Talk:Euro-Mediterranean Human Rights Monitor

This article was nominated for deletion. Please review the prior discussions if you are considering re-nomination:

No consensus, 21 January 2024, see discussion.
no consensus, 5 August 2021, see discussion.

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Organizations, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Organizations on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.OrganizationsWikipedia:WikiProject OrganizationsTemplate:WikiProject Organizationsorganization articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Switzerland Low‑importance

	Switzerland portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Switzerland, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Switzerland on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.SwitzerlandWikipedia:WikiProject SwitzerlandTemplate:WikiProject SwitzerlandSwitzerland articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Human rights Low‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Human rights, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Human rights on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Human rightsWikipedia:WikiProject Human rightsTemplate:WikiProject Human rightsHuman rights articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Palestine Low‑importance

	Palestine portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Palestine, a team effort dedicated to building and maintaining comprehensive, informative and balanced articles related to the geographic Palestine region, the Palestinian people and the State of Palestine on Wikipedia. Join us by visiting the project page, where you can add your name to the list of members where you can contribute to the discussions.PalestineWikipedia:WikiProject PalestineTemplate:WikiProject PalestinePalestine-related articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Individuals with a conflict of interest, particularly those representing the subject of the article, are strongly advised not to directly edit the article. See Wikipedia:Conflict of interest. You may request corrections or suggest content here on the Talk page for independent editors to review, or contact us if the issue is urgent.

The following Wikipedia contributors may be personally or professionally connected to the subject of this article. Relevant policies and guidelines may include conflict of interest, autobiography, and neutral point of view.

Wiki Enriching (talk · contribs) This user has contributed to the article.
SarahMaro (talk · contribs) This user has contributed to the article.
MahaHussaini (talk · contribs) This user has contributed to the article.
Anassjerjawi (talk · contribs) This user has contributed to the article. (Claims to be an "official representative" of the organization [1])
Emad Shehda (talk · contribs) This user has contributed to the article.
NaraForRefugees (talk · contribs) This user has contributed to the article.
Nesmajaber (talk · contribs) This user has contributed to the article.
Mahmoud Mush (talk · contribs) This user has contributed to the article.
Mahmoud W. 2001 (talk · contribs) This user has contributed to the article.

The Wikimedia Foundation's Terms of Use require that editors disclose their "employer, client, and affiliation" with respect to any paid contribution; see WP:PAID. For advice about reviewing paid contributions, see WP:COIRESPONSE.

Salsabeel Zeineddin (talk · contribs) has been paid by Euro-Mediterranean Human Rights Monitor. Their editing has included contributions to this article. Disclosure on userpage.

Warning: active arbitration remedies

The contentious topics procedure applies to this article. Parts of this article relate to the Arab–Israeli conflict, which is a contentious topic. Furthermore, the following rules apply when editing the parts of the page related to the contentious topic:

You must be logged-in and extended-confirmed to edit or discuss this topic on any page (except for making edit requests, provided they are not disruptive)
You may not make more than 1 revert within 24 hours on any edits related to this topic

Editors who repeatedly or seriously fail to adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, any expected standards of behaviour, or any normal editorial process may be blocked or restricted by an administrator. Editors are advised to familiarise themselves with the contentious topics procedures before editing this page.

If it is unclear which parts of the page are related to this contentious topic, the content in question should be marked within the wiki text by an invisible comment. If no comment is present, please ask an administrator for assistance. If in doubt it is better to assume that the content is covered.

Further information

The exceptions to the extended confirmed restriction are:

Non-extended-confirmed editors may use the "Talk:" namespace only to make edit requests related to articles within the topic area, provided they are not disruptive.
Non-extended-confirmed editors may not create new articles, but administrators may exercise discretion when deciding how to enforce this remedy on article creations. Deletion of new articles created by non-extended-confirmed editors is permitted but not required.

With respect to the WP:1RR restriction:

Clear vandalism of whatever origin may be reverted without restriction. Also, reverts made solely to enforce the extended confirmed restriction are not considered edit warring.
Editors who violate this restriction may be blocked by any uninvolved administrator, even on a first offence.

After being warned, contentious topics procedure can be used against any editor who repeatedly or seriously fails to adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, any expected standards of behaviour, or any normal editorial process. Contentious topic sanctions can include blocks, topic-bans, or other restrictions.
Editors may report violations of these restrictions to the Arbitration enforcement noticeboard.

If you are unsure if your edit is appropriate, discuss it here on this talk page first. When in doubt, don't revert!

