Talk:Sarah Leah Whitson

New article

New article, mainly includes criticism of Whitson's activities. She's probaly done positive things. Feel free to add whatever can be reliably sourced.Historicist (talk) 19:09, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

You used almost no reliable source. The JPost source is an op-ed column you are using to state derogatory information on a living person as fact, in violation of multiple policies. And NGO-monitor is completely inappropriate to use. It looks like you downloaded their latest piece of nonsense and are going about adding every moronic thing they have said to Wikipedia. nableezy - 20:20, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

Downloading a heavily-sourced report form a respected NGO and adding material to wikipedia. Goodness! what nefarious technique will we pro-Israel editors think of next?Historicist (talk) 21:39, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

NGO-monitor is not a respected NGO. nableezy - 21:42, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

Says who? Hamas?--RCS (talk) 07:21, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

Challenge the reliability of NGO Monitor and you must be a Hamas member. Classic. Sean.hoyland - talk 08:15, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

Yes it is classic, but I didnt feel the need to respond to such a retarded statement or to somebody who would say something that retarded. Still dont. nableezy - 18:46, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

The Times article

AMuseo, I've highlighted the bits of the The Times article that explicitly apply to Whitson. I don't think you are parsing the language correctly.

Stork’s boss, Sarah Leah Whitson, and most of his colleagues in the Middle East department of Human Rights Watch, also have activist backgrounds — it was typical that one newly hired researcher came to HRW from the extremist anti-Israel publication Electronic Intifada — unlikely to reassure anyone who thinks that human-rights organisations should be non-partisan.

The "and most of his [Stork's] colleagues" is not related to Whitson specifically, it is a statement about the Middle East department, therefore it it is not relevant for this BLP. The "unlikely to reassure anyone.." is, according to my reading, referring to the researcher hired from Electronic Intifada. Sean.hoyland - talk 14:24, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

Also you seem to be focusing only on negative views of HRW in your HRW related edits. Are you planning to balance material you add by adding other material so that you ensure that your edits do not move articles away from mandatory NPOV compliance ? Sean.hoyland - talk 14:48, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

Being soft on Libya

sean - i wrote the facts, not POV. it makes no difference that hrw has been publishing reports about libya for years, as you say. what comes out is that the hrw head of the middle east division actually felt that reforms in libya were taking place two years ago, and only now, acknowledges her mistake. not sure why you feel this is not appropriate. Soosim (talk) 17:47, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

Where does she "acknowledge her mistake" ? That's editorializing. Where does it say "Whitson belatedly reversed course from her earlier reporting" ? What reporting ? What reversal ? That's editorializing. It's not appropriate because it's a Wiki editor editorializing. See WP:EDITORIAL, "editorializing can produce implications not supported by the sources". Bear in mind that you are essentially working with a primary source, Whitson's own words, so you are constrained by WP:PRIMARY i.e. "Any interpretation of primary source material requires a reliable secondary source for that interpretation. A primary source may only be used on Wikipedia to make straightforward, descriptive statements that any educated person, with access to the source but without specialist knowledge, will be able to verify are supported by the source." Sean.hoyland - talk 18:22, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

ok, i took out 'reversed course'. she acknowledges her mistake in the la times op-ed. her reporting was in the 'tripoli spring' report she wrote. it is all there. but i removed it anyway. Soosim (talk) 18:27, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

If it talks like a bigot, it usually is a bigot. She hates Israel, and that colours everything she does. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tony Riley (talk • contribs) 14:45, 1 July 2014 (UTC)

too derogatory, betrays author's motives

Thanks for the author's effort. But he tone of the article is not encyclopedic. The second sentence is already attacking the person described. The rest reads like a rambling whose purpose is less to inform than to demolish. Topics and sources are selective. I felt less scorn from auhtors while reading Hitlers' biography. Sorry not to be more supporting. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.227.38.235 (talk) 16:36, 14 January 2014 (UTC)

Non WP:RS sources used?

In this article we presently have a lot of nevgative view on the subject from various advocacy groups/persons:

• Gerald Steinberg and his NGO Monitor --they have been discussed

Archive 24

Archive 159

....and other times, incidentally. The conclusion I draw from these discussions are that they are not reliable (especially for a BLP). I am removing it, Huldra (talk) 23:38, 22 March 2021 (UTC)

Ok I have removed those references to Steinberg/NGO Monitor, which were not cited in other places, still a lot of cleaning up to do here, Huldra (talk) 23:57, 22 March 2021 (UTC)

Same for Weekly Standard blog (dead anyway and cant find a working archive) used for editorializing. nableezy - 00:21, 23 March 2021 (UTC)

BLP noticeboard

I have started a thread at the BLP noticeboard to get a few more eyes on this biography. Andreas JN466 18:59, 3 February 2023 (UTC)

victim of remote neural monitoring, vice to skull, gang stalking, psychophysical torture

me and my family i being a ex army officer are been a subject of such inhuman experimentations 39.60.176.198 (talk) 07:15, 1 March 2024 (UTC)

See wp:or. Slatersteven (talk) 12:06, 1 March 2024 (UTC)