (which is what this article should contain) from soapboxing for UN Watch. I'm not sure where the line is but articles about prominent human rights organizations for the most part don't include details of the organization's positions and statements on particular countries and particular issues. They're written at the neutral meta-level, the level I think we should be working at here. In other words, Wikipedia's article about Human Rights Watch isn't the place to tell the world about Human Rights Watch's multiple, highly critical reports and statements about Iran or anywhere else and I think this article should follow the same approach.  Sean.hoyland  - talk 03:44, 23 February 2010 (UTC)
 * I'm also not sure where that line is. At least I tried not to quote directly from their site, but used RS sources. If I understand you correctly, you say that HRW's reports on Gaza War, critical of Israel and Hamas, should not be mentioned in HRW entry. Maybe you have a point, we have to contemplate on this. Is there any policy or guidance on the issue? Out of sections existing now, what would you leave and what would you trim? --Sceptic from Ashdod (talk) 13:31, 23 February 2010 (UTC)
 * An 3rd party source would be ideal, but I don't see the problem with getting material for this one issue from UN Watch's site. It's just info about what they say, so it's not like there would be any doubt regarding its veracity even if UN Watch were not a credible organization. Sceptic, nice work on the Haiti and Switzerland issues. Jalapenos do exist (talk) 19:58, 23 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Yes, there's nothing about HRW's reports on Gaza or anywhere else (apart from a couple of things about Jordan and Spain oddly that I might remove). If something were to be added I don't think there would be any reason for it to say anymore than that they published several reports about the war. Given that they publish reports about all sorts of things I don't see any point in highlighting any in an the article about the organization itself. Details about their reports belong in the relevant articles about the subjects of their reports. It's the same for B'Tselem. I don't know if there's really any policy or guidance on the specific issue. I think at some point you can cross a line where you need to think about NPOV compliance. For the Iran section in this article the only thing that stands out as slightly problematic for me is the extended quote, well, extended quotes without a counterbalance in general. Maybe it can be summarized. I agree with Jalapenos that UN Watch's site is fine as a source for their own views and statements.  Sean.hoyland  - talk 16:32, 24 February 2010 (UTC)
 * It all makes sense now. I totally agree that in the case of HRW, it is important to mention the reports, but spare the details for relevant entries. In this particular case, it is important to outline the NGO's position on some of its core issues. I'll edit later the Iranian section accordingly. There's nothing inherently wrong to quote here directly from UN Watch's site, but I refrained and used mostly secondary sources, to emphasize the notability of their statement. --Sceptic from Ashdod (talk) 16:59, 24 February 2010 (UTC)
 * I also had minor issue with using their blog as a source, but it can be okay if it is attributed and used under the right guidelines.--134.68.140.112 (talk) 21:22, 24 February 2010 (UTC)
 * I think the whole article is breaking WP:LINKFARM and WP:NOTDIARY, because this is whole article is a list of opinion-pieces where there has been little reactions. It would be better to point to their own directory, and filter the list down to issues with consequences and extended debate in RS. --85.166.76.235 (talk) 22:32, 3 July 2012 (UTC)

Use of comments appearing on blogs
By any definition possible, I think that comments appearing on blog posts are completely unverifiable.

Didn't we establish a reasonable consensus for op-ed's above?--69.219.235.167 (talk) 14:06, 1 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Since there hasn't been any comment, I went ahead and removed the comment on the blog post, a quote which couldn't be found in the source cited, and a translation which appeared to be based on original analysis.


 * I thought there had been a previous consensus to limit the use of op-eds, but I hae tried to make the article consistent with the seeming new standard. If Michael Weiss's opinion is to stay, I think it would be useful if someone could locate some biographical information to help attribute him with (I have already done so for Alan Gold and Ian Williams).--69.219.235.167 (talk) 15:56, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

Recommend removal of Robinson Medal of Freedom section
The section titled "Robinson Medal of Freedom" is not about UN Watch and should therefore be removed. The section is almost entirely about the UNHRC, but this is not an article about the UNHRC. This is an article about UN Watch. The fact that UN Watch wrote a single letter about the issue does not make it deserving of mention in this article. --JHP (talk) 03:34, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

Direct Research/Relevance of the Chapters?
Sorry, but I think this article reads unfortunately more then a blog and press handout than a encyclopaedia description. It gives in the first chapters at least some basic informations about funds and members (though already here are some flaws, how can the own homepage be a reference for "pioneer advocate of the UN Charter's inclusion of international human rights guarantees"?; valuation, negative or positive, should also generaly be avoided), but after that it goes a bit too much to a random statements chapter. The relevance weighting seems questionable (looking at their website the topic weighing seems to be different then here). Why an extra mention of a single speech and just an editor letter of Neuer for example?

