Difference between revisions of "Talk:Human Rights Watch"
(Needs a complete rewrite - if they are biased, we well earn the world's trust by exposing the sham) |
|||
| Line 6: | Line 6: | ||
I've removed the US for now, stating that an organisation is biased against an entire nation is a very serious accusation, which must be supported by a citation (even if it is true it must be supported because of its nature). However, after doing a bit of research it seems a lot of opinion is directed the other way, that HRW is biased in favour of the US, [http://72.14.253.104/search?q=cache:EkHbfKMuohUJ:www.zmag.org/content/showarticle.cfm%3FItemID%3D12200+%22human+rights+watch%22+bias+%22united+states%22&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=7 this] is just one example. [[User:EQ|EQ]] 09:11, 18 August 2007 (EDT) | I've removed the US for now, stating that an organisation is biased against an entire nation is a very serious accusation, which must be supported by a citation (even if it is true it must be supported because of its nature). However, after doing a bit of research it seems a lot of opinion is directed the other way, that HRW is biased in favour of the US, [http://72.14.253.104/search?q=cache:EkHbfKMuohUJ:www.zmag.org/content/showarticle.cfm%3FItemID%3D12200+%22human+rights+watch%22+bias+%22united+states%22&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=7 this] is just one example. [[User:EQ|EQ]] 09:11, 18 August 2007 (EDT) | ||
| + | |||
| + | ==Call for a substantial rewrite== | ||
| + | |||
| + | This article is too "balanced" in the wishy-washy Wikipedia style. On top of that, it doesn't even flow well. | ||
| + | |||
| + | Let's determine what percent of their efforts is dedicated to criticizing the two best countries in the world for human rights: America and Israel. Then let's decide determine how much they criticize those with the worst [[human rights]] records. | ||
| + | |||
| + | If it's clearly disproportionate, then let's expose them. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] <sup>[[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]]</sup> 21:13, 28 August 2007 (EDT) | ||
Revision as of 01:13, August 29, 2007
22:30, 11 July 2007 Ed Poor (Talk | contribs) (→Founders - all Jewish sounding names, what does that mean? Anything?)
Well, Ed, it could mean nothing, or it could point to the American Jewish community's long history of commitment to human rights, progressive politics, and democracy - dating back from before their involvement with the struggle of economically and racially marginalised African Americans during the Civil Rights era, to the longstanding Jewish commitment to persecuted minorities arising from the Jewish experience of the pogroms and the Holocaust. PFoster 23:08, 11 July 2007 (EDT)
US or not US
I've removed the US for now, stating that an organisation is biased against an entire nation is a very serious accusation, which must be supported by a citation (even if it is true it must be supported because of its nature). However, after doing a bit of research it seems a lot of opinion is directed the other way, that HRW is biased in favour of the US, this is just one example. EQ 09:11, 18 August 2007 (EDT)
Call for a substantial rewrite
This article is too "balanced" in the wishy-washy Wikipedia style. On top of that, it doesn't even flow well.
Let's determine what percent of their efforts is dedicated to criticizing the two best countries in the world for human rights: America and Israel. Then let's decide determine how much they criticize those with the worst human rights records.
If it's clearly disproportionate, then let's expose them. --Ed Poor Talk 21:13, 28 August 2007 (EDT)