Talk:Human Rights Watch

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)

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)

Few Abuses Carried out by the U.S?

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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

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)

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)

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)

Criticism section, problems with

The criticism contains the following statement:

HRW has routinely publicly addressed, and often denies, criticism of its reporting and findings.

References

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)

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