Talk:Criticism of Human Rights Watch

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This article was nominated for deletion on March 15, 2007. The result of the discussion was no consensus.

Contents 1 Okay 2 Summary of complaints from the main article 2.1 Selective imported POV complaints: India 2.1.1 Criticism from Indians 2.1.2 Allegations of bias against India 2.1.3 Some info on SAAG 2.2 Selective imported POV complaints: Israel 2.2.1 Problems with the criticisms 2.2.2 Criticism Section seems disproportionately large 2.2.3 Major edits, POV

[edit] Okay

This move seems like an okay idea. There is precedent for this.Hkelkar 01:46, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

Aye. - Francis Tyers · 12:47, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

I would have preferred keeping this in the main article and trimming to notable criticisms, but I'm willing to work with this if it is what everyone else wanted I guess. --YoYoDa1 18:46, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

It was not my first preference, but too many pro-HRW editors were POV-pushing against the criticism section and so this seems like the only viable compromise, particularly in the light of precedent. Hkelkar 18:48, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

To be honest, I think that probably 70-80% of the criticism in this article is non-notable (including the 'responses'). Unfortunately since it is verifiable and people don't want to delete it, and I don't have the inclination to argue, we are stuck with it. As are stuck with it, it is better in a separate article as to have it in the main article would put undue weight on the criticism. - Francis Tyers · 20:36, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Summary of complaints from the main article

Trying to maintain a list for those who don't want to go through all of the content below. Feel free to debate these or add your own:

• There has been a debate about making this criticism section match that of Amnesty International
• Some editors have argued that the criticisms against HRW are partisan
  • The neutraility and reputation to some sources have also been called in to question
• There seemed to be a consensus that this information is way too long. That is why it was pushed out in to another article.
  • Not everyone wanted this, it was just viewed as the best compromise. Some/many editors would eventually like to integrate this back in to the main article.
• Some editors have pushed for sentences trying to put this section in to context, while other editors feel that this will act as a disclaimer or 'whitewash'.

This should then imply a list of goals to get the tag off. We need to establish a basic consensus on:

• A layout for the criticism section
• 'Cleaning up' the sources
• Shortening the content to notable and reputable criticisms which the average Wikipedia user wants/needs
• Establishing an introduction/summary which people can be happy with

This is just my stab at it, and everybody probably has their own take on it. So just write what you think below this. --75.46.80.104 13:09, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

Also, I just added a tag to the "Allegations of Anti-Israel bias" section the main page. A lot of the sources currently being used seem to be public affairs organasations who define their purpose somewhat along the lines of putting out information which is favorable to Israel. It can be okay to use some of these sources, but we need to make sure the reader is informed of the purposes driving the different organasations.

I also question how much (some, but certainly not all) of the criticism is notable, but that is another question entirely. 75.46.88.163 16:08, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Selective imported POV complaints: India

[edit] Criticism from Indians

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)

[edit] Allegations of bias against India

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 [1] 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)

[edit] Some info on SAAG

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)

[edit] Selective imported POV complaints: Israel

[edit] Problems with the criticisms

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? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 68.249.103.28 (talk • contribs) 23:05, 23 August 2006.

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)

[edit] Criticism Section seems disproportionately large

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

[edit] Major edits, POV

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)