Talk:Richard A. Falk/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

NPOV on Human Rights Watch

I see that two time editor User:Sebbysteiny has made a couple erroneous or questionable edits. Hopefully s/he knows how to use a talk page:

• S/he doesn't realize the paragraph is about his whole relationship to an organization but wants to make it a POV one about one incident. Not NPOV and perhaps problematic POV pushing, especially under WP:BLP. Thus I put on POV-section tag. (I assume s/he knows tags are not to be removed until issues are resolved.)
• S/he removes Canada Free Press ref that mentions Falk being on the Santa Barbara Human Rights Committee and replaces it with that group's website that no longer mentions Falk. So there.
• S/he removes ref'd info that In December 2012, when asked explicitly about groups like Amnesty International and Human Rights Watch, Falk said in an interview “there is no doubt that the private-funding base of these leading human rights NGOs leads to some biasing of their agendas”; however, he commented that “in reaction to criticism there has been more self-criticism directed at American patterns of abuse, and a greater willingness to report critically on Israel” by such NGOs.(REF:Cihan Aksan and Jon Bailes, An Interview With Richard Falk; The Future of International Law and Human Rights, CounterPunch, December 14-16, 2012 edition.) This is obviously relevant to his overall relationship to the organization. Perhaps s/he is afraid people will think those comments were the reason he was asked to resign?
• This statement would have to be corrected as an unidentified opinion and as a false statement of what the source says.

However, he had been on the Human Rights Watch board for many years while being a UN official and the accusations made by UN Watch were supported by British Prime Minister David Cameron, U.S. Ambassador Susan Rice, U.N. Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon and U.N. High Commissioner for Human Rights Navi Pillay. (REF:Human Rights Watch Expels Top U.N. Official Richard Falk, Canada Free Press, December 18, 2012.)

Correct to:

UN Watch replied to Falk's statement saying "If that were the real reason, of course, he would have been removed long ago." were supported by British Prime Minister David Cameron, U.S. Ambassador Susan Rice, U.N. Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon and U.N. High Commissioner for Human Rights Navi Pillay. (REF:Human Rights Watch Expels Top U.N. Official Richard Falk, Canada Free Press, reprint of UN Watch press release, December 18, 2012.</ref>)

• • Remove any reference to the reprinted press releases statement that actually reads: Neuer called on U.S. Ambassador Susan Rice to act now to remove Falk from his position as the U.N. Human Rights Council’s permanent monitor tasked with investigating “Israel’s violatons of the bases and principles of international law.” Even if quoted correctly, which it is not, this is pure advocacy and not related directly to the Human Rights Watch issue. I'm putting there also. CarolMooreDC 00:18, 20 December 2012 (UTC)

Sebbysteiny response

• S/he doesn't realize the paragraph is about his whole relationship to an organization but wants to make it a POV one about one incident. Not NPOV and perhaps problematic POV pushing, especially under WP:BLP. Thus I put on POV-section tag. (I assume s/he knows tags are not to be removed until issues are resolved.)

As I understand it, the paragraph is not about his whole relationship with HRW, only a summary of his life and work and should read more like a CV. As such I think it should follow the standard following formula. "He worked in v for w years. After complaint by x he was asked to leave. His explanation is y. His critics say z". This was not the case prior to my edit. Sebbysteiny (talk) 08:57, 20 December 2012 (UTC)

• S/he removes Canada Free Press ref that mentions Falk being on the Santa Barbara Human Rights Committee and replaces it with that group's website that no longer mentions Falk. So there.

I read the Canada Free Press references as referring to an article that was about Falk's dismissal not his initial hiring. If I misundersood the XML language it wasn't intentional. I agree that any previous accurate references that I removed should be restored.Sebbysteiny (talk) 08:57, 20 December 2012 (UTC)

• S/he removes ref'd info that In December 2012, when asked explicitly about groups like Amnesty International and Human Rights Watch, Falk said in an interview “there is no doubt that the private-funding base of these leading human rights NGOs leads to some biasing of their agendas”; however, he commented that “in reaction to criticism there has been more self-criticism directed at American patterns of abuse, and a greater willingness to report critically on Israel” by such NGOs.(REF:Cihan Aksan and Jon Bailes, An Interview With Richard Falk; The Future of International Law and Human Rights, CounterPunch, December 14-16, 2012 edition.) This is obviously relevant to his overall relationship to the organization. Perhaps s/he is afraid people will think those comments were the reason he was asked to resign?

I continue to think removing those comments from this section was correct. This seems to me to be a section about Falk's life and work and is not a platform for his more controversial quotes. If you think those controversial comments (which are at the very least off the topic of his work on the HRW committee) should be in the article somewhere, the Notable Opinions section seems to me the appropriate place. Here, I think we should restrict his quotes to stating he worked on the HRW committee, his non-voluntary removal from that committee, a short explanation of this removal by Falk and a short explanation of this removal by his critics.Sebbysteiny (talk) 08:57, 20 December 2012 (UTC)

• This statement would have to be corrected as an unidentified opinion and as a false statement of what the source says.

However, he had been on the Human Rights Watch board for many years while being a UN official and the accusations made by UN Watch were supported by British Prime Minister David Cameron, U.S. Ambassador Susan Rice, U.N. Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon and U.N. High Commissioner for Human Rights Navi Pillay. (REF:Human Rights Watch Expels Top U.N. Official Richard Falk, Canada Free Press, December 18, 2012.)

Correct to:

UN Watch replied to Falk's statement saying "If that were the real reason, of course, he would have been removed long ago." were supported by British Prime Minister David Cameron, U.S. Ambassador Susan Rice, U.N. Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon and U.N. High Commissioner for Human Rights Navi Pillay. (REF:Human Rights Watch Expels Top U.N. Official Richard Falk, Canada Free Press, reprint of UN Watch press release, December 18, 2012.</ref>)

Asside from saying I don't think I made any false statements (I copied most of it directly from the source), my problem with the above is that an alligation made by an NGO such as UN Watch alone is a fundamentally different thing to an accusation by an NGO that is backed up by very import players on the world stage including arguably the two most senior UN officials in the UN. That these people have condemned Falk's remarks as described is not disputed as it can be varified lower down in this wikipedia article. However, I agree it is more appropriate for this information to be in the other sections (where I believe these statements are already found). So I thank you for your suggestion and accept your change as an improvement. Sebbysteiny (talk) 08:57, 20 December 2012 (UTC)

• Remove any reference to the reprinted press releases statement that actually reads: Neuer called on U.S. Ambassador Susan Rice to act now to remove Falk from his position as the U.N. Human Rights Council’s permanent monitor tasked with investigating “Israel’s violatons of the bases and principles of international law.” Even if quoted correctly, which it is not, this is pure advocacy and not related directly to the Human Rights Watch issue. I'm putting there also. CarolMooreDC 00:18, 20 December 2012 (UTC)

I don't think I made any reference to the press release statement quoted above so I assume this is someone else's issue.Sebbysteiny (talk) 08:57, 20 December 2012 (UTC)

• Thanks for correcting obvious problems. Re: Placement of HRW info, actually to conform to current structure AND NPOV/WP:BLP, info should be moved to the more relevant sections, which I have done. CarolMooreDC 20:30, 20 December 2012 (UTC)

I see editor ‎SimplesC has come in and moved material that belongs in another section to the wrong section, only claiming it's the right section. On the other hand, Wikipolicy at footnote: "Article sections devoted solely to criticism, and pro-and-con sections within articles, are two commonly cited examples. There are varying views on whether and to what extent such structures are appropriate; see guidance on thread mode, criticism, pro-and-con lists, and the criticism template." And this is especially true of BLPs. So maybe we should integrate these criticsms into work and life and shorten them. since they are largely made by highly partisan advocates of a particular nation state and therefore little more than propaganda. CarolMooreDC 17:32, 21 December 2012 (UTC)

"they are largely made by highly partisan advocates of a particular nation state". Err, what? Alexbrn (talk) 17:38, 21 December 2012 (UTC)

Pardon my attack of generalized soapboxing- now struck. Let's discuss WP:RS on case by case basis. The larger point is either move the Human Rights Watch to the relevant section OR integrate all the charges into a life chronology as they are relevant. CarolMooreDC 21:31, 21 December 2012 (UTC)

Anyway, I just noticed SimpleC duplicated material later in article and obviously don't need duplication, especially in the wrong section. CarolMooreDC 14:56, 22 December 2012 (UTC)

CarolMooreDC, I note on your profile that you have strong publically declared connections to Palestinian interest groups (in particular WikiProject Palestine). I do not hold that against you but feel that you should therefore be more cautious before making ad hominem statements accusing other editors of statements that "are largely made by highly partisan advocates of a particular nation state and therefore little more than propaganda".

Moving away from ad homenim attacks to the substance, I'm afraid I can't agree that we remove the fact that Falk was forced to resign from the life and work summary section. It is not for Wikipedia to whitewash sackings, nor is it for wikipedia to embellish such events. At the very least, we need to point out he was asked to resign in the life and work section and discuss it later. To guarantee neutrality, I propose using the same format as used by a similar article describing a resignation / sacking in a similar situation. By random, I found Bob Diamond's resignation description and I think it is a good one to follow. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bob_Diamond_(banker). Following this example of undisputed neutrality, we should say "Falk was asked to resign from HRW on 18 December, following controversy over complaints of antisemitism made by UN Watch". It seems to me obvious anything less or more than that in the Life and Work section must be bias one way or another. Please let me know if you disagree within a couple of days. Otherwise I'll assume we agree and make the change. Sebbysteiny (talk) 15:52, 22 December 2012 (UTC)

In case I wasn't clear, by "highly partisan advocates of a particular nation state and therefore little more than propaganda." I meant WP:RS that are little more than propaganda outlets. But I struck the comment as Soapboxing - been too chatty with another editor elsewhere and sometimes one forgets which talk page one is editing.

