Talk:Human Rights Watch

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Human Rights Watch article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Article policies

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

Archives: 1: 3 months

Organizations

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Organizations, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Organizations on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.OrganizationsWikipedia:WikiProject OrganizationsTemplate:WikiProject Organizationsorganization articles
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

Human rights High‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Human rights, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Human rights on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Human rightsWikipedia:WikiProject Human rightsTemplate:WikiProject Human rightsHuman rights articles
High	This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.

LGBTQ+ studies

This article is of interest to WikiProject LGBTQ+ studies, which tries to ensure comprehensive and factual coverage of all LGBTQ-related issues on Wikipedia. For more information, or to get involved, please visit the project page or contribute to the discussion.LGBTQ+ studiesWikipedia:WikiProject LGBTQ+ studiesTemplate:WikiProject LGBTQ+ studiesLGBTQ+ studies articles

Warning: active arbitration remedies

The contentious topics procedure applies to this article. Parts of this article relate to the Arab–Israeli conflict, which is a contentious topic. Furthermore, the following rules apply when editing the parts of the page related to the contentious topic:

You must be logged-in and extended-confirmed to edit or discuss this topic on any page (except for making edit requests, provided they are not disruptive)
You may not make more than 1 revert within 24 hours on any edits related to this topic

Editors who repeatedly or seriously fail to adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, any expected standards of behaviour, or any normal editorial process may be blocked or restricted by an administrator. Editors are advised to familiarise themselves with the contentious topics procedures before editing this page.

If it is unclear which parts of the page are related to this contentious topic, the content in question should be marked within the wiki text by an invisible comment. If no comment is present, please ask an administrator for assistance. If in doubt it is better to assume that the content is covered.

Further information

The exceptions to the extended confirmed restriction are:

Non-extended-confirmed editors may use the "Talk:" namespace only to make edit requests related to articles within the topic area, provided they are not disruptive.
Non-extended-confirmed editors may not create new articles, but administrators may exercise discretion when deciding how to enforce this remedy on article creations. Deletion of new articles created by non-extended-confirmed editors is permitted but not required.

With respect to the WP:1RR restriction:

Clear vandalism of whatever origin may be reverted without restriction. Also, reverts made solely to enforce the extended confirmed restriction are not considered edit warring.
Editors who violate this restriction may be blocked by any uninvolved administrator, even on a first offence.

After being warned, contentious topics procedure can be used against any editor who repeatedly or seriously fails to adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, any expected standards of behaviour, or any normal editorial process. Contentious topic sanctions can include blocks, topic-bans, or other restrictions.
Editors may report violations of these restrictions to the Arbitration enforcement noticeboard.

If you are unsure if your edit is appropriate, discuss it here on this talk page first. When in doubt, don't revert!

In citing that HRW is one of only two international human rights organizations in the US- dubious

Without even having to cite sources, let us do some basic defining using definitions how a middle class slightly above educated person would, what are “human rights” and what are “human rights groups/organizations/NGOs” “in the west.”

While I can think of a German group and Indian group off the top of my head, when we talk about human rights, unless explicitly mentioned, we are not describing all abused persons worldwide/discriminated people worldwide. We instead usually focus on certain issues like abortion, gay rights, principles of free speech, etc. When challenged on basis of morality such as issues pertaining to intimacy and other outcomes and practices (honor killings), sexuality, death penalty, these issues are known as “social issues”.

There are countless NGO’s and not just in the US. In fact, our European allies tend to have strong NGO’s too. There are so many ranging on a wide array of ideas. To say there are only two is too vague. Two what? International agencies functioning for human rights development? Also which NGOs exist outside the West? An example or source would be nice. Also while the UN may be considered a government, it certainly contributes a lot as do many western nations in advocacy.

