Talk:Human Rights Watch

Discussion by sane people

This article is completely one-sided, and needs to be improved.

Human Rights Watch has an atrocious record of supporting Human Rights violations.

It wholeheartedly supports the invasion, and brutal occupation of Palestine, which I've never witnessed with my own eyes. Pretty brutal to provide health care, hospitals, electricity, etc... It wholeheartedly supports the Haitian death squads who overthrew the democratic government of Haiti. It supports the bloody invasion of Iraq. And then there is Somalia, Serbia, Venezuela, Cuba, etc. etc.

To cut a long story short, it is a cheer squad for US foreign policy.

Carl Kenner 06:43, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

Haha, they seem to be doing a pretty good job, someone below calls them "reflexively anti-American".

• http://hrw.org/english/docs/2006/04/26/usint13268.htm
• http://hrw.org/english/docs/2006/05/02/usdom13290.htm
• http://hrw.org/english/docs/2006/04/24/usdom13241.htm
• http://hrw.org/english/docs/2006/04/24/usdom13255.htm
• http://hrw.org/english/docs/2006/03/14/indone12926.htm

To be unpopular with both sides at the same time is probably the best pointer to the fact that one is performing one's duties correctly and with impartiality. — that said do you have links for HRW supporting the invasion of Palestine, I thought it wasn't around in the '40s, and links for all the others. - FrancisTyers 11:11, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

I'd strongly disagree with the statement on unpopularity. Exhibit A is news stories, which inflame both sides. Sometimes it's because they're fair, but more often it's because they're omitting essential information, because they're poorly and/or misleadingly written and/or researched, or because both sides know it's in their interest to complain. At best, it's a sign that a controversial topic is being considered. At worst, it's a sign that few if any informed persons can agree with the work. Rarely is it due to "balance," "objectivity," or "performing one's duties correctly." Whether or not this applies to HRW is another matter, but it is one of the biggest myths among journalists and it shouldn't be promulgated here.

That said, in the interest of balance, it might be good to have "accomplishments" and "criticisms" sections, each being written by someone on the appropriate side of this issue. Reading this article, one wouldn't think that HRW has any problems with American foreign policy or any conflict with neoconservatives, but, from what I've read, it clearly it does. Calbaer 01:52, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

Discussion by the far right

-Human Rights Watch has for long been one of my favorite fairly NPOV sources of information. They have always been sort of absolutist in their judgements: they don't seem to allow for any circumstances whatsoever in which a soldier might legitimately kill a civilian, whereas I might excuse it if the civilian were repeatedly stabbing the soldier with a carving knife.

Nice joke, but I think you've got the wrong end of the stick (or breadknife?) here. If a person is repeatedly stabbing a soldier with a breadknife then they're surely a "combatant" rather than a civilian?! HRW is not a pacifist organisation, nor do they deny a person's right to self-defence.80.43.14.68 09:40, 5 October 2005 (UTC)

-Recently I've been alarmed by some of the POV rants embedded in what seem to be NPOV reports. It's like a bunch of field workers submit perfectly lovely reports, and then a party agent or manager lays a thick curtain of goo over the top.
-Could someone do me a favor? read the following report--it's not too long, though the actions described are repugnant--and see if you can find evidence to contradict my observations.
HRW report on Serbian rapes of Kosovar Albanians
-The report states clearly many times that the abuses were organized and part of the national effort to intimidate Albanians "as weapons of war and instruments of systematic "ethnic cleansing." ". Yet I see no shred of the usual forms of evidence that would be used to prove this:

• An interview with a high-level army official
• a printed order

-It says that the crimes were so widespread--96 plus unguessably many more--that they must have been organized, but given the hypothetical set-up:

1. Thousands of 16-25 year old males
2. ordered to rape tens or hundreds of thousands of women
3. as an intimidation effort, which means that private rape is pointless

-I would expect quite a few more rapes and thousands more witnesses.
-Does the report offer any justification at all for its conclusions, beyond clear speculation? I.e "They must have known..." the librarian

Agreed..It was bad, but I think they've jumped to conclusions too quickly.

Thoughts re HRW and similar is that a pattern tends to emerge, one I think we've seen in regard to Amnesty International as well.

Initially, they gained a lot of respect for honestly good work. They deserved it. However, since about the 1980s, I'm getting the impression that AI (particularly) and HRW have become captive to their fame. Now, they almost reflexively follow whatever political agenda may be popular at the time (typically, but not always, liberals), declaring it to be a matter of human rights.

