Talk:Human Rights Watch

Why are all quotes only about India?
All quotes in the current article are about one specific quotes in India.

Is HRW only covering India? Or is HRW covering India more intensively? Otherwise it should be expanded with more variation.

Quote from SAAG
The following quote was deleted by Rupert Loup :


 * Human Rights Watch is a prominent New York based organisation wielding considerable influence on American policymakers and on western perceptions of India. 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.  For too long these reports have gone unchallenged.
 * Politics By Other Means: An Analysis of Human Rights Watch Reports on India, SAAG, Arvin Bahl (South Asia Analysis Group) SAAG, 2004

SAAG is an important institution in its field, and this was at the time a major report on HRW reports about India. It is already a bit dated (year 2004), but this should not be an issue.

The author has published books such as this one : From Jinnah to Jihad : Pakistan's Kashmir Quest and the Limits of Realism, with a foreword by Atul Kohli.

But the main point is not even the author, but that it was for the time (year 2004) a notable report on HRW reporting in India by a major Indian institution in the field. --დამოკიდებულება (talk) 20:20, 23 April 2020 (UTC)
 * That is a guest colum, the SAAG is the publisher not the author of the source, the quote doesn't meet WQ:Q. Rupert Loup 21:01, 23 April 2020 (UTC)
 * After some research, which you could also have done, I have seen that the paper (by the way also cited in many books such as The Oxford Handbook of Religion, Conflict, and Peacebuilding) was also published as a book chapter. I have added the details now. --დამოკიდებულება (talk) 21:15, 23 April 2020 (UTC)
 * The burden to demostrate the notability relies on the user that added the content. If you can present proof of notability it can be readded. He and his works aren't widely reported as far as I know. WQ:Q The content that you added in the quote states that it was "also published as a chapter in Rao, R. N., & Elst, K. (Editors) (2003). Gujarat after Godhra: Real violence, selective outrage." However, that particular quote is not present there. Rupert Loup 21:44, 23 April 2020 (UTC)
 * First, many quotes that you have been adding on various pages aren't widely quoted. Therefore, you are criticizing very selectively. Secondly, this is a very specific subject. The paper in the very specific subject (Commentary about the HRW reports about India in the early 2000s from an Indian perspective) is reasonably notable, having been published at a notable institution and separately as a book chapter. And criticism about organizations are also important to cover. The quote from that paper is short and poignant. The HRW article, when you created it, only had quotes about India, so to have such a quote related to India is even the more appropriate.  --დამოკიდებულება (talk) 22:00, 23 April 2020 (UTC)
 * "aren't widely quoted": the quotes that I added are by notable authors. That's the difference, if the author is not notable nor the quotes are widely quoted then those quotes fail WQ:Q. You added a lot of quotes by notable authors that I didn't delete because that reason. Rupert Loup 22:09, 23 April 2020 (UTC)
 * "The paper in the very specific subject (Commentary about the HRW reports about India in the early 2000s from an Indian perspective) is reasonably notable": then add a quote from that paper. Because this particular quote is not present there. Rupert Loup 22:18, 23 April 2020 (UTC)
 * "Human Rights Watch is a prominent New York based organisation wielding considerable influence on American policymakers and on western perceptions of India. 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.  For too long these reports have gone unchallenged.  Here is a detailed analysis of some of the recent reports of Human Rights Watch and an attempt has been made to set the record straight.  The views expressed are the author’s own.   Director." This is not a quote of Arvin Bahl, that's why is not present in the paper. And after reading the paper I think that Bahl has some notability. Rupert Loup 23:49, 23 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Thank you for pointing this out. I have added a different quote from the main body of the article.--დამოკიდებულება (talk) 10:24, 24 April 2020 (UTC)

Additional citations
Additional citations have been deleted in this article.

For example:
 * 

According to Manual_of_style, Additional citations (one or two) can be useful as long as they don't clutter too much. They can be useful for


 * 1) online verification (if it is an online source)
 * 2) to help the reader find additional context and discussion about a quote
 * 3) or simply to acknowledge as a matter of fairness the source where the quote was actually found

and should not have been deleted.