Talk:Human Rights Watch/Archive 1

This is an archive of past discussions about Human Rights Watch. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

-Human Rights Watch has for long been one of my favorite fairly NPOV sources of information. They have always been sort of absolutist in their judgements: they don't seem to allow for any circumstances whatsoever in which a soldier might legitimately kill a civilian, whereas I might excuse it if the civilian were repeatedly stabbing the soldier with a carving knife.

Nice joke, but I think you've got the wrong end of the stick (or breadknife?) here. If a person is repeatedly stabbing a soldier with a breadknife then they're surely a "combatant" rather than a civilian?! HRW is not a pacifist organisation, nor do they deny a person's right to self-defence.80.43.14.68 09:40, 5 October 2005 (UTC)

-Recently I've been alarmed by some of the POV rants embedded in what seem to be NPOV reports. It's like a bunch of field workers submit perfectly lovely reports, and then a party agent or manager lays a thick curtain of goo over the top.
-Could someone do me a favor? read the following report--it's not too long, though the actions described are repugnant--and see if you can find evidence to contradict my observations.
HRW report on Serbian rapes of Kosovar Albanians
-The report states clearly many times that the abuses were organized and part of the national effort to intimidate Albanians "as weapons of war and instruments of systematic "ethnic cleansing." ". Yet I see no shred of the usual forms of evidence that would be used to prove this:

• An interview with a high-level army official
• a printed order

-It says that the crimes were so widespread--96 plus unguessably many more--that they must have been organized, but given the hypothetical set-up:

1. Thousands of 16-25 year old males
2. ordered to rape tens or hundreds of thousands of women
3. as an intimidation effort, which means that private rape is pointless

-I would expect quite a few more rapes and thousands more witnesses.
-Does the report offer any justification at all for its conclusions, beyond clear speculation? I.e "They must have known..." the librarian

Agreed..It was bad, but I think they've jumped to conclusions too quickly.

Thoughts re HRW and similar is that a pattern tends to emerge, one I think we've seen in regard to Amnesty International as well.

Initially, they gained a lot of respect for honestly good work. They deserved it. However, since about the 1980s, I'm getting the impression that AI (particularly) and HRW have become captive to their fame. Now, they almost reflexively follow whatever political agenda may be popular at the time (typically, but not always, liberals), declaring it to be a matter of human rights.

It could be argued that AI lost a lot of what made them great once they expanded beyond political prisoners into far greyer areas.

HRW, similarly, seems to have become rather trapped by the environment they travel in (primarily, in the US, the Democratic Party). If they didn't take sides, and actively made an effort to stay out of the limelight (instead just getting their work to people who could do something), I'd respect them. --Penta 00:08, 3 Jun 2004 (UTC)

I'm just curious but exactly what is wrong with the human rights watch? Human rights = individual rights. Therefore it's imperative for the organization to support human rights. This would of course go contrary to most people who don't believe in individual rights. If human rights are conditional instead of absolute than their organization would be called the human rights conditional watch or something similar? --blurryeye 18:50, 25 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Generally, as they've become more assertive about protecting human rights, they've inevitably ended up treading on various American ideological toes, such as the death penalty, abstinence-only sex education, etc. Whereas protecting the human rights of political prisoners is uncontroversial in the U.S. (at least it was before Guantanamo and Abu Ghraib), a more complete advocacy of human rights must inevitably be branded "taking sides" and "following a liberal agenda" from those who feel that any criticism of the U.S. is unseemly. —Ashley Y 23:15, 2005 Apr 2 (UTC)

That Human Rights Watch is a human rights organization is a truth; that it has no ideological bent is a flat out lie. There is nothing objective in the position that allowing the killing of murderers as punishment for their crimes violates human rights, while not allowing the killing of unborn babies in the form of abortion does the same. This is a left-wing POV, just as the Christian Coalition's reverse view (pro-Death Penalty and anti-Abortion) is a right-wing POV. Demanding that prisoners be allowed condoms in prison is an issue worthy of debate, but it is not a "human rights" issue. Opposing the "humiliation" of convicted sex-offenders by giving them distinctive license plates is a worthwhile topic of debate, but it is not a "human rights" issue. Supporting greater penalties for perpetrators of "Hate Crimes," where those who commit crimes against "minorities" (inc. whites with Spanish surnames) are given harsher sentences is not objectively a "human rights" issue, and libertarians overwhelmingly oppose such measures. That the fact that black males commit a disproportionate amount of violent crime, and are therefore disproportionately represented in prisons and in the serving of long sentences, does not objectively amount to "human rights" violations (see Race and Incarcartion in the United States, a 27 February 2002 report). That defining marriage as being between one man and one woman amounts to "human rights" violations is a left-wing POV, not an objective one (esp. given that traditional Mormons are prohibited from marrying multiple people and the HRW has no problem with that form of discrimination).

Many if not most of its stances are objectively pro-human rights, but not all are. It is a lie to say the above positions taken by HRW are either objective or non-ideological.

Cryptico 2005 June 12

That's funny. I'm a human rights lawyer, and I doubt anyone in my shop would have trouble classifying each of those as human rights issues without any kind of stretch. *However*, this is not the end of the story. Something may be a "human rights issue" without that necessarily dictating the proper determination of the issue. The fact remains, unfortunately, that few people treat rights as rights, rather than privileges to be doled out or withheld depending on circumstance or approval of the claimant. That's not how it's supposed to work, but it does.

I agree. 199 22:50, 12 Jun 2005 (UTC)

But there's no such thing as "objectively pro-human rights" anyway. To be pro-human rights is an ideology the same as any other moral position. —Ashley Y 01:40, 2005 Jun 13 (UTC)

Also, HRW may or may not be liberal (no great surprise if so, since human rights are central to liberalism, almost a common thread between the different strands), but they can hardly be called left-wing. —Ashley Y 01:52, 2005 Jun 13 (UTC)

Then why is this organization called a human rights organization, if there's no such thing, objectively, as "human rights"? Human rights are important to liberals and conservatives alike, but giving murderers the same consideration as innocents and giving unborn babies no consideration at all is hardly non-ideological. Being anti-death penalty and pro-abortion can objectively be called "left-wing," just as the reverse can objectively be called "right-wing." Why not call them anti-human rights since they are against unborn babies having any? If you're going to play the relativism game, then don't even bother to call this group a "human rights" organization.

Cryptico 13 June 2005

Because there is such a thing, subjectively, as human rights. It's what people feel humans should be entitled to by way of legal protections etc. There's consensus about this, by and large, but it's not a perfect consensus, so there'll be disagreements as you point out. HRW represents one particular set of opinions on that, but of course others feel differently. —Ashley Y 06:02, 2005 Jun 13 (UTC)

And there is such a thing, subjectively, as a liberal activist group, even if there is no universal "consensus" as to what exactly a "liberal" issue is. That same-sex marriage and abortion on demand and harsher penalties for whites who murder blacks than for blacks who murder whites are considered "human rights" issues by HRW, when there is NO consensus or anything like a consensus for these points of view, shows it to be a human rights/liberal group. That you happen to agree with them doesn't change that fact.:Cryptico 2005 June 18

Ashley, thanks, you clarified a few things for me. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.237.204.197 (talk • contribs) 05:17, 22 October 2005 (UTC)

"Human Rights Watch's specialty is the production of authoritative research reports on human rights violations, which are used to shame governments ". Sounds a bit POV right? I don't edit much as I have no time so could someone clear the article up and add more sections like current goals and criticism and all that. Thanx. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.105.76.242 (talk • contribs) 06:26, 25 October 2005 (UTC)

I just heard the ED of Human Rights Watch on the NPR lecture series presented by syndicator Alternative Radio. I thought that HRW was an international advocate of human rights, but the Director's response to almost every human rights problem in the world seemed to be that it was "America's fault" each and every time. Not once in an almost two-hour lecture did he criticize any other government besides the US government -- it was astounding. It was CIA this, FBI that, State Department this, Air Force that -- I thought I was listening to somebody from International A.N.S.W.E.R. Was this just an isolated lecture, or is this the HRW position every day? Morton devonshire 21:38, 31 December 2005 (UTC)

Actually, they're pretty savage towards everybody. Maybe he was having a bad day and just decided to lay into the US. They seem to have firmed up on the US, as it has been crucial in opposing many key human rights instruments such as the ICC and UN framework conventions against torture, landmines and other human rights abuses. If you're still a bit skeptical, which is fair enough. their website is worth a visit and spells out their positions fairly well. They do take sides, but only on the side of human rights - they were quite critical of the Clinton administration in the US for similar reasons. Mostlyharmless

But it is not objectively "pro-human rights" to support abortion-on-demand, which involves the killing of an innocent human life. Nor is it objectively "pro-human rights" to support same-sex marriage while taking no stand whatsoever on polygamous marriage. It is not objectively "pro-human rights" to oppose sex offenders having to identify themselves as such on their license plates. Ashley's convoluted postings in defending their left-wing, non-human rights positions as not being left wing show the lengths some will go to deny the obvious. -- Gerkinstock 04:29, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

HRW criticizes much more than just the US, Israel and their allies. Check out HRW's webiste, Syria, Iran, and extra-state actors like Hezbollah, among others, come under attack. However, the US, being the world's superpower and the major player on the world stage, waging wars for manufactured reasons, supporting dictatorships, and engaging in direct and indirect torture, terrorism, and mass murder, especially while claiming to support, supposedly supporting, and fighting for democracy and human rights it is bound to come under the heaviest criticism of all. Regardless, in the US it seems that anything that is even remotely critical of US policies, its actions, or it leaders is labeled "anti-American" even though what is criticized are the policies, actions, and/or leaders specifically not the US in general. - 23 September 2006 64.180.14.34

At least one of these changes was explicitly requested on this talk page, while the others seemed to be hinted at. I've removed the traces of everything that appears to be biased POV. If everyone approves, it would be nice to get the POV flag down at some point.

Here is what I changed, and why:

Human Rights Watch is a U.S.-based international human rights non-governmental organization headquartered in New York City that conducts advocacy and research on human rights issues.

To

Human Rights Watch is a U.S.-based human rights non-governmental organization that conducts research on human rights. Its headquarters are in New York City.

Awkward sentence

Human Rights Watch's specialty is the production of authoritative research reports on human rights violations, usually intended to draw international attention to abuses, and to put pressure on governments and international organizations to prevent further violations of human rights.

To

Human Rights Watch produces research reports on perceived human rights violations. This is intended to draw international attention to abuses and to put pressure on governments and international organizations to reform.

Words like "specialty" "authoritative" and declaring the fact of human rights violation or abuses(without a qualifer like perceived) all violate POV. Many would argue that it isn't their specialty, that the reports are not authoritative, and that many of what Human Rights Watch fights against are not actual violations. To assert any of this as fact would be a biased POV.

Researchers conduct fact-finding missions to countries investigate violations and generate extensive coverage in local and international media.

To

Researchers conduct fact-finding missions to investigate suspect situations and generate coverage in local and international media.

Again, the usage of "violations" here as if it were fact, rather than suspicion, is biased POV. The claim that the coverage is "extensive" is biased POV as well.

Major issues raised by the organization in its reports include social and gender discrimination, torture, military use of children, government corruption, and abuses in criminal justice systems in many nations. It also specializes in documenting and reporting violations of the laws of armed conflict and international humanitarian law.

To

Issues raised by the organization in its reports include social and gender discrimination, torture, military use of children, government corruption, and abuses in criminal justice systems. Human Rights Watch documents and reports perceived violations of the laws of armed conflict and international humanitarian law.

If the issues are "major" is subjective. If the violations are real is subjective, again. Its a matter of perception, and duly noted.

Each year, Human Rights Watch gives grants to writers all over the world who have been victims of political persecution and are in financial need.

To

Each year, Human Rights Watch gives grants to writers worldwide who are in financial need and who they consider to have been victims of persecution.