Mentioning this in that section is fine and I should have thought of it. What I realized after starting to work on it is that UN Watch's CLAIM that their letter prompted the call to resign can't be put out there as if it is fact. Let us not forget: Wikipedia:What_Wikipedia_is_not#Wikipedia_is_not_a_soapbox_or_means_of_promotion.

Therefore it is best to just put out the Jewish Chronicle in the first mention and just say he was asked to resign.

Further down we can put what we know is true - that he was asked to resign and removed from the website. And that UN Watch stated that they sent a letter about him before this. Then we really need to use Falk's full response when asked about UN Watch, i.e., he said he was asked to resign supposedly because of my connection with the UN, which is contrary to HRW policy. Perhaps, there is more to the issue than what I have been told. Only the first sentence from his blog is mentioned in the Jewish Telegraphic Agency article but leaving out his full response makes him look like a liar, which certainly is against BLP. So including the full sentence and referencing is blog is more than called for use of a primary source here. I'm sure the BLP Noticeboard would agree, and agree that the earlier versions all unduly promoted UN Watch. CarolMooreDC 22:59, 22 December 2012 (UTC)

Soz about delay, Christmas holidays. I don't think it is appropriate to leave out the reasons for his resignation as neutral articles mention reasons, so we must do so here. As per Bob Diamond's resignation, we must say why. So we must add the words "following controversy over ...". I'm happy to agree what neutral text to use after that, but we must have the words "following controversy over ..." since that is the standard of neutrality set by other wikipedia articles. My proposed wording is "following controversy over alleged anti-semitic statements". I don't think there is any disagreement by any party on this wording. You said Falk agreed there was more to the issue than merely a confict of interest, so we should be able to put down what we know to be true. Controversy happened over alleged anti-semitic comments. Falk resigned following that. The word "following" does not imply causation in itself, but the sequence of events implies correctly a likelihood of causation that Falk in his statement appeared to aknowledge. I'll make the change now and if you have a better neutral wording for what to put after the "following controversy over ...", I would be happy to discuss that. Otherwise, if you don't want the "following controversy over ... " bit, then please explain why it is unbias for Bob Diamond but bias for Richard Falk.Sebbysteiny (talk) 17:15, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

I did get busy correcting a lot of references and information so hopefully we won't see any sloppy reverts :-) CarolMooreDC 08:14, 23 December 2012 (UTC)

Falk confirms UN Watch role - belongs in lead?

The American Jewish Committee and World Jewish Congress couldn't get him kicked off the UN so I guess they had to be content with putting getting him kicked off HRW local group board in the lead of this article. Anyway, I doubt that it is sufficiently a "major score" to put in the lead. And quoting a histrionic statement from an Advocacy Organization like: "A man who supports the Hamas terrorist organization, and who was just condemned by the British Foreign Office for his cover endorsement of a virulently antisemitic book, has no place in an organization dedicated to human rights." is just a bit too much WP:Advocacy. CarolMooreDC 19:00, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

Again, this whole incident does NOT belong in the lead. MAYBE if he was on the national board, or chair of the national board, but being removed from the local board of an organization with an excuse which makes sense is NOT notable for a major international figure. And what is the ref that uses the "conflict of interest" phrase. If HRW did not enforce its own policy, which he may not have known about it is hardly a conflict of interest. I'll be removing that this evening. Do I really have to take this one to WP:BLPN to make it clear to you guys that it is absurd to put this in the lead??? CarolMooreDC 19:01, 27 January 2013 (UTC)

See Talk:UN_Watch#WJC_no_longer_sponsor for details of UN Watch history with World Jewish Congress which no longer is a sponsor. So we should not revert the editors removal of that material, though other sourced material may or may not be appropriate. Better to update UN Watch page with it and some of this Falk info. 19:30, 12 June 2013 (UTC)

POV pushing lead/non-WP:RS opinion source

As I mentioned on User Redhanker's talk page, please discuss here before reverting.

• As I said in my removal of problematic material here: unsourced and/or WP:Undue emphasis on advocacy organization pushed here frequently; Atzmon is not considered WP:RS anywhere else in Wikipedia, so not here either; when he is generally accepted you can add him)
• User Redhanker wrote: In 2012, Falk was asked to resign from the Human Rights Watch Santa Monica group’s board after UN Watch stated this happened after their letter to Human Rights Watch accusing Falk of antisemitism and 9/11 conspiracies, calling him an "enemy of human rights" who supports Hamas and endorsed a virulently antisemitic book. mixes a lot of accusations in a POV way and emphasizes a tiny minority of critics
• User Redhanker wrote: In 2012, Falk was asked to resign from the Human Rights Watch Santa Monica group’s board after UN Watch stated this happened after their letter to Human Rights Watch accusing Falk of antisemitism This isn't even good English and doesn't make sense.
• UN Watch is obviously an advocacy group with a lot of fans who keep pov pushing it here; why is it more important than big govt figures who have criticized him? It looks like a number of its employees may have been editing here over the years.
• User Redhanker added Gilad Atzmon's opinon on Falk. Atzmon is written about frequently on wikipedia but HIS FACTS AND OPINIONS are not generally recognized as WP:RS, especially for WP:BLP. If WP:RSN agrees he IS WP:RS for his opinions I'm sure someone or other will be glad to put them all over Wikipedia since he often writes about Zionist leaders. Shall I go to WP:RSN (noticeboard). Something tells me you will be shot down and just look silly if I do so.

Please address this here or it will be assumed you are fine with my reverting your material. CarolMooreDC 21:52, 27 December 2012 (UTC)

I see SimpleC has just supported pushing the views/efforts of the Advocacy Group UN Watch, even though there is no evidence that it was definitively UN Watch's letter that got him fired. Having watched this article for over a year, I think it is clear that there are advocates for or even employees of this organization pushing its role, even when high quality sources like Jewish Chronicle find comments by high ranking politicians more important. I'll be dealing with this POV pushing in a BLP against policy through proper venues after the holidays. CarolMooreDC 17:27, 30 December 2012 (UTC)

I'm intrigued by the idea that UN Watch is "obviously an advocacy group". What's it advocating? (Other than human rights and other goodness in line with the UN Charter). I appreciate there are "pro" and "anti" POVs on it, but surely as a UN-accredited organization it is a notable player and source, particularly on UN-related matters. Alexbrn (talk) 17:46, 30 December 2012 (UTC)

UN Watch article notes "It is affiliated with the American Jewish Committee[6][7] and sponsored by the World Jewish Congress.[8]" This is the only thing that actually makes his resignation from a local chapter of a group in the least notable or "possibly related to" its letter. I guess if they can't get him out of the UN Position they have to boast about getting him off a local group's board. Anyway, so obviously it is going to be pushing a pro-Israel line/agenda, which the article proves it does since those issues are what it details; even if UN Watch does take on a few other issues as well.

Anyway, I made changes to the lead which give that whole paragraph proper context. Also, there is no reason to repeat every UN Watch allegation in the lead when there is a whole paragraph below and it's totally WP:Undue/attack/ to do so. At this point I will not go to WP:BLPN but if POV pushing continues I will. CarolMooreDC 18:08, 30 December 2012 (UTC)

I don't think UN Watch references are point of view pushing. Your statmement that it is affiliated with American Jewish groups does imply POV pushing. The American Jewish group may simply be genuinely interested in NGO Watches work or there may be further information exchange beneficial to both parties. For example the following link http://www.palestinecampaign.org/Index5b.asp?m_id=1&l1_id=7&l2_id=105 shows Amnesty International works with the Palestinian Solidarity Campaign sometimes. This does not in itself prove Amnesty is a POV group. What makes UN watch very important here is they are the principal organisation campaigning for action against Falk and in a court of law at least, primary parties are always of more interest than secondary sources. Also, finding one article that doesn't mention UN Watch while ignoring the overwhelming majority or articles in other respected papers that do seems a bit sloppy reasoning. Sebbysteiny (talk) 17:35, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

Now that Falk confirms it was the UN Watch letter (and not just a advocacy group taking credit for something that might have been purely personal or whatever), the issue is largely moot. However, Wikipedia biographies especially should not be used to let advocacy groups smear people. There are fewer charges of antisemitism on Hitler's article than here!

• If the Wikipedia article UN Watch is wrong that "It is affiliated with the American Jewish Committee[6][7] and sponsored by the World Jewish Congress.[8]" then that should be corrected. It certainly makes UN Watch more credible as an organization, as well as making its POV clear.