It could be argued that AI lost a lot of what made them great once they expanded beyond political prisoners into far greyer areas.

HRW, similarly, seems to have become rather trapped by the environment they travel in (primarily, in the US, the Democratic Party). If they didn't take sides, and actively made an effort to stay out of the limelight (instead just getting their work to people who could do something), I'd respect them. --Penta 00:08, 3 Jun 2004 (UTC)

I'm just curious but exactly what is wrong with the human rights watch? Human rights = individual rights. Therefore it's imperative for the organization to support human rights. This would of course go contrary to most people who don't believe in individual rights. If human rights are conditional instead of absolute than their organization would be called the human rights conditional watch or something similar? --blurryeye 18:50, 25 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Generally, as they've become more assertive about protecting human rights, they've inevitably ended up treading on various American ideological toes, such as the death penalty, abstinence-only sex education, etc. Whereas protecting the human rights of political prisoners is uncontroversial in the U.S. (at least it was before Guantanamo and Abu Ghraib), a more complete advocacy of human rights must inevitably be branded "taking sides" and "following a liberal agenda" from those who feel that any criticism of the U.S. is unseemly. —Ashley Y 23:15, 2005 Apr 2 (UTC)

---

That Human Rights Watch is a human rights organization is a truth; that it has no ideological bent is a flat out lie. There is nothing objective in the position that allowing the killing of murderers as punishment for their crimes violates human rights, while not allowing the killing of unborn babies in the form of abortion does the same. This is a left-wing POV, just as the Christian Coalition's reverse view (pro-Death Penalty and anti-Abortion) is a right-wing POV. Demanding that prisoners be allowed condoms in prison is an issue worthy of debate, but it is not a "human rights" issue. Opposing the "humiliation" of convicted sex-offenders by giving them distinctive license plates is a worthwhile topic of debate, but it is not a "human rights" issue. Supporting greater penalties for perpetrators of "Hate Crimes," where those who commit crimes against "minorities" (inc. whites with Spanish surnames) are given harsher sentences is not objectively a "human rights" issue, and libertarians overwhelmingly oppose such measures. That the fact that black males commit a disproportionate amount of violent crime, and are therefore disproportionately represented in prisons and in the serving of long sentences, does not objectively amount to "human rights" violations (see Race and Incarcartion in the United States, a 27 February 2002 report). That defining marriage as being between one man and one woman amounts to "human rights" violations is a left-wing POV, not an objective one (esp. given that traditional Mormons are prohibited from marrying multiple people and the HRW has no problem with that form of discrimination).

Many if not most of its stances are objectively pro-human rights, but not all are. It is a lie to say the above positions taken by HRW are either objective or non-ideological.

Cryptico 2005 June 12

That's funny. I'm a human rights lawyer, and I doubt anyone in my shop would have trouble classifying each of those as human rights issues without any kind of stretch. *However*, this is not the end of the story. Something may be a "human rights issue" without that necessarily dictating the proper determination of the issue. The fact remains, unfortunately, that few people treat rights as rights, rather than privileges to be doled out or withheld depending on circumstance or approval of the claimant. That's not how it's supposed to work, but it does.

I agree. 199 22:50, 12 Jun 2005 (UTC)

But there's no such thing as "objectively pro-human rights" anyway. To be pro-human rights is an ideology the same as any other moral position. —Ashley Y 01:40, 2005 Jun 13 (UTC)

Also, HRW may or may not be liberal (no great surprise if so, since human rights are central to liberalism, almost a common thread between the different strands), but they can hardly be called left-wing. —Ashley Y 01:52, 2005 Jun 13 (UTC)

Then why is this organization called a human rights organization, if there's no such thing, objectively, as "human rights"? Human rights are important to liberals and conservatives alike, but giving murderers the same consideration as innocents and giving unborn babies no consideration at all is hardly non-ideological. Being anti-death penalty and pro-abortion can objectively be called "left-wing," just as the reverse can objectively be called "right-wing." Why not call them anti-human rights since they are against unborn babies having any? If you're going to play the relativism game, then don't even bother to call this group a "human rights" organization.