This is biased POV because it asserts that they have been victims of political persecution, which of course is one-sided and easily disputed depending on the issue (many would state that they were just criminals). Thus, I've put the qualifier "who they consider" so it doesn't state it as absolute fact. I've also reworded the sentence to make it less awkward.

Human Rights Watch is a founding member of the International Freedom of Expression Exchange, a global network of non-governmental organisations that monitors censorship worldwide and campaigns to defend journalists, writers, Internet users and others who are persecuted for exercising their right to freedom of expression.

To

Human Rights Watch is a founding member of the International Freedom of Expression Exchange, a global network of non-governmental organizations that monitor censorship worldwide.

The entire section about journalists, writers, etc. being persecuted and having a right to freedom of expression has been removed. HRW and the IFEE do not defend all of those parties, only those it chooses to. In addition, the concept of a "right to freedom of expression" is subjective and biased, not one that is universally endorsed. As is these parties being "persecuted."

Human Rights Watch publishes detailed reports on several individual topics [2] and compiles annual reports ("World Report") presenting an overview of the worldwide state of human rights.

To

Human Rights Watch publishes reports on several topics [2] and compiles annual reports ("World Report") presenting an overview of the worldwide state of human rights.

If the reports are "detailed" is a matter of subjective opinion, thus biased. Individual is redundant. — Preceding unsigned comment added by ARoyal (talk • contribs) 23:26, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

This is just some non-notable guy with a website, right? There's no reason to include his link, is there? —Ashley Y 07:50, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

I've added the criticism question people have requested on the talk page so far. Hopefully that will balance the entry out more and give more information than the few sources that are directly off the HRW website. Very little of the new criticism section is my analysis of the criticism; most is direct quotes from the critics themselves. So it should conform to neutral POV well.

Wow. For such detailed criticism, there seems to be a distinct lack of response... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.103.124.22 (talk • contribs) 05:00, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

It is absurd that over half the Wikipedia entry on Human Rights Watch is devoted to coverage of criticism of HRW for its alleged pro-Palestinian bias! Whatever you think about Human Rights Watch's writings on the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, there are many, many other issues that HRW deals with, and, for that matter, many other areas in which HRW has been criticized.

If Wikipedia really believes that the issue of HRW's alleged anti-Israel bias is so important, then a separate entry for that issue should be created. Furthermove, any discussion of this issue should devote at least an equal amount of attention to what HRW actually says about Israel and Palestine as to the criticism of HRW by pro-Israel watchdogs.

--Peter FH 15:51, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

I agree. This article is nonsense. There is very little about what HRW acctually does compared to what people dont like about it. This article is completely useless in the context of wikipedia and no one who isn't looking for an argument would want to read it. HRW's criticism of Israel can easily be summed up in one sentence and the trash heap that is half this article can be deleted.--Musaabdulrashid 08:55, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

This section is seriously out of date. AI campaigns on small arms as part of the Control Arms campaign, as well as campaigning against discrimination on all grounds including HIV status, sexual preference and, specifically, women through the Stop Violence Against Women Campaign. I suggest the last paragraph be deleted unless someone can rewrite it to be more accurate. Donnacha 00:54, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

I've now taken out the Ana Palacio references. I looked at the original link; it has just one sentence, in passing, complaining that HRW hasn't covered incidents of anti-Semitism in Europe. This is not really a fair charge as HRW's mandate doesn't cover what is essentially local criminal violence. I also looked for a citation for Shimon Peres criticizing HRW, could not find one, so have removed that point as well. Tyronen 20:40, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

The Palacio material has been restored. Someone please provide some kind of justification for this or I will remove it again. Tyronen 15:19, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

this article gives way too much weight to the criticisms. for example a quantitative study might also reveal that Israel is one of the worst human rights abusers. maybe instructive to include comparisons to OTHER human rights groups. in each case what did the other ones say? are they all unanimous? are they all including B'Tselem biased against Israel? it's a very curious question.

"A quantitative study carried out by NGO Monitor asserted an anti-Israel bias as well."- quoted from the wikipedia article

—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 63.246.182.108 (talk • contribs) 16:50, 14 August 2006.

what is this? i was quoting the article. that wasn't anyone's comment. anyway i looked into the NGO monitor and their report. it's a joke. they also think the International Court of Justice is biased. you can sum up that whole paragraph in one sentance...several pro isreali groups criticize HRW for being biased against Israel. that's how that works.

NGO monitor has a Pro-Israeli bias. They themselves are not an unbiased organization. Jlee562 18:23, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

Besides the fact that they are biased for criticizing Israel for a massacre that never took place and ignoring terrorism against Israel, YOU CANNOT DELETE FACTS. Whether you think it puts to much is a matter of POV, DO NOT REMOVE ACTUAL FACTS. --Shamir1 23:59, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

To Shamir1: There are many Wikipedia standards for articles. A criticism section belongs in this article, but it should be proportional to a general reader's views and necessities. The current section seems much too long to justify this. --67.38.35.89 05:23, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

It is understandable why Israel would be a major target for criticism considering it is 1 of the major human rights violators in the world and has been throughout its over half century of occupation of Palestine. However, HRW has indeed criticized those who have targetted Israel as report indicates. - 23 September 2006 64.180.14.34

I removed a couple sentences claiming that HRW did not condemn Hezbollah during the 2006 Lebanon war. This is demonstrably false. See here and here and this PDF and HRW's related criticism of Iran and Syria. Tyronen 23:11, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

The "negative viewpoint" link just added should really be written up into the main article, with this defence from the LA Times also referenced. Donnacha 10:30, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

Quite aside from the question of whether they belong in a separate article, there are other problems with the criticism section. Some of the same information is presented more than once.

• Paragraph 2: The second CAMERA citation merely points to the first, which is basically a summary of the NGO monitor study described in paragraph 6. As is, it is misleading as it implies CAMERA has done a study of its own.
• Paragraph 3: likewise, based largely on NGO Monitor (para. 6) and Gerard Steinberg's material from paragraph 9.
• Paragraph 4: ADL's web site is down right now, so impossible to evaluate.
• Paragraph 5: AIJAC's criticism is found only in one sentence, which is refuted in the Wikipedia article.
• Paragraphs 6-8: these at least appear to have an actual basis and can remain.
• Paragraph 9: seems original but the link reveals that Gerard Steinberg is actually the editor of NGO Monitor, so it is not clear this can be decoupled from the preceding.
• Paragraph 10: Not sure why this is there, as Leibler is just another columnist, and the citation only mentions HRW in passing.
• Paragraph 11: Citation on ADL's web site which is down.

In fact, even paragraph 1 is quite misleading as it gives the impression of a chorus of independent criticisms, when what is actually cited is based almost entirely on two sources - NGO Monitor's studies and the allegations about the Durban conference.

I think paragraph 1 should be reworded, while 2,3,5, and 10 should be deleted entirely. If that were done I'd be willing for the section to remain in this page and not a sub-article. Tyronen 21:04, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

Another problem:I think it should be noted that NGO Monitor belongs to the Jerusalem Center for Public Affairs, which charges itself with the purpose of "the need to present Israel's case in the wake of the renewed Palestinian violence." The wording throughout the criticisms section lists the criticisms without what seem like NPOV qualifiers. Would a correct way to address my grievances be to start a section entitled "Established Credibility", "Accomplishments", etc. and then cite numerous academics and media outlets that agree with me? 23:05, 23 August 2006 68.249.103.28

HRW has just come out against its accusers, notably the ADL and NGOmonitor, saying that their criticism lack any attempt at factual rebuttal, and that their criticisms amount to a claim that Israel should be above the rules of war. The document can be found [ http://hrw.org/english/docs/2006/08/30/isrlpa14094.htm here]. 125.237.74.41 23:01, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

Lets look at your last edit, Ashley:

You changed the phrase; Human Rights Watch has been criticized by human rights activists, non-governmental organizations, politicians, and the news media

to

Human Rights Watch has been criticized by various pro-Zionist organisations and individuals.

Why have you changed this? You've altered a factual statement - that human rights activists, NGOs, politicians, and the media have all criticized HRW - into a POV statement that they are all "pro-Zionist." While it could be argued that some are, "pro-Zionist" is a POV term for this article and is not accurate information when describing any one of these groups. Its completely inacurate and radical when describing some. Such as Anne Bayefsky, one of the leading human rights activists in the world today, as well as one of the leading scholars on human rights. She has been praised by the United Nations a number of times for her work. She can't be called "pro-Zionist" by any standard.

Shimon Peres is a politician, by definition. Yet, you've deleted "politician." Any justification for that? How about the FM of Spain? She's a politician too - yet again, you've deleted politician. While Peres is a Zionist, the term best used to describe Peres is "politician", not "pro-Zionist." Very POV. Ana Palacio, the FM of Spain, is not "pro-Zionist" in any sense of the word. She is a politician.

Honest Reporting and CAMERA are NGOs, by definition. Yet you've deleted non-governmental organizations. You may argue that they are pro-Zionist, but that would amount to "original research." This isn't how they define themselves, but rather a criticism of them. Thus, it should be listed as verifiable criticism under their own wikipedia entries, not in this one.

Jerusalem Post is a news source relied upon worldwide. Yet, you've deleted news media. I don't think you'll find a single source of repute that claims the Jerusalem Post is a "pro-Zionist" group. Rather, it is relied upon by foreign media worldwide when commenting on Israeli affairs.

Your changes are nothing short of vandalism and they violate verifiablity and POV. If you revert without justification and slander this entire group as "pro-Zionist" I'll have to request a lock on this article.

You didn't even spell organization right, btw. Do you spell check before you violate no POV in articles?

So revert it. I just did (although I forgot to sign in first) -Piro RoadKill 13:58, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for that. You got to it before me. Forgot to sign in myself. --ARoyal 14:11, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

To be perfectly honest, after reading the entire talk page, I am of the opinion, as is stated above, that Human Rights Watch is harshly critical of many, many governments, and that often criticism of a country's government would come off as seeming as if they are against that country. For this reason, I think, the criticism section seems disproportionately large to the rest of the article. In the interest of NPOV, I'd like to see the rest of the article expanded so it doesn't look as if the criticism section is given undue weight. --Kuzaar^-T-C- 18:42, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

I'm not seeing any human rights activists listed. I shall remove that phrase. —Ashley Y 18:46, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

OK, Bayefsky. I'll leave that. —Ashley Y 18:48, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

"You didn't even spell organization right, btw. Do you spell check before you violate no POV in articles?" - It may be difficult, but please try to understand that not everyone lives in North America. Thanks. --Van man 13:50, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

Going through this Wikipedia article I see that people have removed large parts of the criticism section with no discussion, save for what little ranting is above. People have been removed including leading scholars on Human Rights like Anne Bayfesky and Abraham Coper. A few of the edits may have been justified (see Ashley's removal of Elihai Braun), however there is no justification for the mass editing and removal that has occured to the criticism section. In fact, the editing to the criticism section has left the response to criticism section responding to things that have been edited out, such as the HRW involvement in the Durbin Conference on Racism and Xenophobia that Bayefesky commented on. I can understand if people want the criticism section shortened (thats been requested before, and I'm happy to oblige), however the shortening here has removed vital content that has made other parts of the article (see response section) nonsensical. I'm going to revert it; any large removals will need to be explained and justified. --ARoyal 09:20, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

I am one of those who shortened the section. The trouble is that more than two-thirds of the article is about criticisms of HRW, making the article clearly POV. It was not even a general criticism but specifically about Israeli-Palestinian issues, which are only a small part of HRW's work. If it is desired to keep this text in its entirety, could a separate article, Human Rights Watch and the Middle East or something be created? Tyronen 18:19, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

Actually a new article sounds like a wonderful idea to me. Rather than an article on HRW and the Middle East I could do an article on criticism of HRW. The way it has responded to human rights abuses in China, Tibet, various African nations, Islamic states, Haiti, Israel etc. are all of prime importance. I only wrote about HRW and Israel because it appears to be one of their larger problems. --ARoyal 15:52, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