Being affiliated with doesn't mean it is necessarily bias. If you wish to discredit an NGO by making statements implying bias that factually do not establish bias, you should not be using the intro of Richard Falk to do so. You can quote a link and led the readers decide. Libeling an NGO is no better than libeling a person. I've made this point before but after a month there has been no response.Sebbysteiny (talk) 16:20, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

• UN Watch role in the resignation gets plenty of coverage in the lead and UN Watch section. Adding it to the "Life and work" section would be WP:Undue WP:Advocacy for that organization and I'm sure editors at WP:BLPN would agree - in fact they'd probably remove it from the lead altogether. CarolMooreDC 19:46, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

I'm happy to bring this to dispute resolution if necessary as with every twist and turn, this article seems to be being changed to whitewash the antisemitic statements made by Falk that got him sacked by attacking the reputations of all those making alligations while doing everything possible to paint Falk as an innocent hero. Yes, wikipedia is not the place to libel people, but nor is it the place to whitewash wrongdoing. Everybody else in Wikipedia who is sacked in contriversial circumstances has these circumstances stated in the intro without any attempts at whitewashing. We should apply the same standards uniformily, and I don't care whether he is a Palestian hero or an Israeli scruge. If those in favour of whitewashing allegations against him while attacking those alleging against him wish to attempt to do this, the resulting debate should be moved to the place where the issue is discussed in depth. For the intro, we just need to state the undisputed facts. Since my previous points havn't been responded to for a month, I assume we agree and will make the change.Sebbysteiny (talk) 16:20, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

First, one should contain one's WP:Soapbox. Just because organizations who raise millions of dollars looking for critics of Israel to trash as antisemites trash an individual, and Israeli "WP:RS" media and the more partisan Western media cover it, doesn't mean it's the ultimate truth. So do go to Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard with both edits:

• Re: Your addition it publically calls for "international sanctions" against Israel while saying "academics should think carefully before developing research links and exchanges with Israelis [by] ascertaining whether they are part of the military machine or work to sustain the occupation". Except for the spelling error I personally don't have a problem with including a factoid that probably 96% of the people on the planet agree with. Putting my personal preferences aside, Others might consider it WP:Undue detail for various reasons I'll be glad to speculate upon, so do bring that up as an issue. I'm sure the editors will have a better NPOV opinion than either of us on that topic.
• Re: adding yet a third mention of UN watch in what looks like a promotional effort for the group, do bring it to WP:DRN. I'd like to see what NPOV (as opposed to partisan) editors have to say. By the way, if you don't take it to WP:DRN, I'll assume you agree that extra UN Watch mention goes out.

Also, FYI, because you brought this issue up I looked for any update material and low and behold there's some heavy duty stuff, which I shall put in article shortly. :-) CarolMooreDC 17:12, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

Carol, First I must appologise. When I read the article (after a month), I noticed statements we had negotiated had been removed but I didn't notice they had been moved to a similar section. Had I known that, I would not have said the above and obviously dispute resolution is unnecessary. So, genuine soz to you and hope we can find agreeable text without DRN. Anyhow, I'm happy to remove another reference to UN Watch (having seen the above), but I think we must keep the sentence "resign following controversy over allegations of antisemitism ... " with an end that does not involve UN Watch. As stated before, when somebody resigns, other wikipedia articles say "following controversy over ..." and I think we must keep these standards. So as long as it says the key words "following controversy over", then I do not have a strong opinion on what comes next. Feel free to propose something. I can't think of anything more factually accurate, however.Sebbysteiny (talk) 22:11, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

Re the spelling error. I copied and pasted the quote straight from the Guardian website, but if is better practice to correct such spelling mistakes I'll give way to your greater experience. The reason I think the quote is important is that saying "x is a member of a peace organisation" when that organisation (after I looked it up) turns out to be nothing more than a one sided lobby group gives a misleading impression that x is a neutral man of peace when the truth is the opposite. Therefore, if this organisation is mentioned along with a statement saying it is "working for an end of the Israeli occupation of Palestinian territories and just peace" (suggesting falsely Falk is associated with an impartial peace group), impartially requires another in context statement from that organisation that demonstrates Falk is associated with an organisation with a clear, unambiguous one-sided agenda. I'm happy to consider alternatives that also correct the misleading impression such as removing both quotes and merely refer to the organisation as an NGO closely associated with the pro-Palestinian lobby.Sebbysteiny (talk) 22:11, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

The final point is that I think the statement that "UN Watch, which is affiliated with the American Jewish Committee and sponsored by the World Jewish Congress" is at the very least not supported by the sources. Quotes from the American Jewish Committee giving UN Watches address on its website does not establish UN Watch is affiliated as the statement was not from UN Watch. If I claimed to be representing the United States, that doesn't make it so. I am happy to let the statement stand, however, if we can find evidence of any statement of affiliation by UN Watch itself. Also, the statement "sponsored by the World Jewish Congress", should probably be changed to "includes the World Jewish Congress among its sponsers " as the former potentially gives the impressions it is entirely paid for by the WJC, which isn't true as other sources also contribute to its funding.Sebbysteiny (talk) 22:11, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

Fairly appalling article as it stands I'm afraid. Carolmooredc's comment that there are more accusations of antisemitism here than there are in the Hitler article is very telling. I recommend the first step to getting this article back to conforming with NPOV and BLP policies would be to strip out all the smears that are cited directly by advocacy organizations. As a minimum all smear type allegations should be reported by third party RS to warrant inclusion. Dlv999 (talk) 22:38, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

Since it's easy for these advocacy groups to get "WP:RS" coverage, there isn't too much to remove. To me that would mean removing the following:

• The 3rd paragraph of the lede;
• Struck part of this sentence discussed above: until he was asked to resign following controversy over allegations of antisemitism made by UN Watch
• Removing or shortening some UN Watch quotes. CarolMooreDC 00:01, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

It won't fix the article, but at least it's a start. Self-published smears by advocacy groups should not be in the article, let alone given a paragraph in the lead. Dlv999 (talk) 16:57, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

I can sympathise with shortening some UN watch descriptions (see proposal below). But with respect I disagree about removing the following controversy over ... bit. First of all, for the record, I am not part of UN Watch. Starting an edit on the basis of a lie and smearing other editors I do not think is the best approach. Secondly, on the substance, how is it that there can be an issue with the line following controversy over allegations of antisemitism made by UN Watch when in other Wikipedia articles I have seen not about the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, a statement x resigned from organisation y is followed by following controversy over [5 or so words explaining the nature of the contriversy]. I don't mind removing the reference to UN watch and leaving it as following controversy over allegations of antisemitism but if you wish to remove the following controversy ... bit, I would be grateful for an explanation why the standards of reporting such resignations set by other Wikipedia articles don't apply here.Sebbysteiny (talk) 22:16, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

I've just done a quick check and seen the statement there are more accusations of antisemitism here than there are in the Hitler article, which you then described as very telling is factually incorrect nonsense by every rational measure..Sebbysteiny (talk) 23:15, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

Please note, I only added one version of the UN Watch, which was the statement in life and work. My concern is to make sure that section is accurate and impartial by mentioning the sacking without going too far against Falk and without whitewashing Falk's record either. I can, however, see that there is a lot of mention of the sacking in other places I did not put in myself so I can see your prospective. I think the phrasing of the sentence re following controversy... is absolutely necessary. However, I think we could all be satisfied with the following solution. 1) In Life and work, use Falk served on the board of Human Rights Watch Santa Barbara, California, for several years until in 2012 he was asked to resign following controversy over allegations of antisemitism made by UN Watch., which is largely as is but with the year inserted. 2) In the intro, there is a lot of substantive discussion that is all in the UN Watch accusations section. So replace "In 2012, Falk was asked to resign from the Human Rights Watch Santa Monica group’s board. UN Watch, which is affiliated with the American Jewish Committee[7][8] and sponsored by the World Jewish Congress,[9] stated this happened after they wrote a letter to Human Rights Watch accusing Falk of antisemitism.[10] Falk later confirmed this in a blog entry.[11]" with "Falk served on the board of Human Rights Watch Santa Barbara, California, for several years until in 2012 he was asked to resign following controversy over allegations of antisemitism made by UN Watch.".Sebbysteiny (talk) 23:15, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

This cuts out a lot of the UN Watch discussion in the intro replacing it with a brief summary of uncontested facts. Please confirm we can all agree on the proposed solution.Sebbysteiny (talk) 23:15, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

WP:Verifiability states: "Base articles on reliable, third-party, published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy."

WP:BLP states:"If you cannot find multiple reliable third-party sources documenting the allegation or incident, leave it out."

The first step to getting this article back towards core wikipidia policy is to gut everything that is not supported by third party RS (ie everything cited to ADL, AJC, UNwatch.) Where their comments are notable and relevant they will be reported by third party RS. The prominence of their views in the article (if they are included at all) should be based on the prominence of their views in third party RS, not the prominence of their views in their own self published material. Dlv999 (talk) 15:55, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

Unfortunately primary source attacks by ADL and Southern Poverty Law Center, if not yet the other groups, seem to have become WP:RS on Wikipedia, perhaps because not enough editors can stomach fighting with the partisans that want to use them everywhere. I'm agin' myself. CarolMooreDC 17:53, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

They are not third party RS, because if they are making the allegations AND publishing the allegations, they are involved and thus not third party. WP:BLP is clear that "multiple reliable third-party sources documenting the allegation or incident". Of course ADL, Southern Poverty Law Center et al are RS for their own opinion, but that is not good enough for inclusion in BLP articles. As you say it may not make much difference as it may be reported in third party RS sources anyway. But that is the whole point of doing it, to actually find out what is notable and relevant (ie reported in "multiple reliable third-party sources) and what is not.

