Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Criticism of Human Rights Watch (2nd nomination)


 * The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review).  No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was   keep. \ Backslash Forwardslash / {talk} 10:12, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

Criticism of Human Rights Watch
AfDs for this article: 
 * ( [ delete] ) – (View AfD) (View log)

An unnecessary POV fork that violates WP:UNDUE. Human Rights Watch is a generally well-regarded NGO that criticizes what it perceives as human rights abuses in various countries. Not surprisingly, some of these countries (and their supporters are not happy about this, and retaliate by questioning HRW's impartiality. The article has allegations of anti-American bias, anti-Israel bias, and anti-Eritrea bias (WTF?) I see no evidence that these criticisms represent a mainstream or consensus view. Those few that are genuinely notable could easily be included in a paragraph or two in the main article. Creating a separate article consisting of nothing but criticism &mdash; one that is nearly as long as the main article &mdash; is a classic example of undue weight. *** Crotalus *** 16:24, 3 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete. Given that criticism sections are considered dodgy WP:UNDUE-wise these days, to have an entire POV-slanted article dedicated to criticism of an organisation is untenable. Cynical (talk) 17:40, 3 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep The criticism of Human Rights Watch is well-sourced, widespread, and very commonplace throughout society (I would have little difficulty finding additional sources with which to expand this article). The nomination states that HRW is a well-regarded NGO, but is that is not really NPOV.  Its well-regarded by the U.S. State Department perhaps, and by the liberal-democratic capitalist adherents to globalism.  Many, many other people have a contrary view.  The article seems too lengthy to Merge with the Human Rights Watch article, but it never-the-less constitutes a collection of notable information on a notable subject. KevinOKeeffe (talk) 20:50, 3 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Please note that Kevin O'Keefe is a neo-Nazi who made threatening phone calls to a Jewish community center; see this San Francisco Chronicle article and this Wikipedia Review thread for details. I believe that he is not here to help build an encyclopedia, as indicated by edits such as this one. Note also this edit in which he admits to being a former National Alliance member, and this one in which he defends "White Nationalists". The closer should consider whether this individual's political views are the impelling force behind his vote. *** Crotalus *** 21:11, 3 August 2009 (UTC)
 * The motivation behind a keep or a delete is pretty much irrelevant, what matters are the reasons given, and that is all the closer should consider. This is not a vote. Are you now going to check the character and the political views of every single editor contributing to this AFD? Pantherskin (talk) 21:45, 3 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Comment I was a neo-Nazi during the 1990s. I am not one anymore (although neither have I switched my positions 180 degrees and become a liberal).  As has already been stated, my political views (both the ones I hold presently, and the ones I used to hold) are not relevant, and I shouldn't be hounded by some troll about a stupid mistake I made ten years ago (and for which I have already been punished).  Actions I undertake at this board should be based on their objective merit, not on whether people like whatever it is they think that I believe about abstract socio-political issues.  And for the record, I DO agree with many nationalist critiques of Human Rights Watch.  Is that not permitted?  Are the opinions only of those people who agree with State Department press releases, and Thomas Friedman opinion pieces, considered valid with regard to these discussions?  Because I'm pretty sure that's not reflective of official policy. KevinOKeeffe (talk) 02:25, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

*Keep - the criticism seems to be notable, but having all this content in the main article would violate WP:UNDUE. Pantherskin (talk) 21:41, 3 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Due to the continuing harassment by Noloop and the nominator Crotalus horridus I ask the deletion reviewer to ignore my keep comment. Pantherskin (talk) 15:10, 5 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Given that both of the named users want to delete the page why would you now wish to delete it because you bleive they are harrasing you? why would this change you opinion that this is a worthwhile page that should be keptSlatersteven (talk) 15:19, 5 August 2009 (UTC)
 * I did not change my opinion, but if the price of voicing ones opinion on Wikipedia is continued harassment, being called a cockroach, a mentally disturbed psychopath or a gnat that needs to be swat, no thanks, I have better things to do than to expose myself to this kind of harassment. Pantherskin (talk) 15:21, 5 August 2009 (UTC)
 * I did not make any such statements. I simply replaced a statement you had removed that said (correctly) that your account was a suspected sockpuppet. If someone did refer to you in the manner described above, then that is a violation of WP:CIVIL and is not acceptable behavior. *** Crotalus *** 16:12, 6 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Keep, seems to be valid as a subpage, too long to be a reasonable section within the main article. --Merovingian (T, C) 21:56, 3 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Delete It's obvious propaganda. Has anybody actually checked the so-called sourcing? The first ref is just some wikilinks to other articles. The 2nd ref is to a self-published blog. And so on. This trick of putting in false references and then calling it "sourced text" needs some attention on wikipedia. Noloop (talk) 01:45, 4 August 2009 (UTC)


