Hosta

Hillel Neuer

Hillel Neuer (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Puff piece about person who is not independently notable. All press mentions are related to UN Watch, nothing about anything Neuer has done. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 23:58, 6 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 04:26, 7 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 04:26, 7 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Switzerland-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 04:26, 7 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 04:26, 7 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep I rarely vote "keep" at BLP AfD's, but, while I agree that this is a shitty article in need of clean up, Neuer does seem to pass WP:GNG. He's been published in multiple notable media. Joefromrandb (talk) 00:38, 8 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Neutral (changed from "keep"). Upon a more-thorough examination of the sources, I'm no longer fully convinced of his notability. Joefromrandb (talk) 01:41, 8 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Meet WP:GNG For example [1] [2] also meets WP:AUTHOR as widely quoted in WP:RS--Shrike (talk) 09:24, 9 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. He is covered as a subject here - [3] [4] [5] - as well as being very widely covered for his duties at UN Watch.Icewhiz (talk) 09:25, 9 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect to the its original target article. Come on guys, be objective (like Joefromrandb) please. You cannot pass those interviews and the subject's own material off as passing GNG; we all know those are primary sources. And whoever wrote this article may have mislead you: hardly any of the sources in the article actually describe the subject! The UN Watch is notable but notability is not inherited hence a redirect is the only reasonable solution when we evaluate this puff piece objectively.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 10:19, 9 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Seems a bit too obvious and clear to even explain the reasoning. Per users Shrike and Icewhiz, who provided useful addtional links that should be integrated into the article. Yambaram (talk) 10:51, 9 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• I encourage editors to read WP:NOPAGE and consider whether Neuer is ever in the news without being cited as the embodiment of UN Watch. Is it his opinion that is widely published, or are policy briefs from UN Watch being widely republished? — MShabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 12:01, 9 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comments: Before I begin I will state that this article should be scrutinized in depth. As it stands consensus is leaning towards keep. I might not have even looked at it but for the changed !vote expressing notability doubts, on an article with 38 references, and considering the nominators comments. Otr500 (talk) 14:43, 9 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Indeed, this is a puff piece (note the paragraph I just removed...typical of such articles), and the cited sources all cite him as the boss of the organization he runs, which was the reason for the redirect in the first place. In that respect he is like the non-notable member of a notable band, where we also redirect to the band. Delete, or maybe merge some of the material if that isn't already in the (also puffy) UN Watch article. Drmies (talk) 16:32, 9 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I have already run into refbombing issues. Most of the time references concern content, but WP:OVERCITE can be an issue of masking. Otr500 (talk) 16:53, 9 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• The second reference establishes through reliable sourcing the subject is the Executive Director of UN Watch. Since that has not been contested there only needs to be one or two if relevant but references 3 through 6 (4 of them) appear agenda based and certainly appear as weasel references. Otr500 (talk) 17:06, 9 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete or at most Redirect to UN Watch. Notability isn't inherited, so being executive director of a notable organisation doesn't automatically make one notable enough for a stand-alone article, only notable enough for a redirect to the organisation. If even that... - Tom | Thomas.W ^talk 17:29, 9 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment: I find it important to note that since the article has been updated with additional links and information and now meets all WP:BLP criteria, the argument that "he's only the executive director of this org" may be less relevant than before. Yambaram (talk) 07:42, 10 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect to UN Watch. The first 20 media sources I found mentioning Neuer do so in the context of UN Watch. Binksternet (talk) 18:17, 9 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• The fact he has a highly prominent role in UN Watch does not preclude notability as a person. The top-20 media hits of just about any long-time leader of an organization (or company, country, etc.) would typically be to the person in the context of the organization. The question should be whether he is also covered as a person (which he is), and whether there is additional coverage (not actually necessary, but in this case - there is).Icewhiz (talk) 19:41, 9 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• But his notability as a person is wholly tied to his leadership of UN Watch. Per WP:NOPAGE, we should discuss Neuer's work at the UN Watch page, to make that article more complete. Binksternet (talk) 16:56, 10 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Well sourced article on widely published and widely cited human rights advocate who champions controversial causes. Note that Users Shrike and Icewhiz link to a long interview with Neuer in the Canadian Jewish News, Hillel Neuer: Jewish eyes on the United Nations, and to a profile in the Jerusalem Post A Zionist at the United Nations.E.M.Gregory (talk) 19:13, 9 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Israel-related deletion discussions.E.M.Gregory (talk) 19:16, 9 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep There appears to be enough WP:RS sourced in the article as mentioned above to fulfill WP:GNG. - Galatz^Talk 19:40, 9 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep he is notable, is in the news, and passes muster. He speaks and gives testimony and this should have been a snow keep from the start. I echo Icewhiz as well. Sir Joseph ^(talk) 19:47, 9 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect to UN Watch. We dont need an article on each and every selfpromoter out there. Huldra (talk) 20:04, 9 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• I fail to see how "selfpromoter" applies to Neuer, a man whose work is widely discussed by others. For example, Chapter 3 of Land of Blue Helmets: The United Nations and the Arab World, By Karim Makdisi, Vijay Prashad (University of Califonria Press, 2016), is by Richard Falk. Starting on p. 79, Falk details what he describes as Neuer's ongoing efforts to discredit Falk by documenting Falk's activities, documentation that Falk disparages, but, nevertheless, Falk credits Neuer's documentation of Falk's writing by Neuer with resulting in condemnations of Falk by Ban Ki-Moon, Susan Rice, Samantha Power. This backhanded homage to Neuer as a notable player at the U.N. from Falk, a vocal opponent of the Jewish State, is just one example of the WP:INDEPTH and WP:SIGCOV of Neuer's work in scholarly books and articles.E.M.Gregory (talk) 14:44, 10 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect.Try rewriting that garbled piece (' Falk credits Neuer's documentation of Falk's writing by Neuer') piece of nonsensical misreportage. Illustrating 'widely discussed' by citing a passing comment by Richard Falk, (someone who, unlike Hillel, is profoundly committed to human rights, as opposed to 'Jewish' rights only) dismissing his absurd monomaniacal brashness can, only in the most peculiar type of reading, be construed as 'crediting' Neuer in a kind of 'backhand homage' and proving in-depth scholarly coverage of Neuer's work. If you think a universally known Ban Ki-Moon is a Dutchman (Van Ki-Moon) perhaps you are googling too quickly to understand these topics. Nearly everything I google on Neuer and Falk, to take one topic, turns out to be a meme cycle going back to UN Watch's self-promotional garbage.Nishidani (talk) 15:34, 10 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for showing your bias Neuer does indeed give a lot of time to Israel, but that is because the UNHRC does. I did not know there is a large population of Jews in the Congo. Maybe you are just too focused on Israel to see where else the UN Watch, and Neuer, criticize the UNHRC. Regardless, it is quite clear that Neuer himself is notable. Sir Joseph ^(talk) 15:40, 10 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Your selective use of 'bias' reminds me of what David McLellan said of 'ideology'. Users of both words tend to think it refers to what people other than themselves display. As to Neuer's passionate concerns for human rights in the Congo, the details of that story were anticipated a century and a half ago by Charles Dickens in Bleak House. His marvelous caricature, Mrs Jellyby, is passionately devoted to human rights in the Congo, much to the negligence and detriment of her household and the children in its backyard. The whole logic of inanity in these things is summed up best by a simile.If a mafia thug goes public, joining a general chorus of outraged complaints that some chap in the city is given to punching up his neighbours, that fellow would be entitled to come back screaming 'hypocrisy'. A neutral observer would say that both are pseudo-moralists, since they decry behavior they themselves engage in, and do so only to take the heat out of criticism of their own continued and committed contempt for an ethical life.Nishidani (talk) 16:39, 10 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