I don't edit a lot of BLP articles, but if there is objection to removing non-third party sources I might take it to one of the noticeboards as a test case, because from my reading of policy this is pretty clear. Dlv999 (talk) 18:42, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

I hope you are right and soon will look at a couple BLPs that probably have that issue and do just that. Thanks. CarolMooreDC 19:59, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

I don't think it is as simple as that. I certainly object to removing non-third party sources where these sources are primary evidence or are primary parties. Eg proving a statement like "accusations made by UN Watch" would be best done by referencing the website of UN Watch showing UN Watch made those alligations. Also, two non-third party sources should be used where both sources are primary parties on opposite sides (eg UN Watch and Falk) and both agree on the facts that support that statement (eg Falk was sacked in consequence of UN Watches letter, which has been accepted by both Falk and UN Watch). In that situation, third party sources are much worse evidentially than references to both primary party's acknowledgement of the above. I don't object, however, to removing non-third party sources where these sources are being used only as evidence of contested facts (Eg, Falk is antisemtic: source UN Watch). Infact,I agree we should remove such references. I havn't however seen any such misuse of sources. Please could you propose the specific references you wish to change before making the edits.Sebbysteiny (talk) 11:25, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

yes, i think it is time for someone to write a few sentences, present it here, and let's try to get a consensus. ready, set, go! Soosim (talk) 11:45, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

I propose deletion of the third paragraph of the lead as it is based entirely on primary sources making allegations against Falk. The UN watch section is excessively long and given WP:UNDUE weight. A lot of the cited sources in this section are blog material, op-ed material or primary source allegations. I propose to strip all that out and base the article on what has been written on the topic in reliable, third-party RS according to our encyclopedias core policy (WP:Verifiability states: "Base articles on reliable, third-party, published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy." Any material not covered by multiple reliable third party sources is not suitable for inclusion(WP:BLP states:"If you cannot find multiple reliable third-party sources documenting the allegation or incident, leave it out.") Dlv999 (talk) 12:45, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

Feel free do a draft. I'm a bit burned out on it this week. I do feel that primary source material from Falk is useable if it corrects inaccurate info or defends against false/biased accusations. In this case, however, that may not be relevant. On the other hand I do think it's relevant that UN Watch is a front group for two major Jewish organizations, and that HRW keeps saying he was dropped for policy reasons not "antisemitism." I don't know how much you can read into their refusal to avoid that topic, one way or the other. Something I didn't put in but might be of interest is Phylis Bennis criticism of how UN Watch is trying to make a name for itself attack. CarolMooreDC 21:19, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

I'm afraid I completely disagree with the changes and believe these changes amount to a whitewash of the controversies that Richard Falk has got himself involved in. The thing about Richard Falk is that he was considered bias long before he was given any power to judge Israel on the UN and many people including the leaders of many major players in the international community have criticised him and all his appointments to judge Israel on the basis of anti-semitism and bias. I agree improvements could have been made to the article, but whitewashing his controversy in the introduction and in his life and work is not the solution. Sebbysteiny (talk) 14:39, 5 February 2013 (UTC)

But I also think you have got it completely wrong with respect the third party sources. The policy by Wikipedia is not intended to remove all highly relevant content simply because the best possible source is primary. This interpretation is a subversion of the policy not furthering it. For example, the situation whereby Falk's own blog cannot be used to state he admits the charges but a reliable newspaper that quite rightly uses that blog as its source can be is clearly rediculous. Ultimately, if it is good enough for a court of law, it should be good enough for Wikipedia, which will openly admit to requiring much lower standards of sourcing (secondary sources are not permitted in a court of law, for example). Please could you explain how removing all references to the very contriversial nature of Richard Falk in the opening paragraphs is anything other than a whitewash? Also could you explain why in most other wikipedia articles, when somebody resigns due to controversial circumstances, the article immediately explains what the controversy is, but here the article now whitewashes even the fact that there was a controversy let alone the fact that the controversy was his own statements that were widely considered as anti-semitic. I would therefore be grateful if you could rethink your changes and try again but without the white wash preferably having attempted to gain a consensus (at least by emailing me so I know to respond). Many thanks. Sebbysteiny (talk) 14:39, 5 February 2013 (UTC)

The position he left was a local (Santa Monica) branch of HRW. For a figure of International renown such as Falk this is a fairly minor matter in the context of his life and career. It has been discussed by RS, so it should be included in the article - but it is not notable for the lead, that would be WP:UNDUE. Dlv999 (talk) 14:56, 5 February 2013 (UTC)

Dlv999 is correct. CarolMooreDC 04:47, 6 February 2013 (UTC)

I don't agree Dlv999 is correct. It doesn't surprise me that Dlv999 has the support of Project Palestine, but from a more neutral prospective, the issue made the national papers of many world wide newspapers and the decision to sack Falk was not made by a minor local committee but went all the way up to the very top of the organisation ultimately approved by Roth himself. The statement he is "internationally renown" suggests also a bias prospective. The debate on Falk is as follows. The Palestinian side says he is a man of great learning and expertise and "internationally renown" and every report he writes is written on the basis of the facts and not political bias. Israelis say he is a man who has a life long obsession with attacking Israel, is an anti-semtic person and every report he writes is written on the basis of his personal political prejudices and not his experties. Both viewpoints have support from very senior people and I think this article needs to reflect that he is a controversial figure. So starting from the assumption that he is "internationally renown" I think creates automatic pro-Palestinian systematic bias in this article in the same way that starting from the assumption he is a leading anti-semite would.Sebbysteiny (talk) 19:04, 6 February 2013 (UTC)

I notice no comment on the source issue. Can we take this silence to mean you agree and have changed your mind?Sebbysteiny (talk) 19:09, 6 February 2013 (UTC)

I agree and support Sebbysteiny. He has made a very compelling argument. The fact that Falk's dismissal made international headlines makes it a global issue, not a local issue, and even merits its own section. I also agree with the fact that Falk is a controversial figure, and for the sake of neutrality, we should include that in the article as well SimplesC (talk) 00:25, 8 February 2013 (UTC)

Do we really have to take this to BLP Noticeboard to make it clear to you it is too minor an issue for the lead?? His being refused entrance to Israel in 20089 was a MUCH bigger issue, for example, which more appropriately would belong in the lead, as well as the fact that HRW stood up for him then. CarolMooreDC 06:52, 8 February 2013 (UTC)

Carol, personally, I think you are very capable of finding an agreed text that satisfies everybody without any dispute resolution procedures. However, Dlv999's contribution to this discussion combined with his unwillingness to address issues raised means this is looking increasingly likely to be heading that way. At stake, is whether this article presents a neutral prospective of Richard Falk, or a pro-Palestinian whitewashed version of it. What it takes to avoid dispute resolution is for Dlv999 to acknowledge that whitewashing is a bad thing, that neutrality is a good thing and that there is a legitimate debate to be had regarding Falk's professional neutrality. Then DLV9999 needs to propose ways of achieving his personal aims that don't also result in whitewashing Falk's genuine controversies.Sebbysteiny (talk) 17:45, 8 February 2013 (UTC)

I don't find Sebbysteiny's argument persuasive. Falk's notability is not based on Israeli or Palestinian opinion. His appointment at the UN was not made by Palestinians. His academic works were not published by Palestinians. Palestinians did not appoint him as professor emeritus of international law at one of Americas most prestigious Universities. His international notability and academic career are not a Palestinian opinion. I don't see any justification of writing this whole article through the prism of the Israel Palestine conflict based on Palestinian and Israeli positions. On the specific points where Palestinian and Israeli viewpoints are significant (e.g. on his role as special rappatuer for Human Rights in the OPT), then by all means they should be included per RS, but the whole biography should not be based on them. Dlv999 (talk) 13:55, 8 February 2013 (UTC)

Thus it seems you are trying to whitewash Richard Falk's record for the benefit of the Palestiian. Getting these prestigious awards does not mean he is non-contriversial. On the contrary, contriversial people are much more likely to get such awards that those that remain quiet and just do their job in pursuing accademic knowledge. And yes the Palestinian side did appoint him to the UN. Falk was known to be a notoriously anti-Israel critic and highly bias well before his appointment to the UN. Infact, it is precisely for that reason he was appointed to judge Israel, as the UNHRC is largely controlled by the anti-Israel non-alligned movement and it was not just Israel that complained about the appointment, it was the US and a surpisingly large number of other nations that usually remain quiet. So no, Falk could not have politically been appointed if he was not personally selected by the Palestinians first choice. On top of this, every organisation he is a member of in relation to the Middle East are highly anti-Israel organisations that spend all their budget and resources campaigning against Israel's legitimacy. This is why Falk's controversial nature is so important. Infact, the only thing that matters in this whole article in my opinion is that his controversial nature is discussed from the beginning and from a neutral prospective. However, what troubles me about the way this article has been rewritten is that all his controversies are being whitewashed and moved to increasingly obscure sections in a way that is unlike any other wikipedia article I have seen for other figures that have been involved in controversy.Sebbysteiny (talk) 17:20, 8 February 2013 (UTC)

