Changes

Talk:Human Rights Watch (view source)

Revision as of 01:13, August 29, 2007

547 bytes added , 01:13, August 29, 2007

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)

+

==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)

Ed Poor

Siteadmin, Check users, nsTeam1RO, nsTeam1RW, nsTeam1_talkRO, nsTeam1_talkRW, oversight, Administrators

30,650

edits