Talk:Emirates Centre for Human Rights

[Untitled]

I re-added the section from the Daily Telegraph on the original ECHR website registration. The unsigned editor claimed that the article contained "slanderous accusations of false links to groups unaffiliated to this human rights organisations." I do not believe this editor understands Wikipedia policy on sourcing and verifiability. The Daily Telegraph is a mainstream, credible, and respected UK newspaper and therefore is perfectly acceptable as a secondary source. If the Huffington Post and Aljazeera are acceptable sources than surely the Daily Telegraph is well. The statement that the information was "slanderous" is unsupported and appears to be a way to discredit something that does not reflect favorably on the organization in question. The same is true for "false links"....I have no idea how this editor concluded that the links were false but in any event, Wikipedia policy prohibits "original research." If the editor will submit a credible, verifiable source to back up this claim, it can be reconsidered but in the meantime, the proper approach is to include both the critical information and the response of the organization which was done. Sgmiller (talk) 15:31, 28 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

There are continuing edits to this page based on unsubstantiated accusations, this time that "The ECHR has been the subject of a continued smear campaign by authorities in the UAE" and with the edition of "editorial" comments such as those that follow. These edits are in violation of so many Wikipedia policies that it would appear useless to identify them. Once again, if the editors would kindly provide reliable secondary sources to reference these claims, we can proceed further. Until then, they will be reverted

Sgmiller (talk) 7 January 2014 (UTC)

Would the editor(s) who have been undoing all of my edits please come to the Talk page and explain their rationale. If not, I will proceed in asking for page protection to lock the page as this is leading nowhere.

Sgmiller (talk) 18 February 2014 (UTC)

I reverted the article to remove the comment about website registration as this information was reported by major media in the UK. The statement that website registrations have no bearing is opinion.

≈≈≈≈ — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sgmiller (talk • contribs) 09:05, 31 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

agree article is not neutral

Out of 4 paragraphs, 3 are promotional. Agree article needs to be balanced. Princessmidhatpasha (talk) 20:47, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]