Don't listen to what the obviously Arab moron says up there. Israel gets criticised three times more than the surrounding Arab nations. Is it just me, or do I see a double standard here? Even if Israel sends out terrorists and targets civilians (which they don't, don't get me wrong here), at least they APOLOGISE for killed noncombatants. Meanwhile, what do the other Arab nations do in these situations? Lalala. Exactly. The reason more Palestinians are dead than Israelis is because there are twice as many Palestinians in the area than Israelis, and that Israelis obviously have required military training in addition to weapons technology. It would be surprising if Israel had more casualties than the Palestinians, but then, in either case Israel loses. I would expect that, in a faceoff between an IDF soldier and a Palestinian terrorist, the IDF guard would win. Neither would you expect more casualties from the USMC than from the Iraqis in the Iraq war. So the idea of Israel massacreing Palestinians is an illusion that liberals like to espouse. Stop judging Israel with a double standard, you fools. 69.248.93.171 23:02, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

Removing the information from this article, in my eyes, is tantamount to whitewashing the NGO, making the new article nothing more than a POV fork. To have an article that in and of itself is a collection of such issues is not a bad idea per se, but not at the expense of “sanitizing” the parent articles. -- Avi 00:47, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

As I said on the AI talk page, I don't see how creating an entire article criticizing the NGOs can be called a "whitewash". In any case, this article originally had almost half of its contents devoted to the controversy over HRW's Israel. This gives readers the impression that HRW is an organization devoted to criticizing Israel, when in fact it covers dozens of countries. Furthermore, I didn't "remove" the material from the main page, I left a summary of the criticisms (which you were welcome to expand) and a link to the complete text. Even user ARoyal above (who I believe originally wrote the criticism section) was open to the idea of a separate article, although he wanted to add other criticisms as well. Thinking out loud here - could we do it that way? Split up the Human rights groups and the Middle East article into separate pieces on HRW and AI. Tyronen 14:05, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

I still believe the natural place for each is the parent article, and if it gets too large, a sub-article of the parent article like "Perceived bias of HRW" or something like that. I believe it mitigates the effect of the facts about each NGO were the criticisms lumped into one article predominantly. But that is only my opinion. Also, I think we should centralize this discussion somewhere. For the time being, talk:Human rights groups and the Middle East can serve, whether or not that becomes the main article, a secondary article, or should be put up for AfD. -- Avi 14:14, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

You people don't know anything about what the Israeli gov't does. If you don't know, HRW is funded by George Soros, a prominent anti-semetic and crackhead. For example, in the instance of tha Gaza bombings this summer, HRW completely ignored the fact that the calibers of the shells did not match Israeli calibers even as other international rights organisations, INCLUDING Amnesty International have admitted that there is much doubt surrounding the issue. Besides, though HRW does do other countries as well, its most well known because of its anti-Israel bias. The first reason, George Soros, has already been mentioned. The second reason is simply that the whole organisation is a liberal propaganda machine that advocates the rights of terrorists. Its simply 'cool' for a liberal to be criticising Israel these days. Israelis abuse human rights?!? PLEASE. Palestinians send their kids out with guns to go and taunt the Israeli border guards. If anything can be considered human rights abuse, its the palestinians and the rest of the Arab nations. How many articles do you see the HRW doing on Saudi arabia, where women are whipped for BEING raped? 69.248.93.171 22:53, 5 October 2006

George Soros is a Jew, just a left-wing one. That just seemed somewhat relevant since you want to call him an anti-Semite. Could we say that anyone who keeps the conflict going in the Middle East is causing the death of Jews, and thus an anti-Semite? Cool down the rhetoric man. ---- 134.68.77.186 18:16, 11 October 2006

Human Rights Watch releases reports and criticism on a regular basis addressing all the issues you've noted. If you read the article as it stands however, you would have little idea this is the case, so fair enough that you hold those opinions. There are some critics of HRW who seem to ignore any work that does not directly address them, and their criticism that should be treated with the utmost of skepticism, and this article should address that. Mostlyharmless 00:05, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

I think that that is part of human nature and part of Wikipedia. However, this should encourage you even more to make changes that you think will be helpful to the project. If you think that there isn't a good response to the criticisms (that section is small in comparision to the criticisms), you can add some. There are plenty of other issues that HRW could be criticized for (American-centric, criticizing Cuba/Saudi Arabia, etc.) which aren't documented right now either. I guess the point is to do what you think helps the articles on the one hand, while accepting the articles for nothing more than what they are on the other hand. If they were perfect, there'd be no reason to edit them anymore. --YoYoDa1 01:45, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

Absolutely agreed. Doing extensive editing and additions to pages that I consider have incomplete and unreferenced coverage is something I intend to do after my exams. Cheers Mostlyharmless 05:21, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

A recent article in the New York Review of Books discusses the criticisms of HRW with regard to their reporting of the recent Israel/Lebanon conflict. http://www.nybooks.com/articles/19500 The truth doesn't take sides. 130.195.86.40 08:06, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

I wrote the first, original criticism section for this wikipedia article. After watching Ashley Y attempt to slip in pro-HRW and anti-Israel edits for about a month, I stopped watching the article. Needless to say, it's been trashed. One example of clear POV that no one seems willing to correct is the introduction to the criticism section:

As an organization that explicitly criticizes governments and human rights abusers around the world, Human Rights Watch's reports are often condemned by governments and interested parties on all sides of a conflict. But journalists, academics and policy-makers have relied on the organization for sober, in-depth reporting for more than two decades. Human Rights Watch has been criticized as having an anti-Israel bias--but is often similarly attacked in the Arab world as having a pro-Israeli bias. The organization's research on Israel, Lebanon, and the Palestinian Authority is a fraction of its global work.

This reads like a disclaimer over the criticism section. It attempts to explain away the criticism as being the result of "interested parties." It may have a place in the article, but not at the top of the criticism section. It belongs in the response to criticism section, since it's one of HRW's big excuses for why it receives so much criticism. The fact that "journalists, academics, and policy-makers" have relied upon it is another attempt to downplay the criticism. The fact is, journalists, academics, and policy-makers have also criticized it. Thats what belongs in the criticism section - it's criticism. Not excuses for it.

I also noticed that people went through and removed accusations against HRW from politicians like Ana Palacio and Shimon Peres. I don't know why people said that they "couldn't find the sources" since the sources were clearly linked to. They'll be put back in.

I'll also replace quotations and aspects of the criticism that were removed or watered-down to gloss over HRW's poor track record.

--ARoyal 04:45, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

If you're going to try to rebuild what you consider to be important criticism of the organazation, I'd like to point out that it is more recommended to try and integrate it throughout the article instead of in to a criticism section, since they are known to be 'troll magnets'. Those sections seem to create a lot of unnecessary conflict. --YoYoDa1 05:08, 7 October 2006 (UTC) [Edited: --YoYoDa1 19:34, 8 October 2006 (UTC)]

I'm reading some of the sources and now have a few problems with the criticisms section. I think a few edits are necessary for clarity:

1) Anne Bayefsky never "stated that there was an anti-Israel and anti-Semitic agenda", rather they "still has a lot of explaining to do".

2)The linked source for Isi Liebler doesn't seem to go to the right page. I can't find any occurences of Human Rights Watch on that page.

3)The CNN article you are citing also says "Some other international human rights groups who were part of the NGO forum, including Amnesty International and Human Rights Watch, moved to distance themselves from the declaration" and a quote: Reed Brody, executive director of the New York-based Human Rights Watch, said: 'Israel has committed serious crimes against Palestinian people but it is simply not accurate to use the word genocide and to equate Zionism with racism ... it is now a matter of damage control.'"

So at this point I'd like to change the Bayefsky and Shimon Peres wording, as well as find the right Liebler source. I'm going to wait awhile (probably around a day) to edit as a matter of good faith, and I figure if we talk then maybe we can find an edit we both agree with. --YoYoDa1 21:58, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

Lets see, to cover the points you made

1. The general thesis of her article does state that. She accuses Human Rights Watch of anti-Semitism and anti-Israel behavior a number of times, though the phrase "anti-Israel and anti-Semitic agenda" doesn't occur. Bayefsky's statements like, "Human Rights Watch fanned the flames of racial intolerance," "The draft included egregious statements equating Zionism with racism," "The Human Rights Watch role at Durban? To inhibit Jewish lawyers and jurists from being fairly represented or defended," "In the face of the flagrant anti-Semitism all around them the group, including HRW had decided neither to approve nor disapprove of the final declaration, and not to vote," and, "Having the courage to speak out against the tide of hate directed at Israel and the Jewish people is not one of the strengths of Human Rights Watch."

Though I am okay with rewording it, removing the offending sentence if need be, as long as her general message gets across.

2. The Liebler article link seems to be working fine for me. Here is the mention of Human Rights Watch in that link, "Finkelstein quotes extensively from organizations such as Human Rights Watch, B'Tselem, Physicians for Human Rights, Amnesty, and the Public Committee against Torture which have long track records of bias and employing double standards in relation to Israel."

3. It's true that Human Rights Watch later moved to distance itself from the Durban conference, and that the CNN article says that. However, that isn't a part of criticism. That was one of HRW's defenses. The fact is, HRW only moved to distance itself from the Durban conference once it's rampant anti-Semitism was made public and world condemnation fell upon the conference. HRW was one of the leaders of the conference, and when Peres gave his criticism of the conference and the NGOs, the criticism applies to HRW since it was one of the leading NGOs. It didn't single out that NGO alone, but extended criticism to all of them.

A new edit I found has a problem. It's the bolded part:

Despite many Jewish financial supporters, board members and staff, Human Rights Watch has been criticized by human rights activists, non-governmental organizations, politicians, and the media as having an anti-Semitic and anti-Israel bias.

The fact that it has Jewish financial supporters, board members, and staff doesn't add to the criticism section nor is it relevent. It's an attempt to downplay HRW's anti-Semitism by inserting via addendum that it has Jewish members. It wouldn't matter if every single member were Jewish, it could still be a violently anti-Semitic group. There have been numerous anti-Semitic Jews throughout history, from Jews who hid their ethnicity to fight alongside Nazis in WW2 to Dan Burros, a Jew who joined the KKK and hid his Jewish ethnicity his entire life. It's not abnormal, nor is it uncommon, for people to hate their own ethnicity.

The addition of that sentence is a sneaky attempt to imply, "HRW can't be anti-Semitic, look at all of the Jews on it's staff!" Because it does that, and because it doesn't add to actual criticism or context, it needs to be removed.--ARoyal 09:00, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

I didn't add any wording to the beginning of the section, I've been trying to leave the controversial stuff alone for what I can. I'm not exactly sure what we agreed to, so I'm going to just take a shot in the dark:

1)The Bayefsky quotes you cite now seem to argue that they stood by while it happened, so I'll try that.

2)The Liebler link works fine for me now too, so I'm just going to leave it alone then.

3)HRW may have very well moved to distance itself from the conference only after international pressure, and Shimon Peres's quote may have actually been directed at it. However, the summarization of the source needs to reflect the source, so I'm going to modify it. If you think this is wrong, please find another source which endorses your version of events.