 * The first refs are articles in national magazines and not wikilinks. The second ref might be a self-published source, but is only used as a refernce about the source itself. And so on I guess. Pantherskin (talk) 02:05, 4 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Nope. Click on the refs and you are taken to Wikipedia articles.
 * If you see a reference like "The New Republic, January 20, 1986; The New Republic, August 22, 1988; The National Interest, Spring 1990." you have to go to the library or try EBSCO, not click on the link. Pantherskin (talk) 16:38, 4 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Perhaps, but there is no reference to any article. It's just a list of magazines, and given the integrity brought to most of the other sourcing, the assumption of good faith is seriously eroded.Noloop (talk) 17:10, 4 August 2009 (UTC)


 * I went thru over half the refs. Most of them are complete garbage, and some are outright lies. You have to actually follow the links in the refs. Here's a diff to my summary of the lying with sources done in the article: Noloop (talk) 02:50, 4 August 2009 (UTC)


 * EDIT COMMENT Deleted a doubly-inserted part here as per Noloops alerting me on this diff. Don't know how this happened, apologies to Noloop and Slatersteven for the confusion. Greenleaf (talk) 03:59, 10 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Weak keepIf there are issues with refs then they can be changed but I do not feel, that that is reason enought to delete a page. Put the citations tag needed on the page instead.Slatersteven (talk) 13:36, 4 August 2009 (UTC)


 * If you take out all the illegitimately sourced material, violations of WP:WEIGHT, etc., you are left with a stub. See the Talk page. Noloop (talk) 16:24, 4 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Also source 3 does mention the otherthrow of Haitis govenment, its just does not mention the Prime minister by name.Slatersteven (talk) 16:44, 4 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Strong Keep* The fact that HRW is a human rights organization is not sufficient reason to ignore that as an organization its good intentions do not always have positive results. Criticism of Human Rights Watch necessary for preserving the organization.  HRW's mission is "dedicated to protecting the human rights of people around the world. We stand with victims and activists to prevent discrimination, to uphold political freedom, to protect people from inhumane conduct in wartime, and to bring offenders to justice. We investigate and expose human rights violations and hold abusers accountable. We challenge governments and those who hold power to end abusive practices and respect international human rights law. We enlist the public and the international community to support the cause of human rights for all."  The last line says it all.  When enlisting the public and international community they are inviting bias into their organization.  People that work for such organizations enter their line of work because they feel personally compelled to involve themselves in a situation.  This creates bias, this bias is explicit in HRW's performance as you can see if you read any of NGO Monitor's reports (which are founded in credible empirical evidence).  This criticsm is well founded and accordingly deserves its own posting. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kingcredibility (talk • contribs)  — Kingcredibility (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
 * Comment - The notion that NGO Monitor's reports are founded on credible empirical evidence is rather absurd as you can see from NGO_Monitor. Ironically it's this kind of nonsense with people sourcing criticism from clearly unreliable partisan sources that results in deletion nominations. If people really want the article to remain in existence then they shouldn't source criticism from the likes of NGO Monitor, CAMERA and the usual suspects.  Sean.hoyland  - talk 17:19, 5 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Keep - but rename to something neutral (not sure what) since criticism should be balanced by a response from HRW or other sources. Inevitably HRW gets criticised by all sorts of people, countries etc for all sorts of reasons. We need somewhere for the notable material and the main article isn't the right place for the details.  Sean.hoyland  - talk 13:25, 5 August 2009 (UTC)...for the sake of disclosure I should just say that I have been involved in the HRW article, mainly to try to deal with the Saudi funding stuff before it's move to the criticism article  Sean.hoyland  - talk 13:38, 5 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Keep - Seems to me a valid article, may be unpolished, certainly for an org as large as HRW, criticism is not unnatural and may be too large to handle in main article. As a side note (and not related to my vote), did a look at the edit history and I think a significant portion of the article was deleted by Crotalus after his nomination of the article for deletion. And also his deleting an external link to NGO Monitor: If the site was indeed biased, the better way would have been to mention it, and keep it, as they are clearly not NN. As for NPOV, any article about "criticism of" something is likely to contain POV in links. There are no "scientific truths" in politics: all we can do is to see whether this POV have reasonable basis, and to cover both sides. Greenleaf (talk) 19:01, 6 August 2009 (UTC)
 * These alterations were discussed on the article talk page. And your argument about external links is nothing more than WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS. If there are problem ELs on Criticism of the Latter Day Saint movement, remove them. Or nominate that article for deletion if you think it's irredeemably flawed. As for NGO Monitor, see WP:FRINGE and WP:REDFLAG &mdash; just because some fruitcakes get mentioned in the press doesn't mean that their comments are notable on articles about every person or organization they smear. We don't mention birther conspiracy theories in the Barack Obama article either, and we shouldn't. Nor should we mention every utterance from the "anti-Israel=anti-Semitic" crowd. Doing so would be a violation of WP:UNDUE. *** Crotalus *** 20:13, 6 August 2009 (UTC)


