Talk:UN Watch

message: 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)
thread_title:  Article on [[Morris B. Abram]]? 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: I tend to agree, why remove it if it's how they characterize themselves? --Dailycare (talk) 21:29, 2 March 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Pro-Israel 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Removed "Praise" section 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title: Request for additional non self-citations

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

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  AJC press release on the history of UN Watch 

message: 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,‘I Will Not Express Thanks' - March 30, 2007 - 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.Watch Out - By Michael Weiss - Slate Magazine
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[http://www.nysun.com/article/51521 ‘I Will Not Express Thanks' - March 30, 2007 - The New York Sun and by Michael Weiss in the on-line magazine Slate, which mentioned the speech as part of its "Today's Blogs" feature.Watch Out - By Michael Weiss - Slate Magazine
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)
thread_title:  A choice of two sentences, feedback requested 

message: 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)
thread_title: Discretionary sanctions

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text:  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)
thread_title:  Disruptive editing (refer to discretionary sanctions) 

message: 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)
thread_title: Work at UN

message: 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)
thread_title: Recent edits

message: 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)
thread_title: Comment

message: ::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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)
thread_title: comments on sockpuppets

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Lead: perceived human rights abuses in Congo and Darfur 

message: 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.
* 71.156.85.18
* 71.156.84.44
* 90.41.199.62
* 83.201.23.112
* Goodbeak
Thanks, Jalapenos do exist (talk) 21:41, 9 February 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title: Question

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title: Williams op-ed

message: starting compilation. Geneva-based human rights group UN Watch. --Sceptic from Ashdod (talk) 03:25, 23 February 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  UN Watch designation 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)
thread_title: Iran

message: 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)
thread_title:  Recommend removal of Robinson Medal of Freedom section 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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. Sean.hoyland - talk 02:34, 29 April 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Direct Research/Relevance of the Chapters? 

message: 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)
replies: text: Wikipedia is based on published reliable sources rather than what is apparent to contributors. The article has a UN_Watch#Reception_history section. That's where you can add reliably sourced and notable assessments of the organization with opinions attributed to the sources. Sean.hoyland - talk 10:38, 26 May 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Zionist Organisation 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Rewrite to match the sources 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to  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.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 07:41, 18 January 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: *, 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)

text: Wasnt planning on it, Shrike challenged your edit and ill await Shrikes justification for it. nableezy - 19:50, 23 February 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: Sure thing. Thanks, Drmies (talk) 01:49, 24 February 2017 (UTC)
thread_title: Latest edits (February 2017) 

message: 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)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: 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)
thread_title:  [[Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Hillel Neuer]]  

message: 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)
replies: text: 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. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 20:40, 30 December 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 30 December 2020 

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

message: 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)
thread_title:  Anti-Semitism usage