Talk:Hong Kong Human Rights Monitor

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.

Hong Kong Low‑importance

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Hong Kong, a project to coordinate efforts in improving all Hong Kong-related articles. If you would like to help improve this and other Hong Kong-related articles, you are invited to join this project.Hong KongWikipedia:WikiProject Hong KongTemplate:WikiProject Hong KongHong Kong articles

Low

This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Hong Kong To-do:

Attention needed (60)

...needing expert attention (4) • ...without infoboxes (19)

Collaboration needed

Recommend topic

Improvement needed

GA-Class articles (60) • B-Class articles (295)

Cleanup needed

C-Class articles (1,054)

Image needed (348)

Destub needed

Start-Class articles (5,479) • Stub-Class articles (6,682)

Deorphan needed

...orphans

Page creation needed

Requested articles

Miscellaneous tasks

...maintain popularity • ...assess the un-Class (387) • ...assess the un-Importance (1,339)

This article was the subject of an educational assignment that ended on 3 November 2006. Further details are available here.

October 2006

After adding a brief introduction and the link to the offical website, I saw a notice on top of the page saying that this page might be deleted soon because it does not concern any significant people or groups. I was quite shocked to see this because I thought that Wikipedia would allow every single new title to exist as soon as it has contents that have NPOV. But obviously I was wrong. Also, I don't know how they evaluate the value of a page. How do they know that a person or an organization or a topic is significant or not? Anyway, I am sure that this page cannot be deleted because it is my mid-term project and it carries marks. :P I wonder how I can stop Wikipedia from deleting this page and I also wonder whether other pages have the same situation... 0101miniho06 02:50, 23 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I am also very confused about whether what kind of articles are consider as meaningful. And I know that thereis even more serious problem of facing deletion of the other topics. As long as the project will be deadline on this Friday, I am sure everything will be fine.

I also want to add that I understand about somebody's concern regarding the article about the "Rights of Women" and I have currently made some changes on that part. Sorry for putting some misleading content on there as I had misunderstood the website. Hoping that the change is appropriate and I do welcome any feedbacks.

Last week I phoned the Monitor in the hope of doing a short interview and getting more information. The following questions are the questions I planned to ask:

How many number of members do you have now? What type of people are they? Are they mostly politicians or working adults? Is there any business people or students?
Which NGO has referred human rights cases to you before?
What cases are particularly important or meaningful?
How do you get donations? Is there any constant donors? Has any donor donated a huge amount of money to the Monitor?
Many officers of the Monitor(e.g. the chairperson Cyd Ho) are members of the Democratic Party or the Frontiers. Is there any link between the Monitor and the Democratic Party or the Frontiers?

And here are the replies that I got from the staff who answered my phone call:

We won't answer this kind of questions about our membership. Basically our members come from all sectors. We all have the will to promote human rights in HK.
We don't need other NGOs to refer cases to us. (But in their website they said "We handle cases referred to us by other NGOs "). Most of the time citizens approach us with cases which have strong connections to human rights. If you want to know what kind of NGOs we worked with, you can search for the NGOs in Hong Kong. We work with all of them.
We do not answer questions about the cases that we have handled.
We will not expose our donors information.
(The staff laughed.) We do not answer such questions.

I thought maybe my questions are too sharp for them. But I thought information like the NGOs they have worked with and the way they get donations could be open to the public. I am surprised by the low level of transparency of this organization. How do you think??? 0101miniho06 08:47, 31 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

hi! ok so i really think the article is too long and incoherent! everyone is just adding and forgetting our main topic! i also feel like some of the english used in the article is very conversational and some topics r irrlevant.. would someone like to agree or disagree with me? i tried to edit the bit on the importance of human rights... but its just not working out! the english used wasn't very appropriate for wikipedia an i edited the 1st 2 paragraphs but the last one which talks about RIGHTS OF WOMEN and BLACK VOICES.. i have no idea what thats about. i havnt found info about the rights of women one... where did u get that info? we need to shorten the article! please let me know if you have anything to add or say to me? please write back asap! im 0101ghadir 06 and my name is ghadir!

Referring to the conversation with the Human Rights Monitor, I feel really shock as well because I can't even imagina they are actually working like this. It seemed that the transparency of the organization is not like what we expected from the website. And I think it's really a good try to contact them personally to understand more about the organization in practice.

About the paragraph on Rights of Women and Black voices. I have already made some changes and added the links as I stated above. You can go and check it out there and just feel free to give comments or simply edit them.

One more thing is that we definitely need to shorten down the content of this page. And I would really like to know how do we judge which are the irrelevant things so that we can summarize them a bit.

shortening the article

i don't think the whole section on the importance of human rights is necessary we can jst put a link to 'human rights' and it'll be enough for people to see. lets not forget we're writing about the monitor not about human rights in general. and we shouldn't sound like we're promoting the monitor. jst saying what it's about. ghadir plus writing 'according to the dictionary (answers.com).. that is not reliable at all... and it looks really bad. i would like to delete that whole section on the importance of human rights...... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 0101ghadir06 (talk • contribs) 20:35, October 31, 2006

structure

i feel like the part on 'structure' is very basic... let's improve that. ghadir

shortening the article

I also think that the part for the importance of human rights is not very relevant to HKHRM and should be deleted. The part for "Current and Future Activities" is also not very appropriate because it looks as if we are promoting their future events. For the "Human Rights Day", can it be moved under "Their Work"? For "Funding", I think it should be about who have donated to HKHRM or how did HKHRM get their donations instead of saying things like "Donations are appreciated and are non-refundable". For "Criticism", it would be great if we can find some comments from the government or other organizations. How do you think??0101miniho06 15:40, 1 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. It would definitely be great if we can find something from the government or other organizations.

I think we should delete 'criticism' that part as we need to write on a neutral point of view in the wikipedia.