I will try reworking the heading to. It seems a bit redundant right now, so I'm messing with that too. --YoYoDa1 15:36, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

All of your edits look good to me. Nice work. --ARoyal 09:57, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

All of the debate in this article is around the criticism section, so I'm going to move the disputed tag there accordingly. --Nosfartu 22:45, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

I'm removing the copyvios because they are blatant cut and pastes from the following locations:

• Who we are (hence the 'we')
• A report on Lebanon

Mostlyharmless 23:46, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

Was there any other material or was it all copyvio? —Ashley Y 23:48, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

No original content, all from the website. The user claims to be from HRW here but with those spelling mistakes, I doubt it! Mostlyharmless 23:56, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

South Asia Analysis Group is a non profit non commercial think tank that appears to be modeleld on the Middle Eastern think tanks of the US government.The objective of the group is to advance strategic analysis and contribute to the expansion of knowledge of Indian and International security and promote public understanding. In so doing, the SAAG seeks to address the decision makers, strategic planners, academics and the media in South Asia and the world at large.

reference to saag by UColumbia: http://www.columbia.edu/cu/lweb/indiv/southasia/cuvl/govt.html

The google search that shows numerous refs to the organization, none of them negative:

http://www.google.com/search?q=South+Asia+analysis+group&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8&rls=org.mozilla:en-US:official&client=firefox-a I will start discussion in 24 hrs per agreement with mostly harmless.Please peruse this information and know all you can about SAAG.Hkelkar 01:16, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

We're having a voluntary abstention for 24hrs to avoid an edit war Mostlyharmless 01:21, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

As of this post, I abstain from continuing on this matter for 24 hrs in the interests of fairness.I will, of course, monitor the article for overt vandalism or copyvios etc like what happened with that Waqvi chap.Hkelkar 01:26, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

HRW has also been criticized for anti-India bias. I have re-sectioned the criticism with anti-semitism on one section and anti-India in another section.Iunderstand that a debate may be progressing regarding the neutrality of the section so I have kept the tag. If the debators wish to include these edits in the debate then please do so and I would be happy to participate.Hkelkar 06:53, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

The criticisms of HRW are of the same type as made against Talk:Amnesty International. The POV dispute over there remains unresolved. I think that the way the criticisms have been made both here and there don't conform to NPOV requirements. Mostlyharmless 08:55, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

Let's not convolute the two topics at hand. Bear in mind that AI is a large and complex org and HRW a small and shady one. I think we need to approach the matters with different attitudes.

I suggest that we incorporate the criticism by Indians debate to the criticism by Israelis debate and see where it leads us. Because of the conceptual similarities between the communal problems in the Levant and communal problems in the Indian Subcontinent I anticipate an interesting debate.Hkelkar 09:16, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

Hkelkar: HRW is "a small and shady" organization? You wouldn't happen to have a non-neutral POV on these things would you? --Deodar 04:06, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

My POV is immaterial.My edits are sourced and in a neutral narrative. Can you demonstrate otherwise?Hkelkar 04:11, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

Its just funny, that's all. --Deodar 14:43, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

The Kashmiri Pandits are not laughing.Hkelkar 19:37, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

HRW is not laughing about this situation either.Your edits on Amnesty International and HRW so far show that you're pushing a partisan and very POV viewpoint ill-supported by the evidence you've provided, rather than writing a "neutral narrative".

And yes, HRW is a terrorist front.My opinions are my own and I certainly won't enter them into the article(s) unless I can source them in a neutral narrative, but HRW is definitely a cabal of terrorists who should be hanged from lampposts

. On the basis of that, I'd say the balance of evidence is heavily on you to prove that your edits are neutral. Mostlyharmless 21:35, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

My narrative is entirely neutral comrade. I have maintained neutral language in all my edits. I am also looking for sources where HRW has expressly argued against the specific charges laid out by Bahl and Bhatnagar. The narrative of my edits, as they stand, are no more or less neutral than the anti-semitism section of the article which I used as an example to write my edits.The edits do not take a position on the subject, they summarize the views of the authors and expressly state that they are the views of the personalities. The sources are notable and reliable and satisfy WP:RS, WP:V and my edits satisfy WP:NPOV. Now, YOU have made the accusation that my edits are not neutral. The burden of proof is on YOU to demonstrate that they are not. If you can cite specific sentences to which you have an objection then makeyour case here and I will debate with you. Persist in baseless tantrums and veiled ad-hominem attacks and you will not contribute anything constructive to wikipedia.Hkelkar 22:26, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

Regarding your accusations of partisanship, all critics are partisan to some degreee. One can argue that even other non-India related criticisms in the article are from partisan sources. However, the issue is not partisanship but reliability (and hopefully not too much partisanship so as to be extremist which my sources are not).Hkelkar 22:33, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

WP:NPOV:

All Wikipedia articles and other user-facing content must be written from a neutral point of view, representing views fairly, proportionately and without bias.

. You've come in, after declaring hatred for HRW, and made substantial edits that only represent one controversial and disputed perspective. Baseless tantrums? After seeing the evidence produced in the request for arbitration against you, I think that claim is a bit rich. Mostlyharmless 00:11, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

As usual, a misinterpretation.My talk page posts are not the issue but my edits are. Try to prove that my edits to the article are not neutral or well-sourced.Hkelkar 00:24, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

You're commenting on contributor, not content,making this a personal attack.Hkelkar 00:17, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

Firstly, your edits only reflect one controversial position, attacking the organisation in question. That is explicitly against WP policy. The burden is on contributors to place neutral information in articles, rather than putting in one side and waiting for others to balance it out. On that basis, I'm well within policy to pull out that section until it can be made neutral. Also, my comments were directly relevant. I'm commenting on your declaration of hatred for HRW, which is very relevant to this article, and alerting others to your conduct so that they can make up their own minds about how seriously to take you. Mostlyharmless 00:30, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

Go ahead, we'll see what mediators have to say about this.Hkelkar 00:32, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

Yatindra Bhatnagar, chief editor of "International Opinion", has criticized Human Rights Watch representatives and those of related organizations of having an anti-India bias with regards to their reports of communal riots in India between Hindus and Muslims, particularly in reference to the 2002 Gujarat violence. He writes that, instead of trying to heal the wounds of such incidents, organizations like Human Rights Watch focus disproportionately on blaming Hindus exclusively for the incident and trying to deflect attention from the violence perpetrated by Islamists in the Godhra Train Burning that precipitated the riots. In particular, he criticizes Human Rights Watch representative Smita Narula and her colleagues for providing a "blatantly one-sided" account of events and dismissing his concerns to that effect ^[1].

In addition, the reports on the Gujarat riots compiled by Human Rights Watch have been criticized by Arvin Bahl of Princeton University as "one-sided" and "biased". He claims that the reports generally "are based on half-truths, distortions and sometimes outright falsehoods". He points out that Human Rights Watch's claims about the Bharatiya Janata Party advocating a Hindu Nation as its core ideology are false. He further says that his analysis of the reports accuse the Gujarat government for planning the riots but do not provide any evidence to back those assertions. He also criticizes Human Rights Watch's labeling of the attacks on Hindus by Muslims during the riots as "retaliatory". In his analysis he states that while he does not deny that Hindu extremists were responsible for the riots, he "objectively analyze[s] the complexity of communal conflict in India and avoid[s] the generalizations associated with Human Rights Watch reports."^[2].

Er, when you write "Soandso of Random University," it's generally taken to mean that Soandso is a faculty member at the university, not that they're an undergrad. In any case, according to a facebook search [2] he graduated from Princeton in 2005, so he's not even associated with the university any longer. (He's also not in the Princeton directory anymore). So I'm removing those three words. --Xiaopo (Talk) 00:57, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

Well he wrote for the University and it was endorsed and sanctioned by the team of reliable editors, fact checkers etc who are affiliated with the university.Hkelkar 00:58, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

Actually, he wrote for the South Asia Analysis Group website, which specifically mentions that the views expressed are his own. He also seems to be a writer for the Daily Princetonian, but articles in school newspapers aren't endorsed by the university. And again, people generally don't refer to undergraduates at Random University as "of Random University." --Xiaopo (Talk) 01:03, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

The SAAG should be referenced as the place where he published. Also someone should create an article on SAAG at some point to verify their credibility and perspective. --Deodar 01:05, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

Very well. I have done so myself.Plus, I also agree that an article should be written about SAAG at some point.I think that they satisfy the WP:RS criterion, though feel free to look at their literature and judge for yourself (also, read the Bahl article, you will find that it is not partisan).Hkelkar 01:10, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

Sure, I agree that that's a good idea. But keep in mind that Bahl's column is specifically marked as a "Guest Column," and the Director mentions that the views expressed in it are Bahl's own (though he or she does agree that HRW's coverage of India is one-sided and biased). So we should be careful not to misrepresent Bahl's views as "SAAG's position" or something. Man, all this talk about SAAG is making me hungry. --Xiaopo (Talk) 01:31, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

SAAG makes you hungry?? Must be a cultural difference here. --Deodar 01:33, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

Ahh... Saag. --Deodar 01:34, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

Lol!Hadn't even thought about that.Hkelkar 01:42, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

Some editors are having a heated debate on whether the Falun gong is homophobic. The following quotes are from the leader of this group Master Li Hongzhi.

According to Li homosexuality is the leading indicator of the depravity and regression of our society. Gays are more visible than ever and laws have been created to protect their evil life style. In Li’s poem “the World’s Ten Evils,” he states: “homosexuality, licentious desires—dark heart, turning demonic.” [3] Li’s strongest words against gays come from a lecture in Switzerland. Homosexuality was one of the factors that led to the collapse of the Greek civilization, he said. Furthermore, “Homosexuals not only violate the standards that gods set for mankind, but also damage human society’s moral code. In particular, the impression it gives children will turn future societies into something demonic.” [4] Li describes a special kind of suffering for homosexuals. They will be made to undergo a particularly slow and painful annihilation: “That person is annihilated layer after layer at a rate that seems pretty rapid to us, but in fact it’s extremely slow in that time field. Over and over again, one is annihilated in an extremely painful way.” [5]

It would be great if you could come to this page and vote your opinion here. Thanks--Samuel Luo 04:33, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

While a debate is good, and I would argue that even if what Hongzhi said was true, it wouldn't justify the actions of the Chinese Government, I would point you to this. Wikinterpreter

I split out the section as it was dwarfing the article (think Undue weight). The new article Criticism of Human Rights Watch could do with a lot of work. I'm sure there is more criticism out there. What do the governments of places like Uzbekistan and Burma have to say I wonder... - Francis Tyers · 00:31, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

I think it is okay to move the section to another article. There is ample precedent for this on wikipedia so... Hkelkar 01:48, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

Hopefully, we can work to get the section back in to the main article eventually. Some of the sources listed still seem POV (atleast to me), so I still think there is a POV dispute, albeit a very minor one. I think the tag should stay until there is a consensus. --75.46.80.104 13:22, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

To elaborate on what I posted above: Mainly, I don't feel that the sources being cited are very encyclopedic. The cheif editor of "International Opinion" is one guy who made a web site to voice his opinions, anyone can do that, and I don't see why it makes him special. The brunt of my focus is aimed at CAMERA, NGO Monitor, and Honest Reporting. They are advocacy groups, and I just don't feel it's appropriate to rely upon them as a source of information (see WP:RS). Maybe we can cut out all of the advocacy criticism to make room for better criticism, this would naturally shorten the article, and then we could integrate it back in to the main article. I think they just dealt with something like this awhile ago over at Talk:Amnesty International (No POV tag now and they managed to keep it in the article). --75.46.80.104 13:31, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

HRW SHOULD have done SOMETHING about the Andijan Massacre!! —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Davron (talk • contribs) 20:46, 12 February 2007 (UTC).

I believe that this video of Ken Roth, Director of Human Rights Watch discussing the 2007 edition of the Human Rights Watch World Report adds to the value of the article and should be published in the external links section. I would appreciate it if another editor would add it. Thank you.

• Ken Roth, Director of HRW, discusses the 2007 edition of the Human Rights Watch World Report March 8, 2007 (video) —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Uschris (talk • contribs) 21:38, 3 April 2007 (UTC).

This article is completely one-sided, and needs to be improved.

Human Rights Watch has an atrocious record of supporting Human Rights violations.

It wholeheartedly supports the invasion, and brutal occupation of Palestine, which I've never witnessed with my own eyes. Pretty brutal to provide health care, hospitals, electricity, etc... It wholeheartedly supports the Haitian death squads who overthrew the democratic government of Haiti. It supports the bloody invasion of Iraq. And then there is Somalia, Serbia, Venezuela, Cuba, etc. etc.

