Talk:Human Rights Foundation

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Requested move 17 May 2017[edit]

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: Not moved.A part of outright biased and disruptive editing.No need for a complete discussion and wasting of everybody's valuable time.(non-admin closure) Winged Blades Godric 10:13, 17 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]


Human Rights Foundation → Human Rights Foundation (New York) – I kindly recommend to study the following article WP:NOT! I request to move the page to the new title because as I see not even 2 years was enough to end this battle. I have spent personally hours to read the history and changes on this article and I need to say that all those who opposing to move the current article to a new title are all wrong! I can't say any positive about the quality of the article instead I find that the article is quiet a mess. Let's see why, WP:SELFSOURCE WP:NOTMIRROR. The article in the current form is should be not allowed appear on WikiPedia beacause nearly all of the sources cited on the article are news reports and those who produce the cited news are mostly commercial news brands which again not allowed on WikiPedia. Let me quote:

While news coverage can be useful source material for encyclopedic topics, most newsworthy events do not qualify for inclusion.

What else? Oh I see, WP:PROMOTION && WP:NOTADVOCATE

..content hosted in Wikipedia is not for: Advocacy, propaganda, or recruitment of any kind: commercial, political, scientific, religious, national, sports-related, or otherwise. An article can report objectively about such things, as long as an attempt is made to describe the topic from a neutral point of view.

As I see nothing is neutral on the article. This article is not encyclopedic at all and I suggest to move it to the new title. Human_Rights_Foundation should be a Disambiguation page and not promotion of a specific organization especially not for those which have no encyclopedic value at all! As it's described above humanrightsfoundation.org and hrf.org even thehrf.org are WP:SELFSOURCE and should be considered as Spam. This article should not be on Wikipedia at all, not just because as I said not encyclopedic but also uses techniques like WP:CITESPAM. I kindly request all Wikipedians to vote in favor of this request. Human Rights Foundation (talk) 07:14, 17 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. Obviously. This editor has a clear WP:COI and is, for some reason, desperate to get the article deleted. They've now resorted to trying to speedy it for completely spurious reasons, which is why I have protected it. So now I've been accused of harassment on my talkpage. This editor really doesn't like the HRF! For the record, incidentally, I have no connection with the HRF whatsoever. -- Necrothesp (talk) 09:08, 17 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 8 external links on Human Rights Foundation. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 13:05, 8 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Bias[edit]

I don't see Egypt or Tunisia mentioned. If HRF has really been founded in 2005 I'm a little bit surprised, and I couldn't just shake off thoughts of bias, yet the article seems to try to convince otherwise. --Alien4 (talk) 18:57, 14 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Sourcing is very bad, this is an advertising puff piece[edit]

The sources for this article are almost entirely primary. RSes are used to cite things that are not actually about the HRF at all, or that don't mention the topic of the article. Large slabs of the article are functionally promotional text for the HRF.

We should give this a week for RSes to be found - then cull the primary-sourced and unsourced content - David Gerard (talk) 11:02, 6 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comatmebro thanks for your work, though (a) a lot of what you added is what Wikipedia regards as primary sources (b) you shouldn't remove the primary source tags from sources that are blatantly primary sources. What we need is third party, independently verifiable reliable sources - things like mainstream media coverage and so on. Not just any coverage, and not just for passing assertions - mainstream media coverage that specifically mentions the article topic - that's what's seriously lacking here - David Gerard (talk) 07:14, 12 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Understood - thank you for the feedback! I will try and find sources that fit your criteria a bit better. I don't disagree with your rational that too much of what's on there is coming from primary sources. My intent was to try and add secondary reliable sources to help with that problem - looks like I came up a bit short! Will continue to try and add where I can, keeping your notes above on my mind. Comatmebro (talk) 22:00, 12 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Please stop removing the primary source tags from sources that are blatantly primary sources.
Most of the article should basically be culled to mainstream RSes - large sections are cited only to HRF's own claims. This has been over a week now - is there any good reason to keep such blatant promotional material that there don't appear to be third-party cites for? - David Gerard (talk) 18:22, 17 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I don't see a good reason to keep blatant promotional material on the page. I just didn't agree that the tag was necessary for the source on the mission statement. Similar organization-type pages like this one cite a primary source for their mission statement. Why does this one need to be different?
I do agree with you though - let's remove some of it? Comatmebro (talk) 03:52, 18 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Elie Wiesel[edit]

His page names him as a founder of HRF (not THE founder) and active supporter for the rest of his life (not long). A tedious point, but as Wiesel won a Nobel for political activism, it would be good to get it right. Does anyone know? I don’t think I can slog through 2 archives today to see if he is mentioned. Thanks for any help you can provide. Ragity (talk) 23:41, 8 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Human_Rights_Foundation&oldid=1207666576"