A "reception" chapter is ok (though that's of course an always pov-sensitive matter), but it should at least concentrate on reviews/presentations of an organisation. What I dislike is especially citing diplomatic statements, for example from speaks of guests on an anniversary event of the organisation. Diplomatic statements are not used as reviews (and it is good that way, you could make out of nearly every international politician and/or org a praise chapter by citing diplomatic statements). Statements from politicians are for example rather relevant as reception when it is stated in an examination report from the politician (at least direct diplomacy charming could be avioded). --Larsenat (talk) 00:33, 29 April 2011 (UTC)
 * You can be WP:BOLD and try to improve it. Since it's a rather contentious article it's probably best to make a series of small changes rather than completely rewrite it so that other editors can revert specific things they disagree with per WP:BRD rather than reverting everything. <small style="border: 1px solid;padding:1px 4px 1px 3px;white-space:nowrap"> Sean.hoyland  - talk 02:34, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

WJC no longer sponsor
Since a couple of individuals have remove World Jewish Congress as a "Sponsor" on this article (which I reverted) and the Richard Falk article (which I decided not to revert, though others may), I thought I'd see what I could find on current status since we do want to be accurate. This is what I've found so far, feel free to add more til we figure out what's appropriate to say.
 * 2000 AJC site mention: UN Watch works in affiliation with the American Jewish Committee and the World Jewish Congress.
 * UN Watch, AJC Seal Partnership, AJC Website, January 4, 2001, which reads in relevant part: UN Watch has become a fully integrated partner of the American Jewish Committee. ...UN Watch was established with the generous assistance of Edgar Bronfman, President of the World Jewish Congress. Eighteen months ago, the American Jewish Committee and the World Jewish Congress reached an agreement, approved by the international board of UN Watch, to transfer full control of the organization to AJC, an agreement that went into effect on January 1, 2001.
 * Current ref: Annan calls Ziegler's comparison "irresponsible", 1 Jul 2005, which reads in relevant part: ... The World Jewish Congress-sponsored human rights group UN Watch last week alerted Annan and other senior UN officials etc...
 * UN Watch mission and history page (as of 6/12/13) reads in part:   UN Watch is affiliated with the American Jewish Committee (AJC).
 * Between UN Watch search and a news google search I only could see that WJC has signed on to or opined on a few odds and ends things UN Watch has initiated. So the history is relevant to this article. I'll remove sponsor and decide if have energy to add that - and some of their obsession with FBut that's all I'll do for the moment. ''CarolMooreDC - talkie talkie &#x1f5fd;

Zionist Organisation
It is very apparent that this organisation is another Zionist front organisation with a fancy title. The majority of its work is pro Israel and the rest appears to be a smear campaign against Israel's enemies namely Iran. I find it strange that there is no mention in the article of its pro Israel bias at all. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 14.2.39.81 (talk) 07:12, 26 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia is based on published reliable sources rather than what is apparent to contributors. The article has a UN_Watch section. That's where you can add reliably sourced and notable assessments of the organization with opinions attributed to the sources. <small style="border: 1px solid;padding:1px 4px 1px 3px;white-space:nowrap"> Sean.hoyland  - talk 10:38, 26 May 2014 (UTC)

Rewrite to match the sources
The lead contains several parts where UN Watch is presented as having "been vocal against abuses" and similiar, who contain one reference or so each from the organization itself where they condemn countries. That needs to be rewritten to match the sources.