This so-called HRW is obviously, undoubtedly double-standard organization. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.193.63.1 (talk) 13:27, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

To cut a long story short, it is a cheer squad for US foreign policy.

Carl Kenner 06:43, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

Haha, they seem to be doing a pretty good job, someone below calls them "reflexively anti-American".

• http://hrw.org/english/docs/2006/04/26/usint13268.htm
• http://hrw.org/english/docs/2006/05/02/usdom13290.htm
• http://hrw.org/english/docs/2006/04/24/usdom13241.htm
• http://hrw.org/english/docs/2006/04/24/usdom13255.htm
• http://hrw.org/english/docs/2006/03/14/indone12926.htm

To be unpopular with both sides at the same time is probably the best pointer to the fact that one is performing one's duties correctly and with impartiality. — that said do you have links for HRW supporting the invasion of Palestine, I thought it wasn't around in the '40s, and links for all the others. - FrancisTyers 11:11, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

I'd strongly disagree with the statement on unpopularity. Exhibit A is news stories, which inflame both sides. Sometimes it's because they're fair, but more often it's because they're omitting essential information, because they're poorly and/or misleadingly written and/or researched, or because both sides know it's in their interest to complain. At best, it's a sign that a controversial topic is being considered. At worst, it's a sign that few if any informed persons can agree with the work. Rarely is it due to "balance," "objectivity," or "performing one's duties correctly." Whether or not this applies to HRW is another matter, but it is one of the biggest myths among journalists and it shouldn't be promulgated here.

That said, in the interest of balance, it might be good to have "accomplishments" and "criticisms" sections, each being written by someone on the appropriate side of this issue. Reading this article, one wouldn't think that HRW has any problems with American foreign policy or any conflict with neoconservatives, but, from what I've read, it clearly it does. Calbaer 01:52, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

It's about as long as the rest of the article. The criticism of HRW definitely isn't that important to a neutral conversation about the topic of the article, especially when all of the criticism is related just to the Middle East and Israel. Maybe you guys should consider making a new article about this? 15:40, 23 August 2006 68.249.103.28

I agree a criticism section is important, but the sources referenced "Asian Tribune" and "NGO Monitor" seem pretty lame. March 13, 2009 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 142.161.43.179 (talk) 06:52, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB124528343805525561.html#articleTabs%3Darticle. The delegation arrived to raise money from wealthy Saudis by highlighting HRW's demonization of Israel. An HRW spokesperson, Sarah Leah Whitson, highlighted HRW's battles with "pro-Israel pressure groups in the US, the European Union and the United Nations." Revolting, but at least it is as candid as can be. --RCS (talk) 16:21, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

Added. Wikifan12345 (talk) 23:51, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

Any interest in complying with WP:NPOV ? Sean.hoyland - talk 03:32, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

Suggestions? Wikifan12345 (talk) 07:39, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

This section is taking unjustified big portion of the article. The section is based on articles or blogs by insignificant editors. So Sarah Whitson sought to get money from Saudi royals, what's the big deal? Imad marie (talk) 19:37, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

The section should be merged into the "Criticisms" section. Imad marie (talk) 20:21, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

Jeffrey Goldberg insignificant? You must be joking. --RCS (talk) 20:43, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

The Wall Street Journal and The Jerusalem Post are certainly significant. So is David Bernstein (law professor). --GHcool (talk) 21:02, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

OK, so I was wrong in saying "insignificant editors". But still, the section is undue weight; the claims of those editors do not warrant this section in a top position, to make it look like that the majority funding of HRW comes from KSA, or that it influences its policies. I suggest merging it into the "Criticisms" section. Imad marie (talk) 21:12, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

It directly contradicts their mission. It's less of a criticism and more a statement of truth as the allegation as been confirmed by HRW. The fact that a human rights organization is soliciting money from oppressive countries directly violates their own code of ethics. I'd say we could move the section down below Issues and campaigns because it does seem to stick out. Wikifan12345 (talk) 23:34, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

IMO, it is a criticism. The section does not describe how HRW is funded in general, but rather criticizes HRW for this particular incident when Whitson visited KSA.

I removed the tag now. Imad marie (talk) 17:04, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

Is it? HRW is comfortable talking about it to the press. Perhaps to them it's opening up "dialogue" with a "developing" (socially) country? :D Wikifan12345 (talk) 19:18, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

I agree with Imad marie. There is an article already for Criticism of Human Rights Watch. The critical material in THIS article should be a summary of the issues in that article, not something else completely. Factsontheground (talk) 11:59, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

Okay, I see more trouble brewing over this section.

Is it undue ? Yes, of course it is. This article is about the entire history and work of HRW. It doesn't belong in this article, it belongs in the criticism article but I'm okay with it staying here until it's in a fit NPOV state to be moved there with a one sentence summary or nothing left here. Or it can be moved there now.

If we are going to include info about this incident then I suggest at the very least we should map out the entire trajectory from start to finish for our readers so that they have the entire context rather than presenting this as if it magically appeared out of nowhere in the Wall Street Journal. What is the trajectory ?

• In May, Saudi English-language newspaper Arab News reported on the fund raising visit to Saudi Arabia [6].
• In June, Israel based NGO Monitor, 'the Zionist propaganda machine' to quote wikifan :), citing the Arab News article wrote that "HRW’s anti-Israel obsession was stated as the major reason for holding this Saudi fundraiser" and that HRW "invoked the canard of “pro-Israel pressure groups,”" as part of the appeal for funds. NGO Monitor also claimed the appeal for funds included a description of "HRW’s role in anti-Israel activities in the US Congress and the United Nations".[7].
• HRW publish their report about Cast Lead
• Then David Bernstein writes his op-ed for Wall Street Journal online.
• JPost reports about the Prime Minister's Office in Israel criticising HRW for the trip to Saudi noting that the "comments came two weeks after Israel was ripped for alleged misconduct during Operation Cast" and also noting that "This op-ed, written by David Bernstein - a law professor at Virginia's George Mason University - was based on a report issued by NGO Monitor two months ago, which itself was based on an article on the visit that appeared in the Saudi English-language newspaper Arab News".[8]
• Then it's Jeffrey Goldberg in the Atlantic.
• HRW issue a response which hasn't made it into this article yet.[9]

All quite enlightening. Sean.hoyland - talk 12:10, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

So HRW denies sleeping with Saudi Arabia? Gollee, I guess it's settled then! :D All this OR investigation is cool Sean but the content is sourced for verifiability - not truth. I'm sure HRW is a neutral and objective, and all these attempts to discredit the organization are done to distract the world from Israel war crimes!!!

Ok, SOAP is done. But the information is not entirely criticism - who says HRW is ashamed? It is not an explicit criticism, it could be a policy of HRW that some might disagree with, but it can't be extrapolated as "anti-Israel bias" because that simply is not clear. We shouldn't dump major info that might damn HRW into a criticism fork to maintain a false neutrality. However, I do like the FOTG didn't edit war and finally went to talk. Wikifan12345 (talk) 12:23, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

Yes, HRW haven't denied anything, they don't have anything to deny. The JPost source ties it all together very neatly, not me. There no OR. It's not major info. An op-ed based on a piece in a propaganda site isn't major info. Israel trashing HRW isn't major info for this article. An email exchange is just an email exchange. Where is the coverage is the international press about this shocking revelation ? Sean.hoyland - talk 12:35, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

"Just an email exchange" with the executive director of HRW - which basically makes up the entire paragraph? You really make a nice effort in understating this. All info meets WP:V and is supported by reliable mainstream sources. Whether you find it to be propaganda or not is not particular important. Wikifan12345 (talk) 13:16, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

OK, I've added a summary of HRW's official response to the article. It's pretty shameful how much space was devoted to the allegations yet nobody mentioned that there was an official response from HRW.

Of course, now the whole section is balanced it's even larger and even more appropriate to be moved to the Criticism of HRW article. Factsontheground (talk) 12:53, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

Are you kidding me? You just loaded up the article with 3 paragraphs straight from HRW. That is totally undue and makes the section worse off than before. Christ. Wikifan12345 (talk) 13:05, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

I edited your 3 bloated paragraphs and reduced it to one. Almost all of the information had nothing to do with the Saudi funding allegation. The middle paragraph was repeat of its financing (does not except funding from states, % of funding from continents) and another was about why they devoted so much time to Israel opposed to other places. Whether it had a presentation in may of 2009 is of little relevance. Wikifan12345 (talk) 13:12, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

You removed essential parts of HRW's response, such as the points about how it doesn't accept funds from government officials and that it focused on Saudi human rights issues at the reception. Factsontheground (talk) 13:20, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

Hey FOTG - Read the article - it's already in the finance section. And all of that is irrelevant, the section is about the SA-allegation funding before/after the Gaza conflict, nothing more and nothing less. No one is debating it focused on Saudi human rights issues and that was not part of the allegation. Wikifan12345 (talk) 13:22, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

Stop removing sourced, relevant material from this article Wikifan12345. You and your fellow pov-warriors have forced these accusstions into this article in total violation of WP:DUE. Now it is only fair that HRW's perspective is given a chance, any less would be a violation of WP:POV. Your absurdly biased editing here is obvious and shameful. Factsontheground (talk) 13:30, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

My fellow "pov-warriors"? Talk about uncivil. Like always FOTG, you edit war and edit war while refusing to acknowledge facts - then accuse others of "POV-pushing" instead of five minutes reading the source material. At least you admit it someway cause you removed half of the material.

This whole According to HRW its work in Saudi Arabia was discussed at the receptions, including "coverage of women's rights, the juvenile death penalty, domestic workers, and discrimination against religious minorities". HRW also claims "No other human rights group has produced a more comprehensive, detailed, and thorough body of work on Saudi Arabian human rights issues in recent years than Human Rights Watch" Although the Gaza situation was covered, HRW claimed the coverage was justified as the Gaza war dominated worldwide headlines and is a regional issue in Saudi Arabia has absolutely nothing to do with the allegation and is simply HRW pimping itself about how awesome it is at objectively collecting human rights data. This paragraph, "RW notes that staffers made two presentations in Saudi Arabia in May 2009 in private homes to people who were interested in Human Rights Watch......HRW never accepts funds from government officials in any country." also does not seem that relevant. If anything, it affirms the claims made by WSJ and Atlantic, that HRW compromised its values by surveying SA governmental officials with presentations clearly marketed with an "israel" quality. It is simply dancing. Wikifan12345 (talk) 13:53, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

Both paragraphs are clearly relevant to the allegations. Bernstein accuses HRW of avoiding Saudi human rights issues at the reception (A delegation from Human Rights Watch was recently in Saudi Arabia. To investigate the mistreatment of women under Saudi Law? To campaign for the rights of homosexuals, subject to the death penalty in Saudi Arabia? To protest the lack of religious freedom in the Saudi Kingdom? To issue a report on Saudi political prisoners? No, no, no, and no.) The response from HRW that it focused on Saudi issues at the reception directly contradicts those claims.

Goldberg stated (in other words, yes, the director of Human Rights Watch's Middle East division is attempting to raise funds from Saudis, including a member of the Shura Council) and Bernstein implied that HRW was soliciting Saudi govt. officials for money. The restatement of HRW's policy of refusing money from government officials is relevant as it directly contradicts this claim.