I am also finding it frustrating as every argument made, you duck and find another new argument to hide in as if the words and arguments are merely a vehicle for your already created and unchangeable hidden views and it's just a matter of finding the right public arguments to match your hidden views. You relied on the idea that the issue was 'very local' as the main reason for your whitewashing of these incidents but when I pointed out the issue made it into the international headlines of a large number of global media organisations, instead of defending the original argument or conceding some ground, you change your argument to something completely different but make no difference to the text. Now, your second attempted argument to justify your edits is that 'his membership of certain organisations means he cannot be controversial'. Are you going to move to a third justification for the same edits and ignore everything I say again?Sebbysteiny (talk) 17:33, 8 February 2013 (UTC)

Not putting a non-notable incident in the lead is white washing? Please bring that to WP:BLPN as NPOV issue is you think that is really relevant; frankly I'm getting fed up with it and probably will bring it there myself if have to keep listening to this soapboxing. I don't know which "you" you are referring to, but there are multiple reasons not to put this in the lead. Just one of them is UN Watch is an advocacy group dedicated to whitewashing Israel's multiple violations of international law and human rights by attacking UN reps who dare to mention them. (And there are hundreds of other such advocacy groups dedicated to attacking anyone in any other area who criticizeds Israel.) Wikipedia is not a place to promote such agendas, though given the excessive media coverage of such attacks WP coverage is still unbalanced. CarolMooreDC 00:29, 9 February 2013 (UTC)

Failing to put an incident that made the national papers in either the lead or the life and work while systematically deleting any reference to any controversy at all that a very controversial person has engaged in is whitewashing. So far, neither you nor DLV999 have been able to explain how an incident that made the national newspapers of many different countries is "a non-notable incident". Without reconiling these contradictions, one must conclude it's a whitewash.Sebbysteiny (talk) 21:03, 11 February 2013 (UTC)

Sebbysteiny, I think we have already been through the relevant policy discussion on this. WP:BLP states:"If you cannot find multiple reliable third-party sources documenting the allegation or incident, leave it out." That means if there are not multiple third party RS reporting the incident/allegation it should not be included in the article at all. Think about this rationally, if multiple third party RS is required for inclusion in the article, multiple third party RS cannot justify inclusion in the lead, because that would mean everything in the article would be in the lead, which is a nonsense. Dlv999 (talk) 21:47, 11 February 2013 (UTC)

There were multiple thrid party RS reporting the incident in this case. I've read the story on at least 3. The story of his sacking from HRW due to controversy is a very major part of his life equal to that of an appointment to a prestigious body. I therefore say only that such a significant event must be mentioned in his life and work alongside his other significant appointments in the same way such incidents are mentioned in articles on other people not related to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. I have never argued it should be in the lead, only the life and work section. See below for my complaint re the lead.Sebbysteiny (talk) 14:33, 21 February 2013 (UTC)

Sebbysteiny, look at the article. 1/3 of the article is "notable opinions" that are mostly a cherry picked coatrack for making him look like someone with generally extreme positions and the accusations of antisemitism section. What is being whitewashed are his notable opinions that gave him the stature he has! Like the 20 books he wrote and 20 he contributed to. We probably could have subsections on four or five of the most important ones. Someone one feel free to write them. Assuming people didn't delete them as being "whitewashing"... So do you insist upon bringing up this issue to the point we have to have the WHOLE article evaluated? CarolMooreDC 04:05, 12 February 2013 (UTC)

The fact that the guy is such a controversial figure of highly contested expertise and professionalism is so fundamental to Richard Falk that some statement must be made in the lead that makes it clear only one side of the Israeli Palestinian conflict is happy with his work and that his critics are not limited to a small number of Jewish advocacy groups. While you point to 20 or so books, I'm not aware of even one book he has ever written that is considered an impartial contribution to the field of international law (happy to be corrected). I have read some of his papers and they are most certainly not considered as such. I am happy for only a 1/3rd of the article to be about his controversial statements. But white washing all such criticism from the most read part of the article, the lead, is not the way forward. If 1/3 of the content of the article is about his controversies, then so too should 1/3 of the lead. In any event, the lead must not give the impression that the man is largely uncontroversial and only considered controversial to a small number of Jewish groups. Currently, the lead seems to have been whitewashed to give this false impression to the majority of this article's readers who will not read every section.Sebbysteiny (talk) 14:33, 21 February 2013 (UTC)

I've just read the most recent lead, which has changed a lot since I last read it. I think these changes are largely for the better, but I think given that this man has spent almost his entire life in the Israel-Palestinian arena, this should be mentioned in the lead along with a statement that makes it clear his neutrality is disputed. It may be as simple as saying "he has made a number of notable statements that have attracted controversy from Israeli lobby groups and other notable players in the international community". As long as there is something. Sebbysteiny (talk) 16:41, 21 February 2013 (UTC)

sebby raises a good point. it is appropriate for the lead because of who falk is. not because of pov. Soosim (talk) 17:32, 21 February 2013 (UTC)

UN Watch's badgering of Falk belongs together and I'd forgotten to fix that. Will do now.

Leadwise, there was a sentence "His reports and other writings have been criticized by Israeli officials and others." which somehow fell out and I don't have a problem with that kind of short general statement in a short lead like we have. But if people start putting specific criticisms in lead then we need more specifics to make it clear the motivation for the criticism, like material that was in there that was deleted, below, as a reminder:

In 2008, the United Nations Human Rights Council (UNHRC) appointed Falk to a six-year term as a United Nations Special Rapporteur on "the situation of human rights in the Palestinian territories occupied since 1967."[3] In both May and December 2008 Israel refused to admit Falk to Israel, Gaza or the West Bank to gather information for a report.[4][5] In official reports and statements, Falk has been critical of Israeli policies including on a possible "humanitarian catastrophe" due to Israel's Gaza blockade; called Israel's 2008-2009 "Gaza War" air strikes "war crimes" and said the International Criminal Court should investigate Israeli leaders; detailed his accusations that Israel was practicing a policy of apartheid in the Palestinian territories; stated that Israeli policies in Jerusalem amounted to "ethnic cleansing" against the Palestinians; criticized Israel's abuse of prisoners; and called for a boycott of international corporations doing business with Israel.

CarolMooreDC 23:03, 21 February 2013 (UTC)

/* UN Watch accusations */ un watch and others

it is clear that UN watch and others accused falk of antisemitism, and not just un watch by themselves. the sources i listed are RS for their own points of view, no different than un watch itself. dlv - why the revert? Soosim (talk) 10:37, 27 January 2013 (UTC)

As discussed above WP:BLP states:"If you cannot find multiple reliable third-party sources documenting the allegation or incident, leave it out." I am of the view that we should follow policy in this BLP article, if an allegation has not been reported in multiple reliable third party sources it should not be included. Dlv999 (talk) 11:02, 27 January 2013 (UTC)

how about these: http://www.jpost.com/International/Article.aspx?id=228448 (mentions adl and rep. ros-lehtinen); http://www.thejc.com/news/uk-news/56303/pm-condemns-un-advisers-antisemitic-cartoon (UK PM cameron); http://www.haaretz.com/jewish-world/adl-calls-on-un-human-rights-chief-to-condemn-richard-falk-for-anti-semitic-cartoon-1.372190 (adl again). any good? Soosim (talk) 11:22, 27 January 2013 (UTC)

ADL and Cameron are already mentioned in the cartoon section. Why do we need to recycle the same sources to make the same point in the UN watch section which is already overlong? Dlv999 (talk) 11:41, 27 January 2013 (UTC)

there is an inherent problem with the sentence as is - it makes it seem that only un watch accuses falk of antisemitism. which is obviously not the case. other organizations and other people do as well. so, use new ones, use primary, use recycled, but as is, it is not accurate. Soosim (talk) 11:52, 27 January 2013 (UTC)

Okay, here is a suggestion: Get rid of the Gilad Atzmon section which is based entirely one Op-Ed by Alan Dershowitz thus does not meet the requirement for inclusion set by BLP policy (WP:BLP states:"If you cannot find multiple reliable third-party sources documenting the allegation or incident, leave it out"). Amalgamate the cartoon and UN watch sections into one section which documents all the allegations that meet BLP requirements for inclusion (i.e. reported by multiple reliable third party sources). That way we can say exactly who has made the accusations (as reported by multiple third party RS) and we don't need to fall back on language such "and others" which runs the risk of WP:WEASEL. Dlv999 (talk) 12:06, 27 January 2013 (UTC)

1RR reminder: I don't feel like going back and forth between the edits two editors made today to see if either violated 1rr. So let me just remind you that this article is under WP:ARBPIA 1rr. CarolMooreDC 18:56, 27 January 2013 (UTC)

No need to worry. Me and Soosim know the rules and we are going to play nice. Dlv999 (talk) 21:55, 27 January 2013 (UTC)

I also have to remind my self from time to time :-) CarolMooreDC 02:41, 28 January 2013 (UTC)

Lead should not be used as Israel bashing, but rather discussing Falk.

I removed the lead paragraph that was basically an Israel-bash fest. Lead should be about Falk, not about his criticizing Israel. Leave that to the body of the page. In addition, the paragraph that I removed was reiterating what was already written in the article SimplesC (talk) 19:14, 9 February 2013 (UTC)

FYI, that info was added because the lead was being used for Falk bashing by Israel supporters, so there needed to be a context. I think there does need to be a tad more detail on his role and criticisms will look at and add in NPOV way. CarolMooreDC 22:02, 10 February 2013 (UTC)

American Movement for World Government

The user (72.80.32.3) that added this in May 2008, had only one other contribution in 2007, in two edits on Rosedale which were definitely vandalism ('hello queens is ok place aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa...')