OMG can you go anywhere, Sir Joseph, without throwing in "bias" as if it is magic pixie dust? At any rate that dust seems to have clouded your vision: you are actually supporting the argument that the subject's notability is intertwined with that of his organization, and thus I take your comment as support for a redirect. Drmies (talk) 16:59, 10 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

"someone who, unlike Hillel, is profoundly committed to human rights, as opposed to 'Jewish' rights only)" is a biased statement. That you can't see it as such is not surprising. It is disgusting on Nishidani's part to claim that the Neuer is only concerned with Jewish people. Just today UN Watch released a critique of Iran's representative. And no, just because Neuer is executive director of UN Watch, doesn't mean that is his only notability. And you speak of clouded vision, when it's clear that Nishidani's vision is so clouded that he will take any opportunity to put in an anti-Israel comment and pontificate given the opportunity to do so. Again, when someone defends Falk and says Neuer is not committed to human rights, that is bias, and that has no place here. Sir Joseph ^(talk) 17:06, 10 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Give me one, just one, example of UN Watch and, specifically, Hillel Neuer speaking directly of their concerns for the systematic injustices meted out to Palestinians over 50 years of military occupation, and I might believe you. For it is commonplace for the very men who execute these policies, on retirement, like Ami Ayalon, Carmi Gillon and Yuval Diskin to come out publicly(also here) and state that the disastrous effect of this dehumanization is a threat to Israel's democracy. If the Shin Bet, Israel's intelligence service, admits Palestinian human rights are systematically abused, and praised soldiers who blow the whistle, Neuer, who kept nagging at Richard Falk for saying precisely this, which is obvious, if he is, as claimed, a 'human' rights activist, should have an equally strong record of speaking up along similar lines rather than branding decent men who happen to be Jewish 'anti-Semites'. I can find none. All I can find is that the external enemies of Israel are targeted for their human rights abuses. To note this is not 'bias'. My comments are not 'anti-Israel', any more than marching in anti-war protests during the Vietnam war, as millions of Americans did, is proof I was 'anti-American. Nishidani (talk) 18:27, 10 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Note that some editors appear to be drawing their descriptions of Neuer from aggressively anti-Israel sources,such as Washington Report on Middle East Affairs, which has described Neuer as UN Watch's "self-promoting" director". However, unlike Nishidani, the Washington Report on Middle East Affairs has the honesty to assert that because Neuer and UN Watch had been criticized for "general insouciance about the U.N.'s work in any context other than Israel. Sensitive to that criticism, it has indeed worked with other organizations to highlight human rights abusers" in other parts of the world. Note also that published criticism of Neuer underscores his notability.E.M.Gregory (talk) 18:57, 10 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Indeed, and typical of Nishidani. Reading his comment one would assume that it's only Neuer calling out Falk. One just has to do a quick google search to see all the other government and UN officials calling out Falk and his antisemitism. Sir Joseph ^(talk) 19:03, 10 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]