I get the strong impression that you have not even read the basic source material about this issue. Your edits are a joke, and not ha ha funny. How old are you, seriously? Factsontheground (talk) 15:02, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

Who cares? HRW is HRW and will lobby on behalf of itself, like every other activist organization. There is no accountability or transparency, you are giving way too much weight here and your assessment is loaded with original research. HRW righteously dismissing the valid accusations brought by prominent and highly-respected journalists and professors is not particularly earth-shattering. What do you think they are going to say? "Oh, yeah sorry about that." There are two sides to every story, and HRW claim which is not backed by independent investigation does not trump 3rd party criticism, it should be included but much of what you have couched in is totally irrelevant. You have subtly recognized this by reducing the 3 silly pimped-out paragraphs to 1, thanks btw. Wikifan12345 (talk) 15:22, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

Also, statements confirmed by HRW prove a strong bias towards Israel. This is recorded in both the email exchange between Roth and statements made by the female director of HRW for the ME. That takes major precedent over what ever fluffy legalism HRW dishes out to save face. Wikifan12345 (talk) 15:24, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

The scandal is about the allegations of Bernstein, which were widely reported, not some non-notable email exchange that is not being reported anywhere else other than on Wikipedia. That paragraph should probably be removed; it isn't of much relevance to either side of the debat. Factsontheground (talk) 15:42, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

http://volokh.com/posts/1248569574.shtml - --RCS (talk) 11:05, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

I propose that the Saudi Arabia Funding section be moved to the criticisms page.

• No other single issue is portrayed placed on this page, making the exclusive inclusion of Saudi Arabia smack of WP:RECENTISM
• In sections with a main article, it is generally appropriate stylistically to have an introduction to the main article included in the subsection and all of the supporting material in the main article. The fact that there needs to be a subsection on Saudi Arabia in this article should be a clue that it is overrepresented here.

However, I do think that a reference related to the present dispute could be included after "anti-Israel bias" if/after the section is moved. (As a note, I created a new section because the above was getting too heated. So try to smile while commenting, it'll make everything smoother.) Awickert (talk) 16:32, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

• Support (again). For such a common sense reorganization, it's bizarre how it's been met with such wailing and gnashing of teeth. Factsontheground (talk) 17:11, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

• Support. The Israeli criticism is no more important than criticisms from Indians, Americans, or any other people. We can't add a section here every time some people from some country are upset with HRW. Imad marie (talk) 00:25, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

• Support. This is a no brainer. Details like this belong in the sub-article created for details like this. Sean.hoyland - talk 03:06, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

• Against. The incident says a lot about HRW's methods of fundraising as a whole. Playing one country against another, using the conflict card. Divide and rule. So it goes well beyond the mere Israel thing. --RCS (talk) 11:08, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

That would be a good reason for its retention in the funding portion of the article, so long as a reliable source says that this is the case, it would be appropriate; otherwise it's just someone's generalization of the current events. Awickert (talk) 03:14, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

• Oppose. Moving notable criticism into a separate "Criticism of .." article is the very definition of a POV-fork. Editors' opinions on the appropriateness of criticism of HRW ("such a common sense reorganization, it's bizarre how it's been met with such wailing and gnashing of teeth.") is irrelevant - we are not here to judge, but to report what reliable sources say about notable events. LoverOfTheRussianQueen (talk) 22:27, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

The other criticisms are also notable. What do you suppose we do? My proposal is to leave the stubby summary of all criticisms here as to briefly give justice to all criticisms. Awickert (talk) 00:49, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

I have no problem with trimming the section down and incorporating it into the main criticism section. LoverOfTheRussianQueen (talk) 02:41, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

Wait, then, if you're OK with this then why did you oppose? This is exactly what I was saying in the original proposal. Or are you saying that Saudi Arabia should still have its own section (which I consider to be undue weight). Awickert (talk) 03:14, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

I oppose because the proposal is for 'the Saudi Arabia Funding section be moved to the criticisms page'. If you changed your mind, or merely misspoke, and intended to propose that the sub-section be trimmed and merged into its parent, I am ok with that revised proposal. LoverOfTheRussianQueen (talk) 03:21, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

I see. What I am saying is that we should return the in-article criticisms section to this: "Criticism of Human Rights Watch may be classified into two major categories: accusations of selection bias and accusations of ideological bias. In the first category, the Asian Tribune has praised NGO Monitor for pointing out the inherent bias of HRW against open, democratic regimes where journalists and citizens can monitor abuses, and abusive regimes that disallow monitoring.^[3] In the second category, Human Rights Watch has been criticized for perceived anti-Western, anti-China, anti-Serb,^{[citation needed]} anti-Sri Lankan^[4][5] and anti-Israel bias.^[6]". Are you saying that it should include a brief synopsis of each criticism?

So, I am opposed to this (and note that it is quite different from 'trimming the section down and incorporating it into the main criticism section.', which you earlier said is 'exactly what I was saying in the original proposal'). The reason is, that this is criticism which is inherently different than those two categories (accusations of selection bias and accusations of ideological bias.) - this is criticism of its funding practices. It is a very notable criticism, and we do not sweep it under the rug or shove it into an obscure "Criticism of..." page. LoverOfTheRussianQueen (talk) 04:13, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

Got it. Confusion over section and subsection on my part. But then, thematically, this should be under "Financing and services", no? Or there should be a third criticism sentence added to the aforementioned paragraph, on funding-based criticism. Awickert (talk) 04:25, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

Either would work for me. LoverOfTheRussianQueen (talk) 04:30, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

Great. I'll get on it, likely tomorrow. Awickert (talk) 04:32, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

If you have a problem with the Criticism article nominate it for deletion or merging with this one. In the meantime it exists so we can use it. It would be a POV fork if it just presented critical POVs. If it also includes POVs in response to the criticism such as HRW's POV then it is an NPOV fork. You say 'we are not here to judge' but we are here to judge. We need to judge whether this event is notable enough for this article. We are not here to jump to attention everytime someone writes an op-ed critical of HRW. Try applying that to other high level articles like Israel, Iran, the USA etc. Wikipedia would fill up with partisan nonsense and counter arguments in no time. Sean.hoyland - talk 02:25, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

No, It would be a POV fork even if it included rebuttals by HRW, since it would have the effect of removing criticism from the main HRW article. You misunderstood my "not here to judge" comment. We are of course allowed to judge if something is notable or not (and this clearly is, as evidenced by numerous mentions in mainstream reliable sources). We are not here to judge if it is appropriate to criticize HRW, even though it is supposedly a well-intentioned org, which was the essence of the comment made by the editor I was responding to. LoverOfTheRussianQueen (talk) 02:42, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

Then I'll echo Sean and ask you to AfD the article. But I suggest its intended use, namely making this article skinnier by redirecting all of the back-and-forth, be fulfilled so long as it is present. Awickert (talk) 03:14, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

"Criticism of ..." articles are frowned upon, but I doubt I'll be able to get that article deleted. That does not mean all criticism gets shoved there. The material appears in the Criticism article, but a summary of it is also appropriate here. LoverOfTheRussianQueen (talk) 03:21, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, I don't like them either, but this article sure would be bloated without it. It's a hard call. Awickert (talk) 04:05, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

I tend to agree too. It would be better if the Criticism article was renamed to something with a more neutral title so that it could be an article with the details of notable views/commentary about HRW no matter whether they be positive or negative. I guess it's the same as the 'Human rights in X' series of articles. It's better that they are named that way rather than the 'Appalling/Marvelous Human Rights in X'. Sean.hoyland - talk 05:05, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

Maybe "public relations of HRW"? Awickert (talk) 07:11, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

I tried to create a one paragraph abridged version of the original 4 paragraph section and it was deleted. If nobody is opposed to the one paragraph summary, I will reinsert it. Here is the proposed text:

Human Rights Watch was recently accused of using anti-Israeli sentiment while fund-raising in Saudi Arabia.[2 citations here] HRW confirmed that staffers made two presentations in Saudi Arabia in May 2009 in private homes to people who were interested in Human Rights Watch.[citation to HRW] In an email exchange, Jeffrey Goldberg of the Atlantic (July 15, 2009 on line edition) asked HRW director Kenneth Roth if funds were raised to fight back against pro-Israel lobbying groups. When questioned if HRW staff attempted "to raise funds in Saudi Arabia by advertising your organization's opposition to the pro-Israel lobby". Roth stated, "That's certainly part of the story. We report on Israel." Roth confirmed that a member of the Saudi Human Rights Commission "and someone from the Shura Council" were present in the meeting, but he expressed uncertainty if that constituted government involvement.[citation to Goldberg]

--GHcool (talk) 17:03, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

I am opposed and therefore removed it. As you can see above I mediated an acceptable resolution to both parties. As per the above discussion, including only the recent issues and not the multitude of others would be a breach of WP:WEIGHT and would be WP:RECENTISM. On the other hand, the recent issues do bring a third type of accusation into play (funding), so I added that to the short summary. If you would like to include more about the Israel-Saudi Arabia thing, I would be amenable to it so long as every gripe could be represented with the same weight; that is what I tried to do in the "bias" list that's been in the article for quite some time. Another option would be to AfD the criticisms article and try to bring it all back. In the future, though, I would suggest reading the talk page and commenting before making controversial edits (yes, controversy seems to brew in Wiki-land :-) ). Awickert (talk) 17:11, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

I'm opposed because I can't figure out what makes this particular story important. It's not notable from a funding perspective given that >99% of funding comes from North America and Europe. It's not notable that HRW have been accused of anti-Israeli sentiment since it happens everytime they publish something critical. Same goes for any of their reports. It's not notable that they went to a country to make presentations to and raise funds from Arabs interested in human rights since they do it all the time. Puzzling. Sean.hoyland - talk 18:01, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

So would you say the funding part is completely non-notable? I would say that it is insignificant in terms of monetary amount but maybe notable in terms of the criticism it drew, which is one reason why I decided to keep it all in the "criticisms" section as opposed to the "funding" section. Awickert (talk) 18:09, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

Awickert, you make a convincing argument. I'll accept the one sentence summary. Thanks for responding politely and reasonably. --GHcool (talk) 18:26, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

Blimey. Let peace prevail throughout this land. Sean.hoyland - talk 18:30, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

Amen to that. :) Awickert (talk) 04:01, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

This ref is 1) for Amnesty, not HRW, and 2) Just goes to the homepage.

1. ^ "Amnesty International’s Credibility Challenged: “Biased Against Democratic Governments Relative to the Guerrillas,” 2007-05-26, Asian Tribune, [2]

This ref is the Sri Lankan gov. belittling HRW . Is that a reliable source?

1. ^ Human Rights Watch hell-bent on attacking Sri Lankan government

Ditto...

1. ^ Human Right Watch is now trying to block the IMF loan

This one is grossly misrepresented. It makes the briefest possible mention of HRW, saying only that it doesn't pay enough attention to anti-Semitism. It doesn't call HRW anti-Israel.

1. ^ Anti-Semitism in Europe: Fighting Back,Anti-Defamation League

...and so on. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Noloop (talk • contribs) 22:22, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

as this is about critismism and not the truth of said critisim then the middle two sources are reliable for representing that critisism. Your first source does indead to to be worked on. The line in the artciel thqat your fourth source links to should (and hnow has been changed).Slatersteven (talk) 13:06, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

The Israeli NGO Monitor, which critiques groups such as Human Rights Watch, criticized it for waiting for six months before issuing its report critical of Hamas though it contained no new information. Gerald Steinberg, director of NGO Monitor, noted that the group already released two reports critical of Israel. The fact that it (Hamas) is only now on their agenda exposes their biased priorities, he said. --Sceptic from Ashdod ^(talk) 04:25, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

Ashdod this isn't a secret but we have to find 3rd party sources to corroborate these complaints as a defining criticism. NGO monitor is rather loathed on Wikipedia. Wikifan12345 (talk) 21:02, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

welcome back. Sean.hoyland - talk 03:58, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

I'm not following the insertion the source in this edit[10] as this source is pretty much not needed for the discussed paragraph and raised point by Yemini. Do clarify the edit.
Warm regards, Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 21:29, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

I suggest you make your edits to the Criticism article by the way Jaakobou because this detailed info will be removed from here per WP:SUMMARY in due course when someone has time to do it. What will remain will be something like a statement that criticism of HRW includes criticism of their individual staff members and/or criticism of the Cast Lead reporting and the people involved. The master copy for this information should be the Criticism article. This whole section needs to be rewritten (but in the Criticism article) to include the comments/response from HRW and others about the information published by CAMERA and subsequently republished in Yemini's article. As for the cite itself it supports the preceeding statement e.g. the title of the report and the exact HRW phrase "violations of the laws of war by Israeli forces during Operation Cast Lead". You could incorporate some of the information from that HRW response to the ongoing post-Cast Lead reporting criticism into the article to balance the statements by Yemini. Yemini's, CAMERA's, NGO Monitor's etc criticism are within the context of post-Cast Lead reporting and we need to ensure that readers are aware of the context in which events occur. Yemini's allegations aren't an isolated event. They form part of a set of criticisms that occured post-Cast Lead. Sean.hoyland - talk 01:38, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

I tend to agree with you that the input should be further summarized here and the rest should be moved to the body of the criticism article. Still think it's really redundant to name the article through an extra source that doesn't add anything. I would prefer, in the meantime, to have the added source removed as it is used in a funny way... maybe we can interject the article name into the phrase about the targeted article by Yemini. I'm actually not certain the name is so important since his criticism is not about the article but about the editor.