The link (www.americanmovementforworldgovernment.org/) to the American Movement for World Government organization website given as reference in the article, and which obviously is the URL or a website affiliated with a so called organization by this name leads to a Japanese website supposedly selling drinks (but with unworkable links). The website has been owned by a Japanese company in Osaka (Address: Chuo-ku Minamisenba Street, 3-1-8, Osaka) since 2013.

There is no mention of "The American Movement for World Government" on Wikipedia. It is not mentioned in World Federalist Movement organization entry. On the Democratic World Federalists entry, there is mention of the Coalition for Democratic Government and a link to their website. In turn, the 'coalition' website lists various organizations] supposedly affiliated with a world government. See the list here: [1]. First on the list is the American Movement for World Government, with a link to the same (now Japanese) organization website.

The only people affiliated with this organization (if it exists) are Frances Jellinek probably a CPA, and the founder: Dr. Hal Schaefer from Palm Beach, a retired Brooklyn College staff member. The Coalition website says the organization was established in 1955, "along with many other respected leaders in the movement" and had "played a significant role in creating the Coalition for Democratic World Government".

A conspiracy theory website (searchwatch) lists several notable people, lumping them together, most of them of Jewish descent, as members of the "early advisory board", among them Isaac Asimov, and Richard Falk.

As long as the website is showing Japanese, and no other substantiated information is available, and the user has only contributed by vandalizing another entry, I concluded that this must too be vandalism. I removed the edit. פשוט pashute ♫ (talk) 03:30, 13 June 2013 (UTC)

[Edited after Carol's correct remarks on my talk page] As a side remark, I just read a 100 year old article in the Halevanon European newspaper (in Hebrew from 1866) about an entry in the Encyclopedia of France, where there were concerns about someone who tried to affiliate himself outside the Jewish faith but who's actions and views would be attacked as the acts and views of the Jews. So nothing new. Halvanon paper (Hebrew)

[Edit] Clarification: When writing this remark, I meant to point out that Richard Falk, who sees himself as a non-Jew, but rather as a global citizen, is being shown by antisemitic organizations as a Jew leading a world domination plan, although he has renounced his "Judaism" (and although he is not promoting a world domination plan, but rather a plan to end wars and allow for diverse culture co-existence). 100 years ago the same was true with another Jew who saw himself as a Christian, and believed in the French revolution for all people, but would be accused of being a Jewish traitor, by both the Jews and the Christians. פשוט pashute ♫ (talk) 03:30, 13 June 2013 (UTC)

Did you look at the new reference? Richard A. Falk Papers biography, Syracuse University??

I personally don't care, just want to be accurate, and there it is and wouldn't be there if he didn't want it in.

As for the other "side remark" (which we called WP:SOAPBOX) it's not really appropriate, didn't make much sensne and should probably be removed or collapsed as "irrelevant". CarolMooreDC - talkie talkie🗽 03:51, 13 June 2013 (UTC)

Didn't make much sense to you, [Edit: Agreeably it was not clear as originally posted] but probably does to a few million people who feel threatened by constant accusations whichever way they turn, and for anything they do. I'm talking about Jews if you don't get it. And Richard Falk's way of thinking seems to fall (if you don't look deeply, and if you fall for the antisemitic rhetoric) directly in the category of the Protocols of the Elders of Zion. I specifically showed that this is what the ref that I removed and you put back is alluding to. Turns out this has been going on 100 years ago as well. [Edited after Carol's remarks].

Anyways, your right about the Syracuse U. it seems correct. So let's leave it for now. I wrote to them asking for verification. And of course, with all his other activity, it may very well be true that this organization existed and even still exists, and that Falk actually was on its advisory board. Will be interesting to see their answers. Also, interesting to know if the americanmovementforworldgovernment.org website ever was legit, and how it was taken over by the Japanese... :-) פשוט pashute ♫ (talk) 07:59, 17 June 2013 (UTC)

Important update: I received a reply from Syracuse University Library:

Thank you for contacting the Special Collections Research Center at Syracuse University Library regarding your inquiry. The information regarding Falk’s participation on the advisory board of the American Movement for World Government is based on two pieces of correspondence included in the “Corres C (IV)” folder in Box 5 of our Richard A. Falk Papers. The first item is a one-page typewritten letter from William H. D. Cox, Jr., Chairman Pro Tem, to Falk requesting that he support the organization financially and by putting his name forward as a member of the advisory board. The letter is dated June 23, 1971, and is on American Movement for World Government letterhead. The second item is a one-page typewritten carbon copy of Falk’s response, dated July 13, 1971, in which he agrees to become a member of the advisory board and encloses a donation.

If you would like more information or are interested in ordering photocopies of this material, please contact us at the email address of scrc in the syr.edu domain.

If you haven’t already, you might also try contacting the New York Public Library, which holds an American Movement for World Government Records collection. According to their finding aid, the collection includes material relating to Falk and his involvement with the organization.

Please feel free to contact me if you need further assistance.

Nicole C. Dittrich

Reading Room Supervisor

Special Collections Research Center

Syracuse University Library

This seems to support what I have written below, about the (un)importance of this organization and its role, but does remove any doubts as to its continued existence and Falk's connection to it. פשוט pashute ♫ (talk) 12:03, 17 Tamuz (memorial day for ancient fall of Jerusalem), 25 June 2013 (UTC)

The American Movement for World Government organization - and its advisory board

Interestingly, I found this: American Movement for World Government Archives. According to the website AMWG WAS a viable organization at some time, and WAS affiliated with Asimov and Sagan...

The movement is mentioned in a book about Barbara Morgan] saying she joined it in 1970, by paying the membership fee and signing a paper declaring she would be active in advancing the world government idea. It is listed first in the member organizations of the 'Coalition for a Democratic World Government' (CDWG).

The most comprehensive discussion on this organization is by John R. Ewbank in A History of the World Government Movement. He confirms it was active mainly in 1955-57 but that it continued with very limited activity after the founder became ill, run by Edith Wynner, and used mainly as a means to legally transfer money to other organizations lacking the 501c3 tax exemption, especially to pay writers in a magazine called World Peace News. (So perhaps that's the connection of the "advisory board members".) This article is brought without remarks and links in the Home Rule Globally website. There is no mention of Sagan, Asimov and needless to say of Falk.

According to Barker's article, explaining the one world government movement, it is clear that Falk is on that side of view. But then you get this kind of rhetoric lumping all views and all Jews together - "the usual suspects". [I was asked to edit the next section which seemed defamatory] פשוט pashute ♫ (talk) 18:38, 17 June 2013 (UTC)

[Edited according to request, as seemed defamatory]: I started out double checking on a seemingly conspiracy theory edit, where I thought I'm protecting Falk (although I don't agree with his ideas, could have when I was a youngster...) and ended up on the other side, where Falk is WITH the world government advocates, not the way the conspiracy gang claim it, but definitely in line with what they would like to claim, since he's from Jewish origin, and supposedly, according to them, all Jews, or at least many Jews when reaching powerful positions, conspire together to rule the world. This, despite the fact that Richard Falk doesn't affiliate himself with the Jewish people (according to the WP article), and sees himself as a global person caring for all humankind. And despite the fact that his views are actually in favor of a rule that will allow diverse cultures to co-exist side by side. -- All the more interesting for me. Anyway, it turns out my edit became sort of a POV edit (actually it never was).

Carol had me look into this more deeply. I don't think the referenced organization should have an entry, of its own (from what I read between the lines, it seems to be a straw org) but if it does, like Carol suggests, please get some more substantial information. פשוט pashute ♫ (talk) 13:35, 17 June 2013 (UTC)

Edited extensively פשוט pashute ♫ (talk) 21:06, 17 June 2013 (UTC)

OK, commenting on above, first, sure some antisemites may quote him and a lot of people who are critics of the state of Israel's actual bad policies and deeds who quote him. (Hitler promoted vegetarianism, but should all vegetarians be smeared?) Generally, if there is a point you want to make in an article, find an article that says it. But don't complain about it not being in the article or share your own views, which just encourages others to share theirs and before you know it there's a big fight.