Just thoughts. 2603:8080:2B40:165:70B9:E1B9:5AFB:B790 (talk) 09:10, 9 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I personally wouldn't consider India to be 'in the west', though Germany would count. The 'international' caveat is also important here, National Council for Civil Liberties for instance isn't international. One might also want to caveat that we are referring to general-purpose groups, EFF and Privacy International are both in the west and broadly international in their outlook.

Fundamentally, while these cardinal direction based regions ('west', 'east', 'global south', 'global north') represent real world politics, they certainly aren't very clear. ~ El D. (talk to me) 13:39, 1 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Few Abuses Carried out by the U.S?

While, as mentioned above, academic Immanuel Ness writes that HRW rarely criticizes human rights abuses by the U.S and its allies, might not such concerns be addressed by this article putting out more than just a few short lines on the subject? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.149.166.209 (talk) 12:30, 6 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Your point is a fair one, but someone should bring forward additional sources to do so. Please feel free to provide sources. JArthur1984 (talk) 14:35, 6 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sure there are human rights abuses in the US too, but their number with respect to such abuses in other parts of the world is so tiny, and the magnitude of the latter so much larger, to make it more likely to talk about abuses elsewhere.

There exist men biting dogs but you usually will hear of the reverse... 79.60.3.92 (talk) 06:31, 14 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Jew Tagging in this article

An editor has recently started jew-tagging this article - [[1]]. Is that wp:due? The Sausage Grinder (talk) 17:08, 24 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

This is not what "jew tagging" is. Here's me actually removing actual jew tagging a few hours ago [2] Maybe try reading the NGO Monitor article? It's an obviously partisan organisation, and that is worth mentioning in the article. Hemiauchenia (talk) 17:14, 24 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I've never heard this phrase, but the edit referred to the organization as a "pro-Israel advocacy group."

"Israel" should not be viewed as co-extensive with "Jews."

In this specific instance, I am not so convinced we need to include NGO Monitor at all. It is sourced only to a primary source and is 12 years old. I would recommend to simply delete the proposition and source. JArthur1984 (talk) 17:19, 24 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Why not attribute it in a more natural fashion? Throwing (Jewish) in parentheses is a common way to point out "outsiders". Maybe use commas? The Sausage Grinder (talk) 17:17, 24 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I would agree to the removal of the NGO Watch section entirely. Hemiauchenia (talk) 17:25, 24 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

As an aside from this, the "Criticism" has severe WP:UNDUE issues. Groups that criticise Israel's treatment of Palestinians are obviously going to get blowback, that doesn't necessarily mean that it's due to include. Hemiauchenia (talk) 17:25, 24 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The word Jew or any of its forms does not appear in that diff. But NGO Monitor is a dogshit source that should only be included if other sources take their views seriously. Citing it directly, as was done here, is using an unreliable source for an insignificant view. Agree with removal. nableezy - 18:26, 24 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Also, the ARBPIA CT restrictions include talk pages, if you do not have 500 edits you may not discuss this topic on talk pages except to make a constructive edit request. nableezy - 18:32, 24 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Criticism section, problems with

The criticism contains the following statement:

HRW has routinely publicly addressed, and often denies, criticism of its reporting and findings.^[1]

References

^ The Transformation of Human Rights Fact-Finding; Sarah Knuckey; Oxford University Press, 2015; Pgs. 355-376

Pages 355-376 of this book are a chapter called Numbers are only Human, Lessons for Human Right Practitioners from the Quantitative Literacy Movement by Brian Root, who describes himself as the "Quantitative Analyst at Human Rights Watch" (page 355). The chapter does not explicitly support the statement it is cited for. What the chapter does is to talk about issues with quantifying data on human rights violations and drawing conclusions from quantified data. -- Toddy1 (talk) 17:50, 24 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Removed. Hemiauchenia (talk) 18:32, 24 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

[Knuckey-1] The Transformation of Human Rights Fact-Finding; Sarah Knuckey; Oxford University Press, 2015; Pgs. 355-376

[1]