Cryptico 13 June 2005

Because there is such a thing, subjectively, as human rights. It's what people feel humans should be entitled to by way of legal protections etc. There's consensus about this, by and large, but it's not a perfect consensus, so there'll be disagreements as you point out. HRW represents one particular set of opinions on that, but of course others feel differently. —Ashley Y 06:02, 2005 Jun 13 (UTC)

And there is such a thing, subjectively, as a liberal activist group, even if there is no universal "consensus" as to what exactly a "liberal" issue is. That same-sex marriage and abortion on demand and harsher penalties for whites who murder blacks than for blacks who murder whites are considered "human rights" issues by HRW, when there is NO consensus or anything like a consensus for these points of view, shows it to be a human rights/liberal group. That you happen to agree with them doesn't change that fact.:Cryptico 2005 June 18

To Ashley

Ashley, thanks, you clarified a few things for me.

POV?

"Human Rights Watch's specialty is the production of authoritative research reports on human rights violations, which are used to shame governments ". Sounds a bit POV right? I don't edit much as I have no time so could someone clear the article up and add more sections like current goals and criticism and all that. Thanx.

Reflexively Anti-American?

I just heard the ED of Human Rights Watch on the NPR lecture series presented by syndicator Alternative Radio. I thought that HRW was an international advocate of human rights, but the Director's response to almost every human rights problem in the world seemed to be that it was "America's fault" each and every time. Not once in an almost two-hour lecture did he criticize any other government besides the US government -- it was astounding. It was CIA this, FBI that, State Department this, Air Force that -- I thought I was listening to somebody from International A.N.S.W.E.R. Was this just an isolated lecture, or is this the HRW position every day? Morton devonshire 21:38, 31 December 2005 (UTC)

Actually, they're pretty savage towards everybody. Maybe he was having a bad day and just decided to lay into the US. They seem to have firmed up on the US, as it has been crucial in opposing many key human rights instruments such as the ICC and UN framework conventions against torture, landmines and other human rights abuses. If you're still a bit skeptical, which is fair enough. their website is worth a visit and spells out their positions fairly well. They do take sides, but only on the side of human rights - they were quite critical of the Clinton administration in the US for similar reasons. Mostlyharmless

But it is not objectively "pro-human rights" to support abortion-on-demand, which involves the killing of an innocent human life. Nor is it objectively "pro-human rights" to support same-sex marriage while taking no stand whatsoever on polygamous marriage. It is not objectively "pro-human rights" to oppose sex offenders having to identify themselves as such on their license plates. Ashley's convoluted postings in defending their left-wing, non-human rights positions as not being left wing show the lengths some will go to deny the obvious. -- Gerkinstock 04:29, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

Added criticism section.

I've added the criticism question people have requested on the talk page so far. Hopefully that will balance the entry out more and give more information than the few sources that are directly off the HRW website. Very little of the new criticism section is my analysis of the criticism; most is direct quotes from the critics themselves. So it should conform to neutral POV well.

Wow. For such detailed criticism, there seems to be a distinct lack of response...

Changes for POV, grammar, etc.

At least one of these changes was explicitly requested on this talk page, while the others seemed to be hinted at. I've removed the traces of everything that appears to be biased POV. If everyone approves, it would be nice to get the POV flag down at some point.

Here is what I changed, and why:

Human Rights Watch is a U.S.-based international human rights non-governmental organization headquartered in New York City that conducts advocacy and research on human rights issues.

To

Human Rights Watch is a U.S.-based human rights non-governmental organization that conducts research on human rights. Its headquarters are in New York City.

Awkward sentence

---

Human Rights Watch's specialty is the production of authoritative research reports on human rights violations, usually intended to draw international attention to abuses, and to put pressure on governments and international organizations to prevent further violations of human rights.

To

Human Rights Watch produces research reports on perceived human rights violations. This is intended to draw international attention to abuses and to put pressure on governments and international organizations to reform.

Words like "specialty" "authoritative" and declaring the fact of human rights violation or abuses(without a qualifer like perceived) all violate POV. Many would argue that it isn't their specialty, that the reports are not authoritative, and that many of what Human Rights Watch fights against are not actual violations. To assert any of this as fact would be a biased POV.

---

Researchers conduct fact-finding missions to countries investigate violations and generate extensive coverage in local and international media.

To

Researchers conduct fact-finding missions to investigate suspect situations and generate coverage in local and international media.

Again, the usage of "violations" here as if it were fact, rather than suspicion, is biased POV. The claim that the coverage is "extensive" is biased POV as well.

---

Major issues raised by the organization in its reports include social and gender discrimination, torture, military use of children, government corruption, and abuses in criminal justice systems in many nations. It also specializes in documenting and reporting violations of the laws of armed conflict and international humanitarian law.

To

Issues raised by the organization in its reports include social and gender discrimination, torture, military use of children, government corruption, and abuses in criminal justice systems. Human Rights Watch documents and reports perceived violations of the laws of armed conflict and international humanitarian law.