Warm regards, Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 10:04, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

Well I disagree because the ref precisely supports the exact wording "violations of the laws of war by Israeli forces during Operation Cast Lead". It's textbook WP:V compliance for an important allegation/controversial statement by HRW as far as I'm concerned but by all means go ahead and edit the critcism article. The ref is likely to come back at some point because it's HRW's official response to all of the Cast Lead related criticism of which Yemini's article is one of many. Sean.hoyland - talk 07:10, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

The source is not needed for the report name. If it is used for a response to Yemini, then I'd have no quarrels with it. Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 11:03, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

IronDuke, in what sense does your edit comply with WP:DUE given that the scope of this article is the entire history of HRW, all of their activities etc and there is a criticism subarticle ? In what sense does your edit comply with WP:NPOV given that you removed almost all material that provided balance ? Sean.hoyland - talk 16:23, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

In the sense that this issue is being covered by major news outlets, and those looking for a more complete picture than any one news article woudl give may well look at this page. There is a large section in this article comparing HRW to Amnesty International. That is of considerably less interest than this issue, and there's still plenty of room in the article for it. I don't know what you mean about "almost all material that provided balance," but I'm happy to work it in if you'll say more about it. I'd also note that your edit, removing virtually all of the useful information, serves the reader quite poorly: they could easily miss that we had covered the event at all, which I hope was not your intention. IronDuke 16:31, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

The reason why my edit removed all of the information is because of WP:SUMMARY and the fact that readers can quite readily access the detailed information via the link to the article in the summarised text. That is how it is mean to work, no ? Summarised material, link to more detail -> link to more detail etc. You are going in the opposite direction to this workflow and copy/pasting material from a detailed article into a main article. Admittedly you did summarise it somewhat by retaining all of the criticism and compressing all of the responses into one sentence thus violating NPOV, a mandatory core policy, quite spectacularly. This does not serve the reader well at all. Then there is the issue of due weight, recentism, not news, not a battleground and all sorts of other issues that spring to mind. I see no reason why a reader can't follow the link to the detail via the link in the summarised information in this particular case just like they do in other articles. Why is this one special ? Sean.hoyland - talk 17:57, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

Yes, the reader can click on the summarised text -- if he can find it. But as it's buried (and poorly summarised, to boot) that would be difficult. I also find it curious that you demand the inclusion of some text (which you won't specify) into a section that you keep erasing. The core issue here is WP:IDONTLIKEIT. You've made it abundantly -- even spectacularly -- clear that you don't like this information. But turning this article into a battleground in order to suppress it is unhelpful. IronDuke 19:13, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

I've added the Recentism tag in the history section. With the exception of one paragraph, the section is entirely limited to specific recent events, mostly from the past three years. Surely a more complete and general account of the history of HRW can be written66.131.197.203 (talk) 23:47, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

I removed following paragraph because it is cryptic and probably unencyclopedic. Who is Owen McNally? Who is "Reid"? What is the connection to HRW, besides that it was one of their researchers who reported McNally's being flown back? What is the significance in the big picture?

In 2009, an HRW researcher said that Colonel Owen McNally had been flown back from Afghanistan to Britain "where he will reportedly be interviewed by military police".^[7] It further reported that Britain's Ministry of Defence had told media that Reid was the recipient of secrets, although Reid stated that she had met Col McNally only twice, both times in a purely professional capacity, both times at the NATO military HQ in Kabul. In the same article Reid asked "Why was my name released to the media by the MoD, with a libel that our relationship was "close"? They would know exactly what impression they were creating, and presumably decided that my reputation was expendable in order to ensure coverage of their "story"".

If you want to put it back, please at least clarify it. Mark Foskey (talk) 05:48, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

Nazi scandal engulfs Human Rights Watch 4 page article in the Times Online. "Human Rights Watch is one of two global superpowers among the world’s myriad humanitarian pressure groups." Never heard it described quite like that before! :) Stellarkid (talk) 16:55, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

This may be of interest for the article. [11] No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 13:49, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

I think this should be added to the article. Unlike Amnesty International, who was founded by catholics, and still helds many pro-life supporters in their followers, the Human Rights Watch are totally pro-choice and have been widely criticized for his fundamentalist views against the pro-life movement and for denying the right to life since conception. In fact, they aren't even officially recognized by the Catholic Church.82.154.83.12 (talk) 00:58, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

'fundamentalist views against the pro-life movement', hmmm. I'm not sure what 'recognized by the Catholic Church' means, entails and how it is relevant but if you would like to add some material about HRW's position on abortion then this source 'Access to Safe and Legal Abortion Is the End Rather Than the Beginning of Women's Child bearing Choices' by Marianne Mollmann, HRW's advocacy director of the women's rights division published on the Catholics for Choice site could be a useful source. You will need reliable sources for the criticism. Bear in mind that reproductive choice is just one of several issues HRW focus on so you would need to be careful about undue weight. Sean.hoyland - talk 12:45, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

You just added a quote from a institution not regognized by the Roman Catholic Church and whose members are often not even Catholics and try to distort the Catholic Church teaching on abortion, by hiding it under a morally unaceptable "choice". The Catholic Church is all for a free choice, but before pregnancy. The Church deems as morally unacceptable to put in the same way a choice between life and abortion. It really needs some sources the question about the criticism from the Catholic Church to HRW. The Catholic Church view on abortion can also be seen as fundamentalist by his oponents, since it condemns abortion in virtually all circumstances.82.154.83.178 (talk) 00:42, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

I've provided a reliable source that complies with mandatory verifiability policy which describes HRW's position on abortion using the words of HRW's advocacy director of women's rights, the person responsible for HRW's position on this issue. If you would like to use it to add material to the article you can. If you would like to add material describing opinions about HRW's position you will need reliable sources. Recognition of a source or an organization by representatives of religions, corporations, political organizations etc isn't relevant to decisions regarding article content. Article content decisions are based on Wiki policy. Editors personal views on issues like morality, abortion etc or their personal opinions about the views of the Catholic Church or anything else have no relevance for article content discussions. Wiki editors aren't reliable sources. The talk page guidelines and no soapboxing policy describe the behavioral requirements for talk pages. Sean.hoyland - talk 08:00, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

I've removed the "Recent successes" section that was added at some point. Apart from being WP:RECENTISM it's an WP:NPOV violation. If we are to include what HRW regards as their major successes I would suggest just a few highly summarized lines sourced from their annual reports with the opinions unequivocally attributed them i.e. nothing, not a word in Wikipedia's narrative voice.

The Human Rights Watch has had an impressive number of successful triumphs, many of which have been encouragingly recent. One such success story lies within the organization’s persuasion of the International Labor Organization to create a treaty protecting the rights of domestic workers. ^[8] These workers, many of whom maintain employment as housekeepers, caregivers and nannies, make up an overwhelmingly large portion of the international work force yet are consistently victimized by some of the heaviest exploitation across the globe. After nearly ten years’ worth of investigations into domestic worker abuse, the Human Rights Watch found that the approximately 100 million domestic workers worldwide are commonly confronted with a wide range of abuses, including violence or sexual assault from their employers and unmanageably long working hours. Their hard work and long hours are often met with little or no pay. ^[9]In order to combat this pressing worldwide issue, the Human Rights Watch began a massive advocacy campaign aimed at winning the International Labor Organization’s support in establishing a treaty that would protect the rights of domestic workers. Just last year, the ILO finally agreed to provide legal support for the treaty, and the Human Rights Watch is now pushing governments toward its official ratification. This treaty will ensure that domestic workers are granted reductions in working hours, minimum wage, and days off, as well as require governments to establish a minimum age for domestic employment, investigate abuse reports and provide girls with educational opportunities ^[10].

Another of the organization’s notable victories took place last fall, when The US Agency for International Development and the European Commission commenced their systematic shut-down of lead-contaminated camps in Kosovo. Unsettled Roma had been struggling to survive in these camps for over ten years, a heinous fact that the Human Rights Watch brought international attention to. The organization publicly documented over a decade of neglect on the United Nations’ behalf to help these Roma with their most basic survival needs, depriving them of medical help and housing. It was in response to the Human Rights Watch’s campaign efforts that the USAID and the EC decided to begin closing down these camps and relocating the Roma to more humane environments. ^[11]

Sean.hoyland - talk 16:43, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

http://www.thedailybeast.com/blogs-and-stories/2011-02-15/shawan-jabarins-controversial-appointment-to-human-rights-watch-board/

Marcus —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.140.36.85 (talk) 10:37, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

I have removed your copyright violations, WP:BLP violations and your soapboxing per WP:TALK/WP:SOAP. This page is for discussing proposed changes to the content of the Wikipedia article based on reliable sources and nothing else. Sean.hoyland - talk 16:52, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

This section was added to stop the red error msg. appearing. Trafford09 (talk) 23:12, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

In the article, there's one statement:

Charity Navigator, an organization that evaluates individual charity institutions and subsequently publishes reports detailing aspects such as income statements and organizational efficiency, gave Human Rights Watch a two out of four-star overall rating.

and another:

Charity Navigator gave Human Rights Watch a four-star rating, the highest number of stars possible.

They contradict each other, and neither is supported by the most current report on Charity Navigator itself. I flagged both for review; the section/s would be improved by merging, and explaining what actually happened. Current rating (June 2010) dropped from 4 stars to 3, apparently on the basis of weak revenue growth though I'm not sure I read it correctly. Anyone else want to fix it? --Raduga (talk) 01:17, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

this is a tag about merging it with the criticsm article of HRW. i would like to suggest that this piece stay here, and just remain updated. i would guess that 12-18 months would be enough of a time frame for 'recent', and then, the rest can be deleted and/or moved to the other article. comments? suggestions? Soosim (talk) 15:00, 6 December 2012 (UTC)

great. since there are no objections, i will simply (and please feel free to revert me for this bold and daring edit) move older material to the critcism page. Soosim (talk) 10:42, 9 December 2012 (UTC)

Maybe there should be a "Not_to_be_confused_with"-section where organizatins with similar names can be listed, so that it can be made clear that those organisations has no connection to HRW. I know of one candidate: Syrian Observatory for Human Rights — Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.58.44.85 (talk) 13:15, 10 April 2013 (UTC)

Since when are currency speculators considered philanthropists? Since they give some of the "earned" money to pressure groups? Does insider trading conviction qualifies you for the title? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 46.239.10.220 (talk) 10:59, 16 July 2015 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Human Rights Watch. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20090917042132/http://www.hrw.org/en/node/75139 to http://www.hrw.org/en/node/75139

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 17:05, 6 March 2016 (UTC)

I've moved the following problematic content here for discussion and clean-up:

HRW has been criticized by national governments, other NGOs,[39][40] and its founder, and former Chairman, Robert L. Bernstein.[41] It has been accused by critics[42] of being influenced by the agendas of U.S. foreign policy,[43] in particular in relation to reporting on Latin America.[44][45][46][47][48] Governments and their supporters have criticised HRW's criticism of their policies, including those of Venezuela,[49] China,[50] Saudi Arabia,[51] and Egypt.[52] The government of Ethiopia has also accused HRW of unfair and biased reporting, although this may be motivated by the Ethiopian Government's preservational interests.[53]