 * In case I wasn't clear, I was *for* keeping the controversy from notable sources and perhaps categorize them with their alliance, and editing the article to make it balanced, not by just summarily deleting what you call "crap" written by what you call "fruitcakes". I gave the reference to the LDS article as an example for this. So it's pointless to ask me to go ahead and delete it. It's puzzling to me how you got the impression that I thought that article "irredeemably flawed" because my point was precisely the opposite. I think the right way to handle at least the notable sources is to mention the criticism and *preferably* mention the response to it as well.
 * About Barrack Obama conspiracy theories: they do have their own page as you kindly pointed out: This discussion is about Criticism of HRW page, not about HRW page itsef. Your example, if anything, is relevant here only as an example of material that shouldn't make to main article getting legitimate pages on their own. I hope you wouldn't raise WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS on this too now? Greenleaf (talk) 02:54, 7 August 2009 (UTC)


 * If the article was edited to comply with policies it would non-existent or a stub. One problem with it is that it treats disagreement with HRW as a criticism of HRW. The bulk of the article is just a list of disagreements, and since almost all of them come from entities whose human rights record was criticized, it pure 100% unadulterated bias. The other problem is that half the sourcing is fraudulent.Noloop (talk) 20:36, 6 August 2009 (UTC)


 * I don't know. Taking the Saudi funding fiasco as an example (started by NGO Monitor), I think that is notable and worth including with attribution of statements to sources of course. It was important enough for HRW to issue a press release. It is notable that governments sometimes almost openly declare war on HRW. I don't see bias as a problem as it's always possible to balance these things with the views of HRW or others. What I do see as a serious problem is editors adding criticism and then stopping there when in fact they should also be adding the counter arguments/responses to comply with NPOV.  Sean.hoyland  - talk 01:41, 7 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Keep - (1) Regarding WP:UNDUE: HRW's own viewpoint - one of its main reasons for existence - is that people should have the right to criticise governments, political parties, organisations, private companies, etc. without risking imprisonment, torture or being killed for the fact that they spoke up. In this sense, having a full article documenting known criticism of HRW is fully within the spirit of what HRW is all about. i am sure that even HRW has published some self-criticisms - it's not a cult organisation. (2) The criticism article, preceding the deletion of many sections, may have lacked proper referencing, but that requires work, not deletion. (3) Another important point is that en.wikipedia is not USA.wikipedia.org and it is not westernworld.wikipedia.org either. Please read the documented, systematic bias discussed in WP:BIAS. Given that approximately 100% of HRW's funding is from the West, this is an objective reason to suspect that a pro-Western bias is very likely, and to especially seek WP:RS in non-Western information sources, in order to improve the overall neutrality of en.wikipedia.  In other words, "majority" in WP:UNDUE for the subject of HRW and criticism of HRW refers to a world-wide majority, not a USA+Israel+UK-wide majority. (4) "WTF" in the reasons for deletion - "anti-Eritrea bias (WTF?)" - is not an argument. Boud (talk) 02:08, 7 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Keep - Criticism of HRW is notable. HRW itself has responded to some of the criticism and definitely not WP:UNDUE. This is a spin-off of the main HRW article. What is required is the expansion of this article and include HRW's response to criticism, not outright deletion. -FriendOfPanda (talk) 15:28, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

I don't have a strong opinion on whether the article is possible in principle. Criticism of HRW may be a notable topic, but that is different from some editors declaring it to be notable because they want the article, regardless of what documentable, encyclopedic criticism is actually referencable. The article as it stood was a dumping ground for someone who just wanted to attack HRW. I have now read every reference that was used in the article at the time of this nomination. If you haven't checked the sources as I have, please don't presume to know what was valid or complain about my removals. The article used blogs as sources of fact, it flat out lied about what sources said, it represented an undergraduate opinion piece as the reporting of the publisher, it gave refs that didn't exist, and so on. The section on Eritrea referred to nothing but Eritrea's disagreement with HRW about one HRW report on Eritrea. If that's a basis for inclusion, the article will be an endless, mammoth dumping ground of governments bashing HRW reports about just those specific governments. The examples need to be systemic criticism, and given the politicized, POV-filled nature of the topic, the sourcing needs to be rigorous. I started a list of guiding principles for this article on the Talk page, please contribute to it if you wish. Noloop (talk) 16:31, 7 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Refer back to the reference you removed (Re: If you haven't checked the sources as I have...it represented an undergraduate opinion piece as the reporting of the publisher). It appears that the paper is introduced by the Director of SAAG who says, "..Unfortunately, their reports on events in India have been one-sided and biased. Rather than making an objective assessment of communal violence and human rights violations, the reports generally are based on half-truths, distortions and sometimes outright falsehoods..." This is not an one-off disagreement with HRW, but a general criticism of HRW's reports and methodology on India. Furthermore, the author of the article is not merely an unknown undergraduate. He has authored a book in Indian politics . From "About the author": He graduated with highest honors (Summa Cum Laude), was elected to the prestigious Phi Beta Kappa Society and was awarded the Richard Ullman Prize for best thesis on American foreign policy in the Woodrow Wilson School. Bahl has written extensively on South Asian matters. SAAG has more articles written by Bahl. The deletions you did need undoing. -FriendOfPanda (talk) 19:02, 7 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Pay attention. I didn't delete the information you're talking about. The criticism might be relevant to the article, except at the moment it is one guest opinion by one individual. Normally, that's the basis for a sentence or two, not an entire section. Feel free to contribute to the consensus process on the article like anyone else.Noloop (talk) 20:36, 7 August 2009 (UTC)