COI Tag[edit]

I added the COI tag, based on the semi-declared COI by the page's creator, and the possible COI by the most recent major contributor. BilledMammal (talk) 00:44, 21 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

History[edit]

@Anassjerjawi: I think this org was also known as "Euromid Observer for Human Rights", the org that was initially declared unlawful by the Israeli MOD and to which the current naming was added. (https://www.euromid.org/en redirects to the current name). If that is the case, then the history founding and so on needs updating to explain that background.

Ramy Abdu was chairman then as well. https://www.alamy.com/stock-photo-gaza-city-gaza-strip-palestinian-territory-21st-sep-2014-dr-ramy-abdu-73592109.html Selfstudier (talk) 10:47, 21 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

DUE weight and INDISCRIMINATE[edit]

I have some questions about WP:DUE and WP:INDISCRIMINATE for the section "Migrants and Refugees". The information is verifiable but we can't, as INDISCRIMINATE requires, put the data in context with explanations referenced to independent sources as EMHRM's work is cited, but not covered. Because of this, we also have to ask whether we are giving due weight to the work by covering it when other organizations only cite it.

There was also an element of WP:OVERCITING in the section, such as a link to the homepage of an organization included as a reference that I have now removed. This is possibly a product of the involved COI, as documented above. In relation to this, it is worth mentioning that the final source is a private video, added by said individual with a COI - while our lack of access to said sources doesn't preclude their use, our inability to verify a source added by a user with a COI is at a minimum problematic. BilledMammal (talk) 11:34, 8 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Given the lack of response, and the continued issues involved with the section, I've removed it. If someone wants to restore it, lets have a discussion about whether it has sufficient coverage first. BilledMammal (talk) 04:05, 16 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I already took out the video as inappropriate, the mass removal of other material seems quite unnecessary and I have reverted same until there is clarity as to why properly sourced and relevant material should be removed.Selfstudier (talk) 10:06, 16 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I thought I explained that; above:

"The information is verifiable but we can't, as INDISCRIMINATE requires, put the data in context with explanations referenced to independent sources as EMHRM's work is cited, but not covered."

I then continued:

"Because of this, we also have to ask whether we are giving due weight to the work by covering it when other organizations only cite it."

Incidentally, it seems a little bad form to object now, rather than leaving a comment the last time you came by. BilledMammal (talk) 10:44, 16 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I removed the video which was the only valid complaint made and that is still the case so no comment is/was required. I have the distinct impression that rather than trying to improve the article you are seeking instead to post fact justify your prior deletion proposal, it would be better if you allowed the dust to settle and revisit this after some time has elapsed. Give other editors an opportunity to chip in and see if the article can be improved.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Selfstudier (talk • contribs) 10:55, 16 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

One can improve articles by both adding appropriate content, and removing inappropriate content. I do both, and I believe you do too - and just as I wouldn't cast aspersions on you for doing so, I would ask that you do the same.

Now, to focus on this section, I recognize that you disagree with me, but it is a little bit difficult to have a discussion unless you are willing to explain why you disagree. BilledMammal (talk) 11:07, 16 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

If you have specific issues with some material in the article, either tag it or explain it properly. Mass removing sourced material is rarely the right thing to be doing.Selfstudier (talk) 11:15, 16 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

If I could explain the section properly, I would - but that requires sources I have not been able to find.

We are both here for the same purpose; to build the encyclopaedia. Sometimes, that means editors disagree, but in such circumstances the editors are expected to communicate. I have communicated my position, and I would ask, in the spirit of collaboration, that you do the same. BilledMammal (talk) 11:31, 16 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I have already replied, several times. Your reasons for reverting the material are invalid.Selfstudier (talk) 11:35, 16 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I don't understand the rationale for removal. This is not "data" in the sense used in INDISCRIMINATE. It is a narrative account of the activities of the organisation. If it would benefit from more context, this could be added, but too much detail would be undue. The only issue I see is that not everything is equally strongly sourced, but if there's problems with the sources which are contested it might be better to discuss these case by case. BobFromBrockley (talk) 14:40, 16 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I would disagree; "data" is described as a collection individual facts, such as "EUHRM presented X report", "EUHRM present Y report". Whether these are presented in a list or as prose doesn't make much difference, we still need explanations referenced to independent sources, explanations that we don't have as while the reports have been cited, they haven't been covered. With that said, I appreciate that you have justified your position, and while I continue to disagree I'm willing to leave it as is for now and see where it goes. BilledMammal (talk) 22:42, 16 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

