Talk:Human Rights Service

Article is a major NPOV violation

See: [1]

And this academic study: The rhetoric of Islamophobia: an analysis of the means of persuasion in Hege Storhaug’s writings on Islam and Muslims

and one of its writers:[:https://www.rights.no/author/juliac/]. Doug Weller talk 16:28, 13 June 2022 (UTC)

Doug Weller: Saw your notice on WT:HR. Do you have particular edits to propose with regard to the above sources? SnowRise ^{let's rap} 06:33, 11 July 2022 (UTC)

@Snow Rise The article says "HRS was established to work for a more well-functioning multi-ethnic society. Through the spread of information the organization aims to contribute to better integration of immigrants, and preventing violation of human rights." I think the academic article exposes this as false, and the writer, "Julia Caesar" is Barbro Jöberger. See[2]. Might be worth writing an en.wiki article on here. I'd never trust RationalWiki but it can also be a way to find more sources.[https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Barbro_J%C3%B6berger# Doug Weller talk 07:33, 11 July 2022 (UTC)

Yes, I understand the general thrust of your objections, but I was hoping you had concrete edits to propose for consideration. I agree that the present version of the article definitely leans pretty heavily into the description the HRS would use to describe its own activities; almost all of this is sourced to a single reference, an SNL article. For those who don't speak any Norwegian, it is worth noting that SNL article actually includes just as much coverage of the group's reputation for anti-immigration polemics as it does for the comparatively more media-friendly work that they forefronted as their central virtue in the group's early years (activism against forced marriage and other gender-oriented injustices common to the (mainly Muslim and North African) cultures that the group now has a more expansive reputation for opposing as a culture war bugbear.

However, it is important to note that this is probably not a result of cherry picking of the source or of ideological spin in general on the part of whoever created this (the Wikipedia) article: SNL is an online encyclopedia as well (albeit not one curated by select staff, not an open source project), and updates its articles semi-regularly. The current language of this article (seemingly over-effusive and devoid of criticism in light of the group's present reputation) goes back to the genesis of the article in 2010. While the HRS had seen controversy before that, it was really in the mid-2010's, during the immigration crises, that the tone of its public-facing media work really picked up a reputation for islamaphobia and it faced accusations that it was striving to curtail immigration generally, not just "integrate" immigrants in a manner consistent with human rights values. While SNL does not have an openly-accessible article revision history, it's clear from clues in the content that much of this criticism was added to the SNL article after it was first used as a source here.

That said, there are issues with how the source has been utilized here more recently: previously many of the statements sourced in the early version of this (again, the Wikipedia) article to HRS itself (thus making the attribution clear and letting the reader know this is the organization's own presentation of itself) are now sourced directly to SNL article, giving the impression that this is the independent summary assessment of a tertiary source, based on it's own interpretation of its own primary and secondary sources--this despite the fact that the wording is more or less exactly the same, and clearly comes ultimately from the HRS itself. Those changes should arguably be reversed, so the reader is on guard to the fact that this is the organization's own spin on its image, and is not lured into believing the independent source cited indicates a broader consensus. If nothing else, the SNL article is just one source doing a lot of lifting in terms of questionable WP:WEIGHT for a lot of citations on a controversial topic--and again, even if it was just by virtue of how the story of this org has played out, it presently is highly-selectively cited, leaving out strong coverage of criticism of the group in the SNL article.

In terms of new sourcing, the OHCHR report is surely a good start: in the world of primary sources on the intersection of policy and human rights, you really can't do better. So the existing sourcing in the article already (combined with the examination of how it has been utilized) and the OHCHR report actually grant a lot of ground to allow for a more neutral and nuanced description of the group. The first step should probably be to make sure the group's presentation of itself as a human rights affirming organization should be properly attributed to it, not outside sources (at least, not to outside sources if the only source in question is the SNL article, per the reasons described above). The Human Rights Commission source could then be used to augment the coverage of the criticism the group has faced.

Beyond that, I would not want to speculate much (in editorial terms anyway), until we are discussing additional sources. I appreciate there is a language barrier issue here and I would be very happy to help out with that when I can find the time, but I am very strained for that at the moment (even this very extended commentary is more than I should have spared today, honestly). However, knowing what I know of the situation (both generally and after taking a marginally deeper dive today) and of Norwegian media generally, I don't have much doubt that some can be found, ultimately; the HRS exists in one of those interesting cultural spaces concerning human rights where certain stereotypically left-leaning influences (here, women's rights advocacy) make limited common cause with stereotypically right-leaning influences (anti-immigration and multicultural-skeptic movements). This has allowed this group to position itself as a "we're not totally opposed to immigration, we just have concerns" style of group, even as it's rhetoric has grown more absolutely and expressly critical of open immigration policy--and even though the group was founded from the beginning by individuals well-known for their strong anti-immigration stances, and even though it has featured contributions from early on by figures primarily known for their anti-Islam advocacy. But at this point, we're a good number of years beyond the point where the I think the holistic coverage of the group is likely to be particularly deferential to how it likes to posture itself and present its overall image as a moderate and not expressly anti-immigration one. Certainly the group's loss of public funding is related to that trend towards wide skepticism of it's claimed priorities.

But again, until a gathering of those sources, it is hard to say anything (regarding what our prose should say) with certainty, so starting with the changes already supported by the corpus of sources currently used in the article seems all-around like the logical starting point. Unfortunately, there too I'm not in a position to undertake that work. So if you have specific changes to propose, I will make time at least to signal my support (if I can give it). Or if my comments and the extra context I have supplied above make you feel secure in making the changes yourself, you will at least have the weak consensus of two (and maybe a little extra info you didn't have before) to work from, up and until the point you face any pushback (if any)--at which point further discussion can proceed. However, while I appreciate your effort in highlighting the gap between the presentation here and organization's more mixed public perception, I don't think there are enough editors working in the human rights space right now that you can expect someone else to pick up the burden of making those changes just on account that you noticed and flagged them.

So you'll have to dig in yourself or else propose specific changes and weight for someone to have the time. For my part, I will make searching for more sources a priority as soon as my situation allows for more Wiki time. Probably I could have avoided this long-winded discussion post in favor of drudging one or two up, but that's hindsight for you: I hope the extra context, the insight on the existing sources, and the editorial opinion will be of some use to you anyway. SnowRise ^{let's rap} 23:23, 11 July 2022 (UTC)

I recently made some edits that adresses the more controversial aspects of the organisation. Maybe the neutrality tag can go. Thismess (talk) 03:29, 18 November 2022 (UTC)