If the issues are "major" is subjective. If the violations are real is subjective, again. Its a matter of perception, and duly noted.

---

Each year, Human Rights Watch gives grants to writers all over the world who have been victims of political persecution and are in financial need.

To

Each year, Human Rights Watch gives grants to writers worldwide who are in financial need and who they consider to have been victims of persecution.

This is biased POV because it asserts that they have been victims of political persecution, which of course is one-sided and easily disputed depending on the issue (many would state that they were just criminals). Thus, I've put the qualifier "who they consider" so it doesn't state it as absolute fact. I've also reworded the sentence to make it less awkward.

---

Human Rights Watch is a founding member of the International Freedom of Expression Exchange, a global network of non-governmental organisations that monitors censorship worldwide and campaigns to defend journalists, writers, Internet users and others who are persecuted for exercising their right to freedom of expression.

To

Human Rights Watch is a founding member of the International Freedom of Expression Exchange, a global network of non-governmental organizations that monitor censorship worldwide.

The entire section about journalists, writers, etc. being persecuted and having a right to freedom of expression has been removed. HRW and the IFEE do not defend all of those parties, only those it chooses to. In addition, the concept of a "right to freedom of expression" is subjective and biased, not one that is universally endorsed. As is these parties being "persecuted."

---

Human Rights Watch publishes detailed reports on several individual topics [2] and compiles annual reports ("World Report") presenting an overview of the worldwide state of human rights.

To

Human Rights Watch publishes reports on several topics [2] and compiles annual reports ("World Report") presenting an overview of the worldwide state of human rights.

If the reports are "detailed" is a matter of subjective opinion, thus biased. Individual is redundant.

Ashley, stop vandalizing.

Lets look at your last edit, Ashley:

You changed the phrase; Human Rights Watch has been criticized by human rights activists, non-governmental organizations, politicians, and the news media

to

Human Rights Watch has been criticized by various pro-Zionist organisations and individuals.

Why have you changed this? You've altered a factual statement - that human rights activists, NGOs, politicians, and the media have all criticized HRW - into a POV statement that they are all "pro-Zionist." While it could be argued that some are, "pro-Zionist" is a POV term for this article and is not accurate information when describing any one of these groups. Its completely inacurate and radical when describing some. Such as Anne Bayefsky, one of the leading human rights activists in the world today, as well as one of the leading scholars on human rights. She has been praised by the United Nations a number of times for her work. She can't be called "pro-Zionist" by any standard.

Shimon Peres is a politician, by definition. Yet, you've deleted "politician." Any justification for that? How about the FM of Spain? She's a politician too - yet again, you've deleted politician. While Peres is a Zionist, the term best used to describe Peres is "politician", not "pro-Zionist." Very POV. Ana Palacio, the FM of Spain, is not "pro-Zionist" in any sense of the word. She is a politician.

Honest Reporting and CAMERA are NGOs, by definition. Yet you've deleted non-governmental organizations. You may argue that they are pro-Zionist, but that would amount to "original research." This isn't how they define themselves, but rather a criticism of them. Thus, it should be listed as verifiable criticism under their own wikipedia entries, not in this one.

Jerusalem Post is a news source relied upon worldwide. Yet, you've deleted news media. I don't think you'll find a single source of repute that claims the Jerusalem Post is a "pro-Zionist" group. Rather, it is relied upon by foreign media worldwide when commenting on Israeli affairs.

Your changes are nothing short of vandalism and they violate verifiablity and POV. If you revert without justification and slander this entire group as "pro-Zionist" I'll have to request a lock on this article.

You didn't even spell organization right, btw. Do you spell check before you violate no POV in articles?

So revert it. I just did (although I forgot to sign in first) -Piro RoadKill 13:58, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for that. You got to it before me. Forgot to sign in myself. --ARoyal 14:11, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

To be perfectly honest, after reading the entire talk page, I am of the opinion, as is stated above, that Human Rights Watch is harshly critical of many, many governments, and that often criticism of a country's government would come off as seeming as if they are against that country. For this reason, I think, the criticism section seems disproportionately large to the rest of the article. In the interest of NPOV, I'd like to see the rest of the article expanded so it doesn't look as if the criticism section is given undue weight. --Kuzaar^-T-C- 18:42, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

I'm not seeing any human rights activists listed. I shall remove that phrase. —Ashley Y 18:46, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

OK, Bayefsky. I'll leave that. —Ashley Y 18:48, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

Paul Treanor

This is just some non-notable guy with a website, right? There's no reason to include his link, is there? —Ashley Y 07:50, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

This article is ridiculous!