Allegations in relation to the Arab–Israeli conflict include arguments that HRW is biased against Israel,[54][55][56] (which elicited a response from HRW),[54][57] and that the organization has requested donations from Saudi Arabian citizens on the basis of its criticisms of Israel;[58] HRW has publicly responded to criticisms relating to its reporting on Latin America[59][60][61] and in the context of the Arab–Israeli conflict.[57][62][63][64][65]

I removed the "Criticism" section and added a link in "See also" to the criticism article for the reasons explained here: WP:CSECTION. I then attempted to incorporate the criticism content into the appropriate parts of the article, and that's when I noticed there was virtually zero informative content here. The existing text can be summarized as:

• HRW has been criticized for something by various people and governments, but these governments don't like to be criticized themselves
• HRW has been accused of biased reporting, or possibly not
• HRW has been accused of bias against Israel, and for Arabs, and HRW responded, go ahead and guess

That has to be the most uninformative, lopsided (and unencyclopedic) two paragraphs I've ever read. Who says "someone said something bad about someone, eliciting a response" and then sticks a bunch of ref citations without explaining what was said, what the response was, who actually said what? Since there is already a whole article dedicated to criticism, we should just provide a link to it. If editors make a reasonable case for forking it back into this article, at least make it encyclopedic and informative, with context. Regards, Xenophrenic (talk)

Since we should strive for a NPOV article I think inclusion of critics of HRW's viewpoint is warranted. Per WP:CRIT: Under Wikipedia's neutral point of view (NPOV) policy, articles must present differing viewpoints on the subject matter fairly, proportionately, and without bias. Articles should include both positive and negative viewpoints from reliable sources, without giving undue weight to particular viewpoints, either negative or positive. -- Tobby72 (talk) 15:59, 11 September 2016 (UTC)

I agree 100% that is indeed what WP:CRIT says, but you haven't indicated which of the two solutions you support. WP:CRIT also says: separate sections devoted to criticism, controversies, or the like should be avoided in an article because these sections call undue attention to negative viewpoints, which is one of the reasons the separate criticism section was removed. The other reason it was removed is because a dedicated criticism article already exists, of the kind explained in this section of WP:CRIT about separate criticism articles for organizations. Are you proposing that we delete the dedicated article, and incorporate that content into this article? Xenophrenic (talk) 18:41, 11 September 2016 (UTC)

It's called WP:SPLIT. We had a summary of criticism here below the link to the main article just like the rule page says. Two editors now oppose your removal of the section. Etsybetsy (talk) 18:32, 13 September 2016 (UTC)

We had a summary of criticism here...

No, we did not. We had a few sentences which absolutely did not summarize the content at the fork article, and, in fact, were almost completely uninformative. That is why they were moved here for discussion and improvement.

Two editors now oppose your removal of the section.

It wasn't removed, it was moved here for discussion and improvement. Are you here to help with that? The assistance is always welcome. Xenophrenic (talk) 20:13, 13 September 2016 (UTC)

And the page for WP:CRIT says "in most cases" (which you cut from your quote) criticism sections are usually to be avoided but if there is a large body of material it's appropriate. It also describes the very kind of section we have in detail as a method, with the title Criticism and it also talks about the WP:SPLIT maneuver. Etsybetsy (talk) 18:48, 13 September 2016 (UTC)

You misread. It doesn't say both are used in the same situation, it's one or the other. We can have a short blurb here and a pointer to the main article, or we can have a large criticism section here and get ride of the fork article. Which are you advocating? Xenophrenic (talk) 20:13, 13 September 2016 (UTC)

Btw, Wikipedia has a page WP:Criticism (WP:CSECTION) but this is an "essay", not a policy. It expresses the opinions and ideas of some Wikipedians but may not have wide support. -- Tobby72 (talk) 06:56, 17 September 2016 (UTC)

It isn't clear what you are trying to say, Tobby. Every participant in this discussion has now referenced the WP:Criticism essay, which has wide support and represents a widespread editing norm. In fact, there is a Wikilink to it from WP:NPOV, which is a core policy and one of the pillar rules of Wikipedia. Please note that the 'Controversy' section wasn't moved from the article to this Talk page because of that essay, but for the reasons explained in it (which are actual policy). That was explained in the first post of this discussion. If you would prefer to read the actual Wikipedia policy, rather than an easier-to-read essay, on why we don't use "Controversy" sections, please check: WP:STRUCTURE, WP:UNDUE and WP:NPOVVIEW for the basic rundown. Those are policies.

May I ask again what you are advocating here? Moving the controversy/criticism content into this article (I saw that you recently proposed adding more here), or having an article dedicated to that content, with a brief summary and pointer to the dedicated article here? Regards, Xenophrenic (talk) 08:13, 17 September 2016 (UTC)

We're talking about a short summary of another article (Criticism of Human Rights Watch). -- Tobby72 (talk) 09:51, 17 September 2016 (UTC)

Correct; we are. But when I view that other article, I see not only criticisms being asserted, but also rebuttals to those criticisms. Wouldn't a proper summary of that other article mention that, or do you feel only the criticisms should be mentioned here? Xenophrenic (talk) 18:04, 17 September 2016 (UTC)

Xenophrenic, thanks for your most recent edit; it looks good. -- Tobby72 (talk) 08:36, 18 September 2016 (UTC)

Great; thanks. Regards, Xenophrenic (talk) 23:47, 14 November 2016 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Human Rights Watch. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.counterpunch.org/whitson0922
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070310234300/http://www.zmag.org/content/showarticle.cfm?ItemID=11048 to http://www.zmag.org/content/showarticle.cfm?ItemID=11048
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110628232148/http://www.counterpunch.org/cook11302006.html to http://www.counterpunch.org/cook11302006.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 10:58, 6 April 2017 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Human Rights Watch. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://archive.is/20140521195920/http://www.debretts.com/people-of-today/profile/26188/John-STUDZINSKI to http://www.debretts.com/people-of-today/profile/26188/John-STUDZINSKI
• Added {{dead link}} tag to http://charityreports.bbb.org/public/seal.aspx?ID=34521032010

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 13:12, 8 November 2017 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Human Rights Watch. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20150408041756/http://www.ippr.org/people/policy-advisory-council/john-studzinski to http://www.ippr.org/people/policy-advisory-council/john-studzinski

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 09:27, 3 December 2017 (UTC)

This edit and this identical edit by User:Kxcd both removed sourced content without an edit summary explanation. Would you mind providing that explanation here? Regards, Xenophrenic (talk) 01:31, 5 August 2018 (UTC)

I just noticed that you removed the reliably sourced fact that HRW has been accused of bias "both for or against Israel". Just a few days ago, IP:71.89.128.206 was blocked by User:Ian.thomson for repeatedly making a similar deletion. made similar deletions before being blocked for personal attacks by User:Ian.thomson. Is this, by chance, the same editor? Xenophrenic (talk) 01:36, 5 August 2018 (UTC)

No, it's not the same editor. The existing text did a poor job summarizing the criticism directed at HRW. I rewrote it to better reflect the material on the main Criticism of Human Rights Watch page. In particular, the criticism directed at HRW is not limited to being pro-Israel or anti-Israel, but also of the organization having undue focus on the Arab-Israeli conflict, as well as other select conflicts, at the expense of others. I felt that what I wrote better summarizes this. Kxcd (talk) 01:44, 5 August 2018 (UTC)

"...the criticism directed at HRW is not limited to being pro-Israel or anti-Israel"

That is certainly true that there has been criticism of more than just pro/anti-Israel bias and influence by US policy, but those are still key criticisms nonetheless, so perhaps their complete deletion was unintentional? I've returned that content, but I was careful to keep your improvements as well. Regards, Xenophrenic (talk) 15:23, 5 August 2018 (UTC)

• I blocked the IP because of the personal attacks they made in the process of their edit war. No comment on the material in question. Ian.thomson (talk) 02:10, 5 August 2018 (UTC)

(My apologies, Ian; I've struck my poor wording and clarified to avoid confusion. -Xenophrenic)

I like this version much more. It's more encyclopedic and comprehensive. Criticism of HRW is also related to methodology and focus on human rights violators, not only Israel.--יניב הורון (Yaniv) (talk) 03:33, 5 August 2018 (UTC)

I share your appreciation for comprehensiveness. All of the above points should now be adequately covered. Regards, Xenophrenic (talk) 15:23, 5 August 2018 (UTC)

I like the current version. Thanks.--יניב הורון (Yaniv) (talk) 20:45, 5 August 2018 (UTC)

Philippine president Rodrigo Duterte’s way of implementing his war on drugs is abusive. Many filipinos ended up as collateral victims. The national police is using the WOD as a way to earn extra money by killing drug suspects without due process. The influx of illegal drugs from China has increased since Duterte took office in 2016. His son, Paolo Duterte and his chinese friends are allegedly involved in the billions of pesos worth of methampethamine that was smuggled to Valenzuela warehouse outside of Manila that led to a senate hearing. Paolo refused to show his tattoo on his back during the senate hearing. The said tattoo would help to confirm the allegations of him being a member of the chinese triad. More than 24,000 poor drug suspects had been killed yet no druglords have been brought to the court of justice nor a legal case filed against those who are on Duterte’s narco list since 2016. On May 13, 2019 the senatorial and local election will be held and once again Duterte is waving his narco list wherein some of those candidates whom he endorses are included on the the same list. It will not be a big surprise if the names of some of the opposition candidates ’ names wouldl come out on Duterte’s narcolist as Duterte has been known to be an expert in destroying the reputation of anyone who goes againsts his will. Pilipinaskongmahal (talk) 20:34, 12 March 2019 (UTC)

Check out the HRW board of directors. It is comprised almost entirely of investment managers, senior executives, corporate lawyers or spouses and children of same. Maybe there should be an entry to this effect in the article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.15.90.8 (talk) 01:40, 9 April 2019 (UTC)

The section is written with a seeming slant in favor of HRW over Amnesty, but the sourcing is unclear/subpar, mainly the part referenced with "The Wiley-Blackwell encyclopedia of globalization". I looked it up, and could only find this excerpt, which does not in any way view Amnesty as lesser than HRW, in fact it seems to be the opposite. The Sunday Times section also needs a better source, an actual reprint of the article perhaps, like this one.

I'm not really sure how much weight the comparison section should have anyway. Just a casual perusal of search engine results shows they're often more tied together than different, as shown even by critical reports like these. Donkey Hot-day (talk) 03:20, 25 November 2020 (UTC)

Human Rights Watch is — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2001:8F8:1465:FD7D:3849:DD9A:674E:F6EA (talk) 10:14, 22 February 2021 (UTC)

Describing Amnesty International as "Western-oriented" is misleading. While the origin is Western and the physical headquarters for the International Secretariat remain in London, for three decades out of six, AI was led by Africans and Asians: Pierre Sané from Senegal 1992–2001; Irene Khan from Bangladesh 2001–2010; Salil Shetty from India 2010–2018; Kumi Naidoo from South Africa 2018–2020 (see Amnesty International#Structure and scroll down). Boud (talk) 21:35, 20 February 2022 (UTC)

Is it 'Critics' or rather reason to be proud?Xx236 (talk) 07:25, 22 April 2022 (UTC)

Leave the interpretation of China's actions to reliable sources. Selfstudier (talk) 08:26, 22 April 2022 (UTC)

Despite academic Immanuel Ness pointing out that "HRW rarely criticizes human rights abuses by the U.S. and its allies, and almost always reaches conclusions consistent with Western foreign policy positions", there seems to be a lack of reply/feedback from this human rights group. Has this issue been addressed? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.149.166.156 (talk) 18:46, 24 April 2023 (UTC)