The sentence about "anti-Israel and antisemitic sentiment at the UN and UN-sponsored events" is presenting UN Watch's view as a fact, which is why "perceived" or "what it views as" should be there. It is the same issue with the subsection "UN anti-Israel bias and antisemitism". --IRISZOOM (talk) 19:15, 22 November 2015 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 2 one external links on UN Watch. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
 * Attempted to fix sourcing for http://www.unhcr.org/48fdece221.html
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/20111026095608/http://www.charitywire.com/charity11/00664.html to http://www.charitywire.com/charity11/00664.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

Cheers.—<sup style="color:green;font-family:Courier;">cyberbot II <sub style="margin-left:-14.9ex;color:green;font-family:Comic Sans MS;"> Talk to my owner :Online 07:41, 18 January 2016 (UTC)

Latest edits (February 2017)
I urge all participants to please explain their changes here on the talk page and try to reach consensus for them. El_C 05:16, 23 February 2017 (UTC)
 * I have restored the information sourced to WP:RS.If we want to remove something lets discuss it.--Shrike (talk) 12:52, 23 February 2017 (UTC)
 * , I'm sorry, but half of that information was not reliably sourced. Other parts contained little more than a mention of the organization. The last paragraph, which said that "someone quoted Hillel", drives home the point of what was going on here: every single mention of the organization was blown up into a timeline of Hugely Important Events which don't stand up to scrutiny--in other words, organizational puffery. If you want to restore some of it, it will have to be proven that a comment in 2008 or participation in some event actually mean something, as verified by reliable source providing discussion of the significance of UN Watch's participation in these things. I mean, surely you've noticed in my other edits how much of this was sourced to UN Watch's website: the smell of promotionalism is all over this article. Drmies (talk) 16:26, 23 February 2017 (UTC)

My revert was strictly to enforce ARBPIA3. I agree generally with Drmies that these are low quality sources for UN Watch, a passing mention of them isnt suitable as a source in an encyclopedia article about them. <small style="border: 1px solid;padding:1px 3px;white-space:nowrap"> nableezy  - 16:43, 23 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Oh,, only now do I realize what you're saying--yes, of course the IP didn't have the right to revert. In other words, your revert doesn't count as a revert and you can revert Shrike's revert of your revert of the IP's revert of my edit, haha. That's not even gaming the system. Anyway, let's not do that, and let's hope that Shrike comes by after having read through the material carefully and changes their mind. Thanks, Drmies (talk) 17:41, 23 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Wasnt planning on it, Shrike challenged your edit and ill await Shrikes justification for it. <small style="border: 1px solid;padding:1px 3px;white-space:nowrap"> nableezy  - 19:50, 23 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Sure thing. Thanks, Drmies (talk) 01:49, 24 February 2017 (UTC)