It is absurd that over half the Wikipedia entry on Human Rights Watch is devoted to coverage of criticism of HRW for its alleged pro-Palestinian bias! Whatever you think about Human Rights Watch's writings on the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, there are many, many other issues that HRW deals with, and, for that matter, many other areas in which HRW has been criticized.

If Wikipedia really believes that the issue of HRW's alleged anti-Israel bias is so important, then a separate entry for that issue should be created. Furthermove, any discussion of this issue should devote at least an equal amount of attention to what HRW actually says about Israel and Palestine as to the criticism of HRW by pro-Israel watchdogs.

--Peter FH 15:51, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

I agree. This article is nonsense. There is very little about what HRW acctually does compared to what people dont like about it. This article is completely useless in the context of wikipedia and no one who isn't looking for an argument would want to read it. HRW's criticism of Israel can easily be summed up in one sentence and the trash heap that is half this article can be deleted.--Musaabdulrashid 08:55, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

Mass Editing

Going through this Wikipedia article I see that people have removed large parts of the criticism section with no discussion, save for what little ranting is above. People have been removed including leading scholars on Human Rights like Anne Bayfesky and Abraham Coper. A few of the edits may have been justified (see Ashley's removal of Elihai Braun), however there is no justification for the mass editing and removal that has occured to the criticism section. In fact, the editing to the criticism section has left the response to criticism section responding to things that have been edited out, such as the HRW involvement in the Durbin Conference on Racism and Xenophobia that Bayefesky commented on. I can understand if people want the criticism section shortened (thats been requested before, and I'm happy to oblige), however the shortening here has removed vital content that has made other parts of the article (see response section) nonsensical. I'm going to revert it; any large removals will need to be explained and justified. --ARoyal 09:20, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

I am one of those who shortened the section. The trouble is that more than two-thirds of the article is about criticisms of HRW, making the article clearly POV. It was not even a general criticism but specifically about Israeli-Palestinian issues, which are only a small part of HRW's work. If it is desired to keep this text in its entirety, could a separate article, Human Rights Watch and the Middle East or something be created? Tyronen 18:19, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

Actually a new article sounds like a wonderful idea to me. Rather than an article on HRW and the Middle East I could do an article on criticism of HRW. The way it has responded to human rights abuses in China, Tibet, various African nations, Islamic states, Haiti, Israel etc. are all of prime importance. I only wrote about HRW and Israel because it appears to be one of their larger problems. --ARoyal 15:52, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

bias

this article gives way too much weight to the criticisms. for example a quantitative study might also reveal that Israel is one of the worst human rights abusers. maybe instructive to include comparisons to OTHER human rights groups. in each case what did the other ones say? are they all unanimous? are they all including B'Tselem biased against Israel? it's a very curious question.

"A quantitative study carried out by NGO Monitor asserted an anti-Israel bias as well."- quoted from the wikipedia article

—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 63.246.182.108 (talk • contribs) 16:50, 14 August 2006.

what is this? i was quoting the article. that wasn't anyone's comment. anyway i looked into the NGO monitor and their report. it's a joke. they also think the International Court of Justice is biased. you can sum up that whole paragraph in one sentance...several pro isreali groups criticize HRW for being biased against Israel. that's how that works.

NGO monitor has a Pro-Israeli bias. They themselves are not an unbiased organization. Jlee562 18:23, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

Besides the fact that they are biased for criticizing Israel for a massacre that never took place and ignoring terrorism against Israel, YOU CANNOT DELETE FACTS. Whether you think it puts to much is a matter of POV, DO NOT REMOVE ACTUAL FACTS. --Shamir1 23:59, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

To Shamir1: There are many Wikipedia standards for articles. A criticism section belongs in this article, but it should be proportional to a general reader's views and necessities. The current section seems much too long to justify this. --67.38.35.89 05:23, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

Removing information

Removing the information from this article, in my eyes, is tantamount to whitewashing the NGO, making the new article nothing more than a POV fork. To have an article that in and of itself is a collection of such issues is not a bad idea per se, but not at the expense of “sanitizing” the parent articles. -- Avi 00:47, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

