Talk:UN Watch

This page is subject to the extended confirmed restriction related to the Arab-Israeli conflict.

Archives (Index)

2025/April 2025/August 2025/November 2026/February 2026/April

This page is archived by ClueBot III.

Edit request 11 April 2026

Description of suggested change:

Please change the phrase "UN Watch is a pro-Israel lobby group" to "Some have argued that UN Watch is pro-Israel". The reason is that just the fact that some obscure dude in an obscure magazine ("New Lines") called it a "pro-Israel lobby group" doesn't mean it is. I have no doubt that it often supports Israel's stand, but there are a ton of human rights organizations that often support the Palestinian Authority's and Hamas' stand, and they're not defined on Wikipedia as "a pro-Hamas lobby group" (nor should they be). Especially in such a contentious topic, it's best to stick as close to the facts as possible (in an encyclopedia, that is).

Diff:

−

UN Watch is a pro-Israel lobby group

+

Some have argued that UN Watch is pro-Israel

ZiggyMercury (talk) 18:53, 11 April 2026 (UTC)

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want made. There's four different sources corroborating the statement in the article, including The Times of Israel. Sans sources arguing otherwise, I think the claim is well-substantiated enough to remain. Discourses on Livvy (talk · contribs) 22:41, 11 April 2026 (UTC)

To be fair though, there is no corroborating that UN Watch is ”pro-israel lobby group” in the said four sources (incl. the Times of Israel). Rather just further statement/opinion by the authors of the linked articles. There’s no reasoning/evidence/discourse supporting the claim.

How do you reason that the statement is then ”well substantiated”? A well substantiated should be backed by facts and empiric evidence right? Not opinions and statements?

The four different linked sources actually corroborates the ”Some have argued that UN Watch is pro-Israel” description better, given the non substantiated claims stated in them. ~2026-27288-90 (talk) 05:51, 6 May 2026 (UTC)

Edit request 22 July 2026

Description of suggested change:

The claim that this organization uses it's allocated time often for dissidents and human rights activists needs to be proved with reliable resources, or removed completely. Terms "dissidents" and "human rights activists" should be clarified.

Diff:

−

The organisation also denounces [[human rights]] abuses including in the [[Democratic Republic of the Congo]], [[Darfur]], China, Cuba, Russia and Venezuela, often using its allotted time at the [[United Nations Human Rights Council|UNHRC]] to allow for [[dissidents]] and [[human rights activists]] to speak.

+

The organisation also denounces [[human rights]] abuses including in the [[Democratic Republic of the Congo]], [[Darfur]], China, Cuba, Russia and Venezuela. It often uses its allotted time at the [[United Nations Human Rights Council|UNHRC]] to allow for [[dissidents]] and [[human rights activists]] to speak. <sup class="noprint Inline-Template Template-Fact" style="white-space:nowrap;">[<i>[[Wikipedia:Citation needed|<span title="This claim needs references to reliable sources.">citation needed</span>]]</i>]</sup>

Denizmiş (talk) 17:39, 22 July 2026 (UTC)

 Not done: Citations aren't required for the lead section of the article (see MOS:LEADCITE), because it's intended to be a summary of sourced material in the article body. Day Creature (talk) 04:09, 23 July 2026 (UTC)

@Day Creature In that case the sentence should be removed completely since it is too vague and doesn't successfully summarize what this organization does with their allotted time. Denizmiş (talk) 08:19, 23 July 2026 (UTC)