 * So, never participated in a discussion, was not able to refute the phony argument about the content being sourced properly, did not refute that the content was promotional.  seems to agree with me on the content, so I'll remove that promotional, mostly self-sourced section again. Thanks, Drmies (talk) 03:20, 23 March 2017 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 14 external links on UN Watch. 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/20111126143442/http://www.unwatch.org/site/c.bdKKISNqEmG/b.1313591/k.954F/Mission__History.htm to http://www.unwatch.org/site/c.bdKKISNqEmG/b.1313591/k.954F/Mission__History.htm
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20111126143442/http://www.unwatch.org/site/c.bdKKISNqEmG/b.1313591/k.954F/Mission__History.htm to http://www.unwatch.org/site/c.bdKKISNqEmG/b.1313591/k.954F/Mission__History.htm
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120108064313/http://www.unwatch.org/site/c.bdKKISNqEmG/b.1286149/k.6F41/Founder_Morris_B_Abram.htm to http://www.unwatch.org/site/c.bdKKISNqEmG/b.1286149/k.6F41/Founder_Morris_B_Abram.htm
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110928085951/http://www.unwatch.org/site/c.bdKKISNqEmG/b.1289203/apps/s/content.asp?ct=1949507 to http://www.unwatch.org/site/c.bdKKISNqEmG/b.1289203/apps/s/content.asp?ct=1949507
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20111014071315/http://www.ajc.org/site/c.ijITI2PHKoG/b.5018439/k.A04B/Human_Rights.htm to http://www.ajc.org/site/c.ijITI2PHKoG/b.5018439/k.A04B/Human_Rights.htm
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120527175110/http://jta.org/news/article/2009/03/12/1003667/un-watchdog-slams-religious-dafamation-resolution to http://jta.org/news/article/2009/03/12/1003667/un-watchdog-slams-religious-dafamation-resolution
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20111126143442/http://www.unwatch.org/site/c.bdKKISNqEmG/b.1313591/k.954F/Mission__History.htm to http://www.unwatch.org/site/c.bdKKISNqEmG/b.1313591/k.954F/Mission__History.htm
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110607014541/http://www.ajc.org/site/apps/nl/content3.asp?c=ijITI2PHKoG&b=872349&ct=872849 to http://www.ajc.org/site/apps/nl/content3.asp?c=ijITI2PHKoG&b=872349&ct=872849
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110927154118/http://www.nwcn.com/news/world/82880492.html to http://www.nwcn.com/news/world/82880492.html
 * Added tag to http://www.montrealgazette.com/news/Oppressors+running+rights+council+Groups/1566308/story.html
 * Added tag to http://new.jpost.com/IranianThreat/News/Article.aspx?id=168843
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20150418182926/http://www.unwatch.org/atf/cf/%7B6DEB65DA-BE5B-4CAE-8056-8BF0BEDF4D17%7D/2207UN_Watch_Request_to_Disqualify_Christine_Chinkin_from_UN_Goldstone_Mission_on_Gaza%2C_20_August_2009.pdf to http://www.unwatch.org/atf/cf/%7B6DEB65DA-BE5B-4CAE-8056-8BF0BEDF4D17%7D/2207UN_Watch_Request_to_Disqualify_Christine_Chinkin_from_UN_Goldstone_Mission_on_Gaza,_20_August_2009.pdf
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20091122061554/http://www.unwatch.org/site/apps/nlnet/content2.aspx?c=bdKKISNqEmG&b=1316871&ct=7315797 to http://www.unwatch.org/site/apps/nlnet/content2.aspx?c=bdKKISNqEmG&b=1316871&ct=7315797
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120527175645/http://jta.org/news/article/2008/09/08/110272/pillaydurban to http://jta.org/news/article/2008/09/08/110272/pillaydurban
 * Added tag to http://www.nationalpost.com/scripts/story.html?id=fd791fde-3d3a-4cf5-a74a-3b25b0fd882e&k=27205
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20111025114440/http://www.tibet.net/en/print.php?id=973&articletype=flashold to http://www.tibet.net/en/print.php?id=973&articletype=flashold
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20071202110410/http://article.nationalreview.com/?q=NWZlZmYwY2ZkNWMyYTMyNjhmYTdkNGU1OTY3ZTM4MmI%3D to http://article.nationalreview.com/?q=NWZlZmYwY2ZkNWMyYTMyNjhmYTdkNGU1OTY3ZTM4MmI=

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 23:40, 4 January 2018 (UTC)

Articles for deletion/Hillel Neuer
There is an ongoing deletion discussion about the article of the UN Watch's executive director, whose page redirected to this article for a while. Shalom11111 (talk) 07:58, 11 January 2018 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 30 December 2020
In Board and funding, move David A. Harris and Ruth Wedgwood to former board members. Add to current board members any as listed on UN Watch website. . ShimbeeHR (talk) 09:51, 30 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Yes check.svg Done Also updated all other members of the board, removed honorifics and puffery (e.g., "known as the Counsel of the Oppressed" known to whom?) and used descriptions of these persons according to their Wikipedia articles instead of descriptions copied from the org's website. [[User:Eggishorn|<span style="background-color:


 * 1) FF7400; color:
 * 2) FFFFFF;">Eggishorn ]] (talk) (contrib) 20:40, 30 December 2020 (UTC)

Add short description
Add short description ➡️ 'Geneva-based non-governmental' Mostafamirchouli (talk) 11:14, 11 October 2022 (UTC)

Anti-Semitism usage
Portions of this article use the term anti-Semitic and other portions use antisemitic, it is my understanding that consistency should be kept in an article, and antisemitic is the term generally preferred by academics, so I do not see a reason why it should not be made standard in this article. 1brianm7 (talk) 01:01, 27 October 2023 (UTC)