There are hundreds of publications and organizations considered "WP:RS" that put out these kinds of opinions, though many of them are considered propaganda organizations by Wikipedia and can be used only sparingly for what they say about themselves not what they say about others. CarolMooreDC - talkie talkie🗽 23:31, 17 June 2013 (UTC)

Boston bombing commentary issues

Problems with Hyperion Steel edit:

• Richard Falk blog should be the link since Al Jazeera is incomplete and Foreign Policy is not as reliable source.
• In the same commentary, Falk reportedly assigned blame for the bombing to Israel, should read: According to the Jewish Telegraphic Agency, Falk assigned blame etc. It's an opinion piece that interprets his opinion piece, moving different elements out of order, and not a straight forward report. So we have to be specific per WP:BLP/WP:RS.
• UN Watch's opinion doesn't belong in a BLP unless it is quoted by a reliable source. It will have to be removed. CarolMooreDC🗽 01:08, 24 April 2013 (UTC)

• • The Al-Jazeera and Foreign Policy Journal articles were both written by Falk. The issue of their reliability is not a factor here. As for JTA's statement, if you want to edit it to specify the source, feel free to. I only included the UN Watch link because it has the same interpretation as JTA, but I'll remove it for the time being.(Hyperionsteel (talk) 01:41, 24 April 2013 (UTC))

Al Jazerra doesn't include the "compliant" sentence and with questionable sources like FPJ, you never know when they just stick something in there and who needs to sit and make a word by word comparison. CarolMooreDC🗽 01:44, 24 April 2013 (UTC)

If you feel that strongly about it, you can cite Falk's blog instead. Also, UN Watch's letter has been cited by Jerusalem Post and Fox News with regards to Mr. Falk, so I have reinserted this reference. One note: several of the sources cited specifically cite Falk's article published in Foreign Policy Online, which is why I included it as a reference. (Hyperionsteel (talk) 01:54, 24 April 2013 (UTC))

I think saying that FPJ reprinted Falk's column and linking to both in the same ref would be sufficient to cover all contingencies.

We'd only use UN Watch's letter as a back up ref IF we mention it in the text because a WP:RS referred to it; is it more notable than other groups that have commented? Or UN officials saying member states picked Falk, not them?

And once again there is the WP:Undue issue of Wikipedia letting [added later: allegedly WP:RS] paid partisans and biased media blow up a comment by a foreign policy expert (and a notion shared by billions worldwide) into a major incident for political reasons.

Also I'll mention here that the only thing that makes UN Watch credible/notable enough for any quasi-Mainstream media to pay attention to is that it is related to larger pro-Israel lobby groups, but DrSmoo removed that info. I will put it back so readers can be informed about what partisan group really is being represented when neutral names like UN Watch are used. The fact UN Watch has been all over Falk's case, as expressed by a policy expert in the field, also obviously worth mentioning. CarolMooreDC🗽 05:11, 24 April 2013 (UTC)

Comment - carol, what a way with words you have: "paid partisans and biased media"; to whom are you referring? also: "a notion shared by billions worldwide"; to what notion are you referring; and who are the billions? and how do your comments relate to the discussion about the adl and other organizations? Soosim (talk) 06:56, 24 April 2013 (UTC)

OK, struck soap box and clarified which paid partisans and paid media referring to, i.e. "allegedly WP:RS" ones. Thanks for noting my annoyance and sloppiness. CarolMooreDC🗽 15:15, 24 April 2013 (UTC)

didn't see it as annoyance or sloppiness. i see it as your POV. we all have them, right? but i still don't understand what is a paid partisan or biased media? is foxnews biased? is democracy now? Soosim (talk) 15:25, 24 April 2013 (UTC)

This general topic needs to be discussed further in an updated WP:ARBPIA resolution, so shall control self and only discuss in relevant venue and cease frustrated comments here. CarolMooreDC🗽 16:59, 24 April 2013 (UTC)

UN Watch's is only being cited as a reference (since it is referred to in some of the news articles cited). UN Watch's statements and opinions about Falk are not included in the article's text. Anyway, I can't argue with you that a lot of the sources cited here tilt ever-so-slightly towards a pro-Israel perspective (sarcasm), but they are still considered reliable sources for the purposes of Wikipedia.(Hyperionsteel (talk) 23:42, 24 April 2013 (UTC))

OK, here's edit summary from changes I just made: Al Jazeera does NOT have the "compliant" language; giving correct origin & reprint language; mention negative view of bombings per NPOV:remove advocacy group link to attack piece which not mentioned in article from 3rd party You can't just say something is in Al Jazeera that is NOT there (i.e., "compliant" sentence). We don't have to mention foreign policy journal as a reprint, but since you said publications mentioned it, we can. It's up to you. UN Watch is an advocacy group. Unless it says something as notable as the other worthies mentioned, its defacto attack article (one in a long line) should not be linked as a "reference". Per WP:BLP.

Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources: "Never use self-published books, zines, websites, webforums, blogs and tweets as a source for material about a living person,' unless written or published by the subject of the biographical material." Do we need to got to WP:BLPN to verify that simple policy fact? CarolMooreDC🗽 06:23, 25 April 2013 (UTC)

As I've written before, I'm curious about the assertion that UN Watch is "advocacy group". What's it advocating? (Other than human rights and other goodness in line with the UN Charter). I appreciate there are "pro" and "anti" POVs on it, but surely as a UN-accredited organization it is a notable player and source, particularly on UN-related matters. Alexbrn ^{talk|contribs|COI} 06:45, 25 April 2013 (UTC)

alex - i agree that there is more than meets the eye here. there are dozens of groups that are 'acceptable' to wikipedia, and dozens more that are not. often, there is no rhyme or reason. it should really be clarified. Soosim (talk) 08:26, 25 April 2013 (UTC)

The same argument "What's it advocating? (Other than human rights and other goodness in line with the UN Charter)" could be applied to countless other organisations, including ones soosim has personally have been involved in deleting from the encyclopedia. Q Alex - "UN-accredited" seems to be a self-published claim coming from the organization itself - I would be interested to see if a third party RS would report the same and what significance they would put on it. Dlv999 (talk) 09:26, 25 April 2013 (UTC)

On advocacy, quite. So I do not understand why this is being given as a reason for automatic disqualification of the source. It appears the United Nations keeps an "active roster of affiliated NGOs" that it "associates" with, and UN Watch is on it (or at least was at the time of this UN news release). Alexbrn ^{talk|contribs|COI} 09:59, 25 April 2013 (UTC)

dlv - thanks for pointing that out. and that is exactly my point. not sure i want to say "all or none" but i am pretty sure it is more than a few which should be included. it will make for a good discussion as to the criteria, but as is, we are no where but lost. Soosim (talk) 10:06, 25 April 2013 (UTC)

@ Alex, I see there are 1,558 associated NGOs and that is just for one particular UN department (PUBLIC INFORMATION DEPARTMENT), I don't think that it would be justifiable to say they are all suitable to be regarded as RS. My reading of policy is basically this: Advocacy groups are not RS for facts. Like almost every self published source they can be used as RS for their own opinion, but what is needed is some indication of the notability of the opinion for any given topic. For the UN watch article page UN watch opinion is inherently notable as that is the topic, but elsewhere we would need some third party RS such as a news organisation reporting their opinion to indicate notability. Most advocacy groups pump out a lot of self-published material promoting their agenda. Not all of the material is suitable for inclusion in the encyclopedia. The objective way to decide what is notable for inclusion is to see what has been reported as notable by third party RS such as news media and scholarship. Dlv999 (talk) 10:44, 25 April 2013 (UTC)

Surely whether it's RS or not would be evaluated as normal - in relation to whatever material is was supporting. It would be okay for some things, not for others; and more extraordinary claims would need corroboration or to be cited by better sources. Alexbrn ^{talk|contribs|COI} 11:30, 25 April 2013 (UTC)

What I have described is the normal approach for self-published material from advocacy groups (in the range of articles I am involved with at least). I can't imagine a situation in which UN Watch would be an appropriate RS for facts in the Wiki voice without attribution, but if an editor believes there is a situation where this is appropriate they are free to make the case based on wikipedia and policy and source evidence. Dlv999 (talk) 15:53, 25 April 2013 (UTC)

dlv - you have described amnesty and hrw, for example... Soosim (talk) 17:34, 25 April 2013 (UTC)

Geez, you think Soosim and I had NOT already discussed this issue in depth at Talk:Students_for_Justice_in_Palestine#the_adl_as_RS. In general advocacy groups websites are not WP:RS for facts and opinions, except a few that have been singled out on WP:RSN like ADL and SPLC and HRW and Amnesty, and even they can be challenged sometimes, like if it's a nasty opinion piece about a BLP and not a documented report. How many times do we have to explain policy? Reread WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT.

So a group like UN Watch which is "affiliated with the American Jewish Committee[6][7] and sponsored by the World Jewish Congress.[8]" - both well known advocacy groups - does not pass muster unless it is quoted in WP:RS. And in a BLP like this its close connection to two highly partisan groups must be mentioned per WP:BLP, something I just added back in an appropriate place. We can't mislead people into thinking this is some neutral human rights group constantly attacking a living person, after all. CarolMooreDC🗽 18:46, 25 April 2013 (UTC)

On which subjects would you say the American Jewish Committee and World Jewish Congress are partisan? Drsmoo (talk) 22:20, 25 April 2013 (UTC)

Their articles explain far better than I can: American Jewish Committee and World Jewish Congress. CarolMooreDC🗽 23:23, 25 April 2013 (UTC)

Could you give it a shot? Drsmoo (talk) 00:04, 26 April 2013 (UTC)

All I would do would be to quote the articles as not to encourage a round of WP:Soapbox. The articles more than adequately make the point above. CarolMooreDC🗽 03:12, 26 April 2013 (UTC)

Foreign Policy is not as reliable a source as al Jazeera? I seriously cannot believe I just read such nonsense. It would seem that the definition of "reliable" in this instance is "the source which makes Falk look less bad". Moreover, the statements from a particular individual in the comment section are so biased that she should immediately be disqualified from rendering judgments as to what should and shouldn't be allowed in this entry. Calling Scott McConnell a foreign policy expert is a joke and the claim that UN Watch is only accepted as "quasi-reputable" because of the supposed machinations of a "pro-Israel" cabal is not only factually challenged but comes very close to anti-Semitism. The individual making such claims shouldn't be allowed to come within a mile of this entry.74.134.160.246 (talk) 06:08, 10 October 2013 (UTC)

Making article more NPOV per WP:BLP

• • First I am avoiding studying new referenced material for accuracy, WP:Undue and other opinions, etc. cause just don't have time energy tonight.
• I changed "Controversies and criticism" section to "Reception" per Wikipedia:NPOV#cite_note-1 which reads:

Article sections devoted solely to criticism, and pro-and-con sections within articles, are two commonly cited examples. There are varying views on whether and to what extent such structures are appropriate; see guidance on thread mode, criticism, pro-and-con lists, and the criticism template. And Wikipedia:Criticism elaborates more on this. This consideration is especially true for WP:BLP.