COI tag[edit]

Can/should we remove the COI tage here? IOHANNVSVERVS (talk) 09:49, 10 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

If there are no recent edits by editors with a CoI, I don't see why not. Of course, we should be prepared to re-add it if that situation were to change. Selfstudier (talk) 17:46, 10 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I removed the tag. IOHANNVSVERVS (talk) 00:25, 13 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Neutrality tag[edit]

This revert ignores WP:BRD in order to serve the interests of an editor with an obvious and clear agenda, and a pointy edit to boot, deciding only just now, while there is a deletion discussion ongoing, that the article is not neutral. Selfstudier (talk) 13:46, 30 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding the template, please keep in mind the instructions regarding removing it.

To have a neutral article about this organization we need significant and independent coverage of this organization; otherwise, we're just regurgitating how the organization presents itself.

Please, show me this coverage; then we can add it to the article and resolve the issue. BilledMammal (talk) 13:48, 30 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Even if there were no sources at all, an NPOV tag would require evidence of non-neutrality. It is the tagger who has to provide justification for a tag. Where is it? Zero^talk 13:57, 30 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The justification is that there are no independent sources, and it's impossible to write a neutral article without independent sources. I think that's self-evident; how neutral do you think Julius Caesar would be if our only source with WP:SIGCOV on him was Commentarii de Bello Gallico? BilledMammal (talk) 14:07, 30 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

If the Commentarii was the only source on Julius Caesar, we would still have an article on him and an NPOV tag would be vigorously opposed. You misunderstand the notion of neutrality, which is with respect to the sources we have and not with respect to our suspicions of what other sources might have if only we can find them. Zero^talk 00:40, 31 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

WP:DUE weight is a NPOV issue. If something has no coverage (or plainly insufficient coverage), including it is WP:UNDUE and is therefore a neutrality issue. --Aquillion (talk) 18:25, 26 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Not at all. UNDUE says topics are to be covered "in proportion to their representation in reliable sources". It doesn't say anything at all about absence of sources. The way to prove an NPOV violation is to find reliable sources giving alternative accounts that are insufficiently covered. Zero^talk 08:16, 9 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

:::To make the article more balanced, it should be mentioned that Israel has declared the organization as a terrorist organization.[2] Additionally, it should be noted that the NGO’s UN Watch and NGO Monitor accuse the NGO’s officials of bias and antisemitism.[3][4] Craftplorer (talk) 05:27, 9 April 2024 (UTC)WP:ARBECR, non EC editors may only file edit requests[reply]

A spreadsheet of unknown provenance is not a reliable source. Besides that, it does not say that Euromid is a terrorist organization. It says that Euromid is an unlawful association under the Defence (Emergency) Regulations of 1945, which only requires a declaration that doesn't need to be related to terrorism (or, in fact, to have any stated reason at all). And we can report the thoroughly unreliable UN Watch and NGO Monitor just as soon as we give Euromid's opinion of them on their wiki pages. Zero^talk 08:16, 9 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Revert[edit]

Editor @Alexis: ignores BRD and restores dubious sources that fail verification for the given edit, just barrel scraping for anything to make the source look bad. Selfstudier (talk) 20:14, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I agree Global Muslim Brotherhood Daily Watch is not a reliable source. I've removed that.

Why is Linkiesta problematic though? BobFromBrockley (talk) 21:29, 18 April 2024 (UTC) (Also, I think you meant to tag Alaexis. BobFromBrockley (talk) 21:30, 18 April 2024 (UTC))[reply]

There does seem to be a problem with Linkiesta in that I can see no indication if an article is supposed to be news or an opinion. For instance I think [5] is opinion but where is that marked compared to what was used here which also looks a bit like opinion as it is based on a picture of attendees at a meeting where they don't even say what the meeting was for. NadVolum (talk) 22:12, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

EMM is mentioned in two paras of what appears to be a conspiracy alleging polemic, these two:

"Eupac's number two, Mazen Kahel, is also an element known to the French secret services (he resides in Paris), both for being part of the same terrorist network and for having coordinated the activity of the Euro-Med Human Rights Monitor (EHM ) which in this conflict is cited by the media as an authoritative source regarding the health situation in Gaza, forgetting its closeness to Hamas. The current leader of EHM is Ramy Abdu, who is also on the Tel Aviv government's black list, but this has not prevented him and his organization from gaining access to the European Parliament. As reported by "Ngo Monitor", it is registered to the transparency register and can enter reports, access the buildings, participate in all commissions as an auditor and enter reports of interest with the Eurodeputies."

