Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 21:07, 9 February 2010

This article and its editors are subject to Misplaced Pages general sanctions. Discretionary sanctions: Misplaced Pages:Requests_for_arbitration/Palestine-Israel_articles#Discretionary_sanctions

International relations: United Nations Start‑class Mid‑importance

This article is within the scope of WikiProject International relations, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of International relations on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.International relationsWikipedia:WikiProject International relationsTemplate:WikiProject International relationsInternational relations Start This article has been rated as Start-class on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale. Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale. This article is supported by WikiProject United Nations.

Israel Start‑class Mid‑importance

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Israel, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Israel on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.IsraelWikipedia:WikiProject IsraelTemplate:WikiProject IsraelIsrael-related Start This article has been rated as Start-class on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale. Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale. Project Israel To Do: edit history watch purge Here are some tasks awaiting attention: Assess : Rate the Unassessed Israel-related articles and Unknown-importance Israel-related articles. Cleanup : Cleanup listing for this project is available. See also the list by category and the tool's wiki page. Collaborate : Participate in WikiProject Israel Palestine Collaboration. Copyedit : Timeline of the Israeli–Palestinian conflict in 2005 Deletion sorting : Participate in discussions at WikiProject Deletion sorting/Israel. Expand : Ayala Procaccia, Diamond industry in Israel, Edna Arbel, Levin Kipnis, Rami Kleinstein, Sephardic Haredim, Zman Tel Aviv, Nachum Heiman, Public Defence (Israel), Prisoner of Zion, Trial of Benjamin Netanyahu, Day to Mark the Departure and Expulsion of Jews from the Arab Countries and Iran, Pre-Modern Aliyah See also Articles needing translation from Hebrew Misplaced Pages. Geographical coordinates : Add geographic coordinates to Israel articles missing geocoordinate data. Infobox : Add infoboxes to Israel articles needing infoboxes. Maintain : See Israel articles needing attention. Map : See discussion at Module:Location map/data/Israel. Add maps to articles in Misplaced Pages requested maps in Israel. NPOV : Jewish exodus from Arab and Muslim countries Photo : Add pictures to articles in Misplaced Pages requested photographs in Israel. Stubs : See Israel stubs. Update : Basic Law proposal: Israel as the Nation-State of the Jewish People Other : Translate to Hebrew : David Bar-Hayim, Guy Bavli, and Guy Oseary.

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)

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 Misplaced Pages. --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 is a living legend," whose "pronouncements are invariably thoughtful, nuanced and carefully worded 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 Misplaced Pages:Vandalism so that you can avoid using the word incorrectly. That will assist collaboration.

2. Make sure that you read Misplaced Pages:Sock#Inappropriate_uses_of_alternate_accounts 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 Misplaced Pages:Requests_for_arbitration/Palestine-Israel_articles#Discretionary_sanctions. 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 Misplaced Pages: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 Misplaced Pages 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:

• 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."

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)

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 Misplaced Pages'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 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 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, Misplaced Pages's policy on reliable sources says "Misplaced Pages 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".

Misplaced Pages's policy on neutral point of view says "All Misplaced Pages 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. Misplaced Pages 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 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 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 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 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 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 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)

A few reminders on sourcing

Misplaced Pages 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 Misplaced Pages 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.

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).

Hope this helps. Jalapenos do exist (talk) 01:09, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

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 Misplaced Pages 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. Jalapenos do exist (talk) 21:07, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

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)

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)

1. ‘I Will Not Express Thanks' - March 30, 2007 - The New York Sun
2. Watch Out - By Michael Weiss - Slate Magazine
3. [http://www.nysun.com/article/51521 ‘I Will Not Express Thanks' - March 30, 2007 - The New York Sun
4. Watch Out - By Michael Weiss - Slate Magazine
5. "Muhammad Idrees Ahmad praises Hezbollah terrorist group," Atlantic Free Press, May 6, 2008
7. Casting the first stone (The Guardian, April 4, 2007)
10. Twitter: Hillel Neuer

• Misplaced Pages articles under general sanctions
• Start-Class International relations articles
• Mid-importance International relations articles
• Start-Class United Nations articles
• WikiProject United Nations articles
• WikiProject International relations articles
• Start-Class Israel-related articles
• Mid-importance Israel-related articles
• WikiProject Israel articles