• I changed the deceptive "International diplomatic condemnation" to "US, Canadian and Israeli government criticism", though if the rather tortured phrase "diplomatic condemnation" is that special to you, change it. The US and its two client states Israel and Canada can hardly be called an International phenomena and I'd like to see a WP:RS that calls it that.
• If you can provide a source that says Falk actually resigned you can change that section header back.
• Obviously the article can't just be a place for supporters of Israel to dump on a critics and I'm sure those at WP:BLPN would agree. So I will soon add a separate section listing sources that have more positive analysis of Falk's career and opinions and do something with them soon if no one else gets around to it. CarolMooreDC 02:00, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

I've tagged the Response to reception section as non-neutral. Two whole paragraphs devoted entirely to the Israeli ambassador's statement following the Falk appointment is clearly WP:UNDUE. The Israeli viewpoint needs to be significantly trimmed so that it is proportionate to the other significant views on the issue. Dlv999 (talk) 10:05, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

I have trimmed the material and removed the tag. Description of the Israeli statement is probably still overlong given undue weight, but at least it is now within reason. Also, I removed the "US, Canadian and Israeli government criticism" section, because the material was just a rehash of the points that are already covered in a balanced manner in the 2012 UN Investigations and reports section. I can see no justification for repeating all the negative comments from that section and presenting them in an unbalanced manner in an entirely new section. (The response of Israel to the report was not previously covered so I moved that to the the relevant section.) Dlv999 (talk) 10:14, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for noticing things I didn't. I think may be we need to create an "activism" section under life and work (which does need more on his professorial/writing career). We also can just remove the request for resignation sectioning cause that was just UN watch yelling antisemitism again, and HRW asking for a resignation at that time, refusing to say that HRW had anything to do with it, which really is the bottom line story. Another project for another day... CarolMooreDC 20:14, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

I agree. I would prefer to see the material worked into one of the other sections. There is some good stuff about his activism and his professional career in this source [2] pp119 Dlv999 (talk) 20:45, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

That was first on my list, because it's already in there. And I'm sure there's lots more via books and scholar google and highbeam and questia. So much research, so little time. CarolMooreDC 22:55, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for bringing it to my attention DLV999, I didn't see that the 2012 section included information condemning the report SimplesC (talk) 22:22, 17 February 2013 (UTC)

The statements from those opposed to the inclusion of certain criticisms of Falk's statements are, in a word, ridiculous. Falk is appointed solely to look into the alleged human rights abuses of one country, Israel, and the response of the Israeli ambassador to this appointment is labeled Undue Weight? You have got to be freakin kidding me? The views of the country that is being investigated would seem to be "proportionate[ly]" more noteworthy than nation-states not being investigated. Such a statement should be obvious. But that would involve including even more condemnations of statements, widely recognized as anti-Semitic, made by Falk and we just can't have that, can we? Even worse than that whitewash is the fact that an individual who actually labels Israel and Canada "client states" of the US is being allowed to make determinations as to what is non-neutral and what isn't. If that isn't an example of the proverbial wolf guarding the henhouse, nothing is. And people wonder why this site isn't taken seriously. The same commenter's attestation that only the US, Canada and Israel have substantively criticized Falk is a falsehood so blatant that it has to be intentional. And according to this same person, again, this entry can't be a site simply for "supporters of Israel"(again we see the insidious smear that those criticizing Falk are merely covering for Israel) to "dump on" Falk, yet it can be a place where the works of Falk are lauded and Falk himself is lionized and placed in a "positive light". Nah, that isn't biased, not one bit. To further this end, another commenter cites a 14 year old source that contains absolutely nothing concerning the widespread condemnation of Falk's anti-Semitism. The repeated assertions, both implicit and explicit, that criticism of Falk's anti-Semitism is simply limited to those shilling for Israel, should be called out for what they are: a disingenuous load of bullshit of the variety that often veers extremely close to overt anti-Semitism. One commenter has taken to labeling virtually every criticism of Falk as nothing more than the overreaction of a bunch of uppity Jews. The use of the term "yelling" in reference to UN Watch is another, of many, perfect examples of this. Such an individual should not have such a free hand in editing this entry. That she often tries to shroud her bias in Wikipediaese doesn't make it any less obvious or objectionable. 74.134.160.246 (talk) 07:14, 10 October 2013 (UTC)

You should read WP:TALK and rewrite your comments inline with that guideline. No one should have to read your personal opinions about the real world here. That's what blogs are for. You need to make specific suggestions detailing proposed changes to the article based on reliable sources and Wikipedia's policies. Sean.hoyland - talk 07:35, 10 October 2013 (UTC)

I am making suggestions regarding this entry. I have clearly stated that various edits should have not been undertaken because particular editors are shockingly biased. I have stated that removal of the statement from the Israeli ambassador, and the reasons given, are ridiculous and the edit should therefore be undone. I have objected to the inclusion of particular sources and statements that are too biased in favor of Falk. Pretty much everything I mention in the above comment is either regarding the bias of editors, editorial decisions and the material that should or shouldn't be included in the entry. Absolutely nothing written in the above comment is unrelated to this entry. In other words, your criticism is a total joke completely lacking in merit. Get back to me when you can find a single portion of my comment that doesn't have to do with the entry. Yeah, good luck with that.74.134.160.246 (talk) 07:44, 10 October 2013 (UTC)

Have it your own way. Your current approach will give you the opportunity to learn what can be achieved here through belligerence, soapboxing and not following talk page guidelines. Sean.hoyland - talk 07:56, 10 October 2013 (UTC)

Yeah, you really addressed my response. As for citing reliable sources for proposed changes, I see approximately zero reliable sources cited in regards to changes being proposed by the editors to whom I am responding. What I do see is their personal opinions being put forth(and acted upon) as to why this entry should be edited in a fashion that suits them. Disagree with the substance of the criticism directed at Falk? Easy, just label it Undue Weight. Don't like the fact that so many people have criticized Falk? Well, we can just trim that down by making bogus BLP claims. You have sources to back those claims you say? Well, let's just arbitrarily label those sources as unreliable. Problem solved. The notion that you can just arbitrarily cite, without merit, Wikipedia rules and then change the entry to your liking is pure nonsense. The same editors use their baseless accusation of various rules violations, by themselves, as evidence of those violations, so that they can trim whatever the hell they personally don't like about the article. It isn't just confined to this one comment section. My comment is written in objection to these changes, which is why the assertion I am treating this page like a blog, rather than suggesting changes to the entry, is so ridiculous, to put it mildly. And unlike them, I haven't tried to shape this entry to conform to my own personal biases, biases which they have made very clear without reference to the "reliable sources" you claim to care so much about, but whose absence you have yet to object. What I do see are vague allusions to various references that they will mention at a later time. However my objection to their extremely biased changes (ever single change they have made has redounded to the benefit of Falk and his reputation)is not the greater issue. The real issue is the fact that their statements in both this, and other sections of the comment page, should disqualify them entirely from editing this page.74.134.160.246 (talk) 08:14, 10 October 2013 (UTC)

Israel Propaganda

Seems like this whole article was written by a bunch of israeli students pid by the government. Can someone please remove all the editorial crap and emphasis. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.203.194.36 (talk) 15:02, 23 March 2014 (UTC)

He's antagonized a lot of people over the years, and as long as it's relevant and covered in reliable sources then it can be included in Wikipedia. AnonMoos (talk) 04:01, 25 March 2014 (UTC)

I concur. Criticism is not propaganda. If there are problems with the page, it is in the poor organisation of the material, and insufficient attention to the formation of his ideas that form the backdrop for the various positions he has adopted.Nishidani (talk) 11:14, 25 March 2014 (UTC)

I agree with the last two colleagues above. Wikipedia is not censored. Terms like "propaganda" will not enhance your reputation in the community, IP, if you wish to be taken seriously. Your sense of WP:AGF needs revisiting too. Facts are a multi-edged blade. They cut in all directions, often inconvieniently to one's POV. Attributing all your percieved issues with the article to a "bunch of israeli (sic) students pid (sic) by the government" bodes ill for your future on WP. Irondome (talk) 01:07, 7 August 2014 (UTC)

Regardless of your view on Israel Falk is a very controversial figure for his extreme-left political views and defense of terrorism. He was condemned by the UN Sec Gen, Canada, US, EU, and even the PA (for being too pro-Hamas). Here's some stuff on that. But yeah, he wasn't popular for MANY reasons, none of which can be trivialized as "propaganda". . --monochrome_monitor 02:46, 7 August 2014 (UTC)