So if I understand that properly, they say that Mazen Kahel "coordinated the activity of the Euro-Med Human Rights Monitor". Therefore EMM is tied to Hamas because of this. Then they cite NGO monitor, recently classed as gunrel, lest we forget. ANd if we go there, it says that Mazen Kahel was the EMM chair until 2019. Glad we cleared that up. Selfstudier (talk) 23:00, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Opinion then, not even investigatory news. NadVolum (talk) 07:12, 19 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This is your interpretation. Linkiesta is a reliable source and these are the conclusions they've reached. I don't see any policy-based arguments against using it.

As to the GMBDW, its findings have been used by RS The Telegraph, Al Arabiya Egypt Today so we can use it with attribution. Alaexis_¿question? 09:19, 19 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Linkiesta does not clearly distinguish between opinion and news and this does look to me more like inuendo opinion. Where is the news or link or whatever in it? At best we might be able to attribute it to the author but who are they? As to the GMBDW the citation refers to the 'Euro-Mid Observer for Human Rights' not the 'Euro-Mediterranean Human Rights Monitor'. I know it's confusing all the similar names but they do seem to be different things. NadVolum (talk) 11:14, 19 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I still think it's the same organisation. This seems to be their former name, see these documents published at their current website ([6], [7]). Alaexis_¿question? 12:40, 20 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The location of those two files is an upload directory which indicates they were uploaded to the euromedmonitor site from elsewhere. It does imply some link between the two but I think a bit more is needed to show they are the same. NadVolum (talk) 21:57, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

As I said in the first place, these are just two barrel scraped crap sources trying to tie EMM to Hamas. This edit has been challenged and edit warred back in, it should be removed and consensus obtained for its use. Get an RSN opinion if so convinced of its reliability. Selfstudier (talk) 11:38, 19 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

In fact, most of this rubbish (including the "they were there" photo) appears to have been lifted from NGO monitor, same tripe here in English from https://www.meforum.org/65567/western-europe-hamas-networks-operate-openly, another crap source (except for EMM part which strangely isn't in this one but all the rest is) Obviously it's another round of smear posting of Israel's list of bad people. The entire accusation rests on a prior chair from 5 years ago having something to do with Hamas (allegedly). Selfstudier (talk) 17:25, 19 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I have removed the Linkiesta material until it is demonstrated as a reliable source and has consensus. The other material, supposedly sourced to a pdf in Hebrew, when put into Google translate, does not appear to mention EMM at all, if I made a mistake, please provide the relevant Hebrew and an English translation. Selfstudier (talk) 10:22, 20 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You haven't presented a single policy-based reason as to why Linkiesta is unreliable. It's widely used on Wikipedia. Alaexis_¿question? 12:33, 20 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sure, for Italian matters. Look, I translated the two paras in that source, did you read them? It says that because a guy was the chair of EMM 5 years ago, and this guy was allegedly connected to Hamas, this means that EMM is connected to Hamas. And then cites NGO monitor. Seriously? Go to RSN and ask if Linkiesta is reliable for what you wrote. Even if it was reliable in general, the specifics are rubbish, undue. Selfstudier (talk) 12:51, 20 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Whether *you* think that it's convincing or not is irrelevant. We are citing a RS and attribute the claim.

Citing NGO Monitor doesn't constitute evidence of unreliability. You won't find any "unreliability by association" in WP:V. Alaexis_¿question? 13:05, 20 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't say that citing NGO monitor is evidence of unreliability but anything they rely on NGO monitor for is suspect because WP classes NGO monitor as gunrel. I said it's undue for the reasons I gave, that you don't agree with me is fine. Get some more people to agree with you. Selfstudier (talk) 13:13, 20 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

To me it simply seems WP:UNDUE. Why is the opinion of Linkiesta so significant? Why devote an entire paragraph to opinions from such obscure sources when much higher-profile ones have weighed in? It's a reasonably exceptional claim; if it's WP:DUE, it should be easier to find stuff covering it than this. --Aquillion (talk) 20:53, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Aquillion, thanks for joining the discussion. Which sources are you referring to? Alaexis_¿question? 20:48, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

At the very least, this sweeping WP:BOLD rewrite cited NGO monitor directly as the sole source for massive swaths of obviously WP:EXCEPTIONAL claims, which is completely inappropriate given its unreliable status on WP:RSP. --Aquillion (talk) 20:53, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]