Talk:Human rights groups and the Middle East

Removing information from parent NGO articles
While it is not a bad idea to have a general article about these issues, removing the information from the parent NGO articles is tantamount to whitewashing and sanitizing the organizations. If anything, the parent articles must be the main source, as the criticisms and defenses are particular to them, and this article, if anything, should be at most a generalized clearinghouse. Otherwise this becomes a fork dedicated to sanitizing the parents, which I believe is a POV fork. -- Avi 00:51, 17 August 2006 (UTC)


 * See my response at AI's talk and HRW's talk. Tyronen 14:01, 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. -- Avi 14:22, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

One or the other
Do we really need to have the exact same text replicated? If we're going to keep it in the parent articles, let's delete this one. &mdash;Ashley Y 02:20, 17 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Let's not delete anything until we can come to a consensus about where this material should go. Tyronen 14:01, 17 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Agreed. Let's come to some consensus (or attempt too :} ) before we start wholesale revisions and deletions. -- Avi 14:23, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

What should be done with this page
I see three possibilities for this article: -- Avi 14:22, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
 * 1) This becomes the primary such article, with just a synopsis and a main link in the NGO articles themselves;
 * 2) This becomes a secondary article with synopsized entries for each NGO and main links to the proper section in the NGO article. As such it would serve as a centralized reference which would then point to various specific entities.
 * 3) We leave the information in the NGO articles, and place this up for WP:AfD.

Survey
Express a brief opinion; details in discussion section.

Primary

 * 1) Leave this article as the main references, with summaries and links to it from the NGO articles. Tyronen 14:54, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

Secondary

 * 1) Leave this article as a centralized reference with the primary information in the respective NGO articles. -- Avi 14:22, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

Move article to "Human rights in the Middle East" or similar

 * 1) Probably best direction to achieve NPOV. &mdash;Ashley Y 20:47, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

Discussion

 * I think that leaving this as a secondary article is best. The issues raised included such as that much of the respective parent articles are given over to criticism. Unfortunately, so be it. There is nothing preventing editors from expanding on the good work that these organizations do. But if there is significant data to show bias, that needs to be represented, and I feel on the NGO page itself, for there is where the various POV's need to be expressed to allow for NPOV. -- Avi 14:22, 17 August 2006 (UTC)


 * I "vote" for the primary option. The problem really is the sheer quantity of material.  Because of the great interest shown in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict around the world, and the strong emotions that conflict generates, means that there will always be more material debating NGO coverage of Israel than of, say, China, or Uzbekistan, or Togo.  This is not to say that the Togolese government is happy with the NGO reports on them; just that there isn't as much of their objections to be found on the net and used as Wikipedia sources.  If we leave the entirety of the Mideast criticisms in the main articles, it makes them POV.  Really, the only way we could keep the complete criticisms in the main articles and still leave them NPOV would be to devote equal space to rebuttals.  That would basically take over the articles (this arguably did happen to the HRW one).  If it is feared that this primary article would become a less-useful "clearinghouse", we could perhaps split it into separate pieces on AI and HRW.  Tyronen 14:54, 17 August 2006 (UTC)


 * I think secondary is best - we should more the sheer quantity of material out to where it belongs and leave this a navigational article. - CrazyRussian talk/email 15:49, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

POV framing issues
Right now, this article is really "Criticism of human rights groups in the Middle East". For each group, it starts with (mostly pro-Zionist) criticism, and then has the response.

Instead, if the article is to match its title, for each group it should start with what that group has to say about human rights in the Middle East, and various accusations the group makes against Israel as well as Arab countries and groups. After that, the criticism, and after that, its response. &mdash;Ashley Y 20:44, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

Change the title or overhaul the article?
I'm doing my best to act as an impartial reader and I just have a really hard time connecting the title of the article with the information within it. The majority of the article is limited to "Israeli" criticisms of human rights groups, with responses thrown in. It becomes even more confusing when we start reading about Guatanamo Bay. I think this should be reorganized before you worry about anything else. --67.38.35.89 06:27, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

AFD
The result of the AfD was keep, but several editors brought up the idea of integrating the content into other articles. Feel free to discuss that here. --Core des at 06:44, 25 October 2006 (UTC)


 * In the case of HRW, it's already been done. In fact, the HRW section here is actually shorter than in Human Rights Watch. &mdash;Ashley Y 21:00, 26 October 2006 (UTC)


 * In the case of HRW, it's exactly the same text from the article, just in a shorter form. I think it only belongs in one place (probably the parent article).

POV title: it is more about criticism of HRGs with regards to coverage/criticism of Israel
This article doesn't deal with the broad subject of human rights groups and their reports on the middle east but rather it deals with specific criticisms leveled at human rights groups with regards to their coverage or criticism of Israel. There is nothing wrong with such an article but it should be labeled appropriately. --Deodar 09:24, 26 October 2006 (UTC)
 * I concur with Deodar. I recall that there were/are criticism of the human rights issues of Iran, Iraq, Syria, within Lebanon, and even Egypt in the past decade. This article does not address any of these issues, but compares one States reportage against a couple of countries outside of the Middle East (where communication and coverage is difficult). As such the title is indeed a misnomer, IMO. LessHeard vanU 21:37, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

AFD 2
The article appears to be dead (if it ever was living).. no one has edited it in months. All of the material appears in the parent articles, so the entire article appears to be redundant anyways. --68.72.37.26 04:30, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

I'm the IP user above. Here's a link to the AfD info if you are interested in commenting there. AfDs for this article:  – (View AfD) (View log)

--Nosfartu 05:09, 17 August 2007 (UTC)