 * I think the point was that it's not just a non-noteworthy nobody's opinion. The writer, undergraduate or not, seems to have a reasonable standing. Greenleaf (talk) 03:43, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

I've been thinking more about the idea of a POV fork. What would people think if I created an article called "Praise for Human Rights Watch" and filled it with all the great compliments people have given HRW? Taking criticism (or praise) out of the main article takes it out of context. Noloop (talk) 23:10, 8 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Merge into Human Rights Watch. The key here is that this is a POV fork.  It needs to be merged back into the main article.  Yes, a straight merger would make that article overly long... but that can be fixed by summarizing and editing the material properly.  By combining similar criticisms together and selecting the most notable criticisms (or omitting the least notable criticisms... not every criticism needs to be mentioned) the resulting section can be shortened considerably and given Due Weight. Blueboar (talk) 15:12, 10 August 2009 (UTC)
 * comment: Given that one of the arguments about notability at the top of this AFD is "WTF" (i.e. "What the fxxx!!!") regarding a country especially notable as one of the few (only?) African countries to have gained independence in the 1990's, with a population bigger than that of Ireland, i'm not convinced that it would be easy to get consensus. Notability guidelines do not yet take into account the systematic bias in the English language wikipedia which is particularly bad when it comes to rich country vs poor country biases, internet-rich-country vs internet-poor-country biases, English-as-a-native-language vs non-native-En-speaker, etc. This is not a criticism against any individual, it's a statistical demographic property of us as en.wikipedians - see WP:BIAS for details. i haven't looked at the recent state of the article in detail, so i'm not sure that its recent content would help oppose the known WP:BIAS, but for people willing/able to invest time in trying to debias it, i expect it would be easier to debias without pressure to compress information too much - i.e. easier in a separate article than just a section. HRW is a big organisation that has existed for a long time - it would be surprising if criticism of it would decrease rather than increase with time. Another way of putting it: for judging Due Weight on this type of subject, we are very sensitive to the need for having editors with a very different demographic selection than what is most likely our actual demographic selection. Boud (talk) 22:29, 10 August 2009 (UTC)
 * I agree with Boud. The only thing that makes the criticism article (superficially) a POV fork is the title. Give it a neutral title and include HRW responses to notable criticism and it's not a POV fork.  Sean.hoyland  - talk 02:29, 11 August 2009 (UTC)


 * How so? The purpose of the article is to give a platform to critics of HRW. It's as inappropriate as an article, "In Praise of HRW" that just listed a bunch of compliments. That's what makes it a POV fork, I think (not sure I understand the term exactly). Noloop (talk) 02:32, 11 August 2009 (UTC)


 * That's like saying the purpose of Wikipedia is to give a platform to CAMERA/NGO Monitor etc. Thankfully it isn't. The purpose of the article should be to collect together notable commentary about HRW. That commentary could be positive or negative. It could come from a government criticising or supporting HRW, another NGO criticising or supporting HRW etc etc and from HRW themselves in response to commentary of course. If it doesn't comply with the mandatory, core policies (particularlyWP:V and WP:NPOV) then it shouldn't be there. There's lots of commentary about HRW, some of it is notable and some of it can't be summarised into a soundbite to be squeezed into the main article. We have to deal with it.  Sean.hoyland  - talk 02:54, 11 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Noloop, I also disagree with your point. The "purpose of the page" is to document/cover the criticism of HRW in a balanced way as possible, including HRW's responses to the criticism: To document what the critics say, NOT to provide an exclusive "platform" to the critics, any more than such pages as Gaia hypothesis or Flat Earth or Criticism of Holocaust denial pages are supposed to be "platforms" for someone. Greenleaf (talk) 05:06, 11 August 2009 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.