Talk:UN Watch

• keep. this is a notable organisation, any google search will yeild thousands of results.

More emphasis needed imo, on how damning Neuer's speech was. 78.19.78.65 18:43, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

Neutrality? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.122.253.196 (talk) 23:28, 7 November 2007 (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)

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 [1].) 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)

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.