As I said on the AI talk page, I don't see how creating an entire article criticizing the NGOs can be called a "whitewash". In any case, this article originally had almost half of its contents devoted to the controversy over HRW's Israel. This gives readers the impression that HRW is an organization devoted to criticizing Israel, when in fact it covers dozens of countries. Furthermore, I didn't "remove" the material from the main page, I left a summary of the criticisms (which you were welcome to expand) and a link to the complete text. Even user ARoyal above (who I believe originally wrote the criticism section) was open to the idea of a separate article, although he wanted to add other criticisms as well. Thinking out loud here - could we do it that way? Split up the Human rights groups and the Middle East article into separate pieces on HRW and AI. Tyronen 14:05, 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. Also, I think we should centralize this discussion somewhere. For the time being, talk:Human rights groups and the Middle East can serve, whether or not that becomes the main article, a secondary article, or should be put up for AfD. -- Avi 14:14, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

Problems with the criticisms

Quite aside from the question of whether they belong in a separate article, there are other problems with the criticism section. Some of the same information is presented more than once.

• Paragraph 2: The second CAMERA citation merely points to the first, which is basically a summary of the NGO monitor study described in paragraph 6. As is, it is misleading as it implies CAMERA has done a study of its own.
• Paragraph 3: likewise, based largely on NGO Monitor (para. 6) and Gerard Steinberg's material from paragraph 9.
• Paragraph 4: ADL's web site is down right now, so impossible to evaluate.
• Paragraph 5: AIJAC's criticism is found only in one sentence, which is refuted in the Wikipedia article.
• Paragraphs 6-8: these at least appear to have an actual basis and can remain.
• Paragraph 9: seems original but the link reveals that Gerard Steinberg is actually the editor of NGO Monitor, so it is not clear this can be decoupled from the preceding.
• Paragraph 10: Not sure why this is there, as Leibler is just another columnist, and the citation only mentions HRW in passing.
• Paragraph 11: Citation on ADL's web site which is down.

In fact, even paragraph 1 is quite misleading as it gives the impression of a chorus of independent criticisms, when what is actually cited is based almost entirely on two sources - NGO Monitor's studies and the allegations about the Durban conference.

I think paragraph 1 should be reworded, while 2,3,5, and 10 should be deleted entirely. If that were done I'd be willing for the section to remain in this page and not a sub-article. Tyronen 21:04, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

Another problem:I think it should be noted that NGO Monitor belongs to the Jerusalem Center for Public Affairs, which charges itself with the purpose of "the need to present Israel's case in the wake of the renewed Palestinian violence." The wording throughout the criticisms section lists the criticisms without what seem like NPOV qualifiers. Would a correct way to address my grievances be to start a section entitled "Established Credibility", "Accomplishments", etc. and then cite numerous academics and media outlets that agree with me? 23:05, 23 August 2006 68.249.103.28

HRW has just come out against its accusers, notably the ADL and NGOmonitor, saying that their criticism lack any attempt at factual rebuttal, and that their criticisms amount to a claim that Israel should be above the rules of war. The document can be found [ http://hrw.org/english/docs/2006/08/30/isrlpa14094.htm here]. 125.237.74.41 23:01, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

Comparison with Amnesty International

This section is seriously out of date. AI campaigns on small arms as part of the Control Arms campaign, as well as campaigning against discrimination on all grounds including HIV status, sexual preference and, specifically, women through the Stop Violence Against Women Campaign. I suggest the last paragraph be deleted unless someone can rewrite it to be more accurate. Donnacha 00:54, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

Criticism Section seems disproportionately large

It's about as long as the rest of the article. The criticism of HRW definitely isn't that important to a neutral conversation about the topic of the article, especially when all of the criticism is related just to the Middle East and Israel. Maybe you guys should consider making a new article about this? 15:40, 23 August 2006 68.249.103.28

Ana Palacio

I've now taken out the Ana Palacio references. I looked at the original link; it has just one sentence, in passing, complaining that HRW hasn't covered incidents of anti-Semitism in Europe. This is not really a fair charge as HRW's mandate doesn't cover what is essentially local criminal violence. I also looked for a citation for Shimon Peres criticizing HRW, could not find one, so have removed that point as well. Tyronen 20:40, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

The Palacio material has been restored. Someone please provide some kind of justification for this or I will remove it again. Tyronen 15:19, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

Hezbollah

I removed a couple sentences claiming that HRW did not condemn Hezbollah during the 2006 Lebanon war. This is demonstrably false. See here and here and this PDF and HRW's related criticism of Iran and Syria. Tyronen 23:11, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

The "negative viewpoint" link just added should really be written up into the main article, with this defence from the LA Times also referenced. Donnacha 10:30, 6 September 2006 (UTC)