Talk:Hillel Neuer

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

message: When I created this page I offered what I think was a pretty unbiased presentation of the two main reasons why anyone would have heard of Hillel Neuer, to wit: his firebrand speech to the UN Human Rights Council and his arrest in Needham, Massachusetts.  Since then, a couple of Mr. Neuer's supporters have gotten hold of this page and turned it into what comes across as campaign literature.  The original two items in the article are now presented as evidence of Mr. Neuer's martyrdom.  I read it and wonder to myself, who was mightier: Hillel Neuer or Mohandas Gandhi?  Based on their Wikipedia entries, it's tough to tell.  
So, there are now too many hyperbolic statements in this article to list; it would be nice if the article were presented in a toned-down, slightly more balanced way.  I might try editing this myself...the next time I have a couple of hours on my hands!
Many critics of Mr. Neuer might observe that his strong human-rights record is marred by his unwavering support for the Israeli government and its countless violations of UN resolutions and, ironically, his defense of that country's violation of Palestinian human rights.  It would be nice if something about this were presented in a balanced way; I'll try to write something myself but it's amazing how the defenders of Israel's weapons industry (and their political proxies) are quick to censor anything that makes them look bad.  Hopefully, though, the editors here are all reasonable people (fingers crossed).  Seinfeld1966 04:57, 11 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Overall Tone

message: The facts show that Seinfeld1966 is interested to score partisan political points against a certain country (Israel) rather than to objectively describe a certain individual (Neuer). Seinfeld1966 claims that Neuer was essentially unknown before his March 23, 2007 speech to the UN. In fact, a quick search of the data shows that long before that testimony, Neuer was publishing books, confronting dictatorships at the UN, testifying before the U.S. Congress, being interviewed on CNN, and lecturing at major universities around the world. In September 2006, the chair of the US congressional sub-committee on UN and international affairs described Neuer as "a leading commentator on UN human rights reform, appearing on CNN and the BBC. As a former international lawyer, the U.S. District Court of New York cited Mr. Neuer for his superb work in human rights advocacy."  The McGill Law School's human rights program elaborates on the same. 
But Seinfeld1966 shows himself entirely oblivious to and uninterested in facts, authoritative citations, or dates. He's looking for an ad hominem smear. Hence he plays up the Nov. 2 pizza lady's report that was quickly proven false by the Massachusetts state court, Boston's leading newspapers, and for which the police themselves expressed regret. Seinfeld1966's main motive is to attack Neuer for his support of a UN Human Rights Council that does something other than criticize Israel, a simple point shared by UN secretaries-general Kofi Annan, Ban Ki-moon, Amnesty International and Human Rights Watch. Seinfeld1966 can disagree, but that does not entitle him to distort a biography out of a biased political agenda.
"A pretty unbiased presentation" indeed!
Jeanratelle 12:41, 11 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Although I created this article, I'm not so sure that we've established Mr. Neuer's notability.  Jean, could you reference a primary source to back up the statement that "the U.S. District Court of New York cited Mr. Neuer for his superb work in human rights advocacy"?  The two references you cite, i.e. a conference bio on the McGill webiste and an introduction read by Congressman Smith, were almost certainly composed by either Mr. Neuer himself or one of his assistants.  Is there any chance of linking to the original citation/commendation?  Seinfeld1966 10:20, 12 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Objectivity and Precision

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 16:51, 1 November 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Discretionary sanctions

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

message: Why are there five references in the lead concerning the subject being the executive director of UN Watch? I do not see where this has been a concern so more than one relevant reliable source (References are usually found in the body of the article as the lead is just a summary) is citation overkill. Otr500 (talk) 09:09, 10 January 2018 (UTC)
replies: text:  User:Otr500, please make sure to sign your comment at the end. Also, while I disagree there's a clear over-citation, I will try to implement your suggestion to move some sources to the body of the article. Regards, Shalom11111 (talk) 07:08, 10 January 2018 (UTC)

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