Talk:International Federation for Human Rights

POV

I flagged the section which quotes NGO Monitor. I have no opinion on either organisation but the section seems very one sided.--Jkspratt 04:13, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

It is also stated that the organization is independent of government when that is an unverifiable claim. Their website actually thanks many government departments for their support. --ෆාට් බුබුල (talk) 03:51, 31 October 2022 (UTC)

FIDH's members

FIDH looks like the sort of organization that will allow anyone to become a member so long as they have "human rights" in the title. Its outrageous what you can get away with if you've got enough front and a sympathetic audience. After all, FIDH must know what its doing as its run by 'professionals'.

Please do not remove this information about the membership of the Bahrain Centre for Human Rights without discussing it here first.I'm willing to listen and discuss. But in my opinion FIDH shouldn't be allowed simply to cover up this sort of shoddy work.

Chai drinker 10:42, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

It's pretty clear by who sponsors them that they are the human rights equivalent of greenwashing--ෆාට් බුබුල (talk) 03:54, 31 October 2022 (UTC)

Name of article

I would like to request that the title of this article be changed because the "of" is ungrammatical in English. The French preposition "de" does not automatically map to "of" in English. In the FIDH's own letters the grammatically correct "for" is used (e.g. http://www.fidh.org/OPEN-LETTER-TO-MR-JOSE-LUIS, http://www.fidh.org/FIDH-and-CCR-Praise-Bermuda, etc.). The suggested title would therefore be: International Federation for Human Rights

Another option might be International Federation for Human Rights (FIDH), as I notice the FIDH consistency includes the French acronym following the English name.John Pilgrim (talk) 09:05, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

Notability

Someone tagged the article as if notability of the FIDH might be problematic, and possibly leading to the deletion of the article.
Frankly, with nearly a hundred articles linking to an article, I don't see how its subject's notablility can be doubted.

"UNHCR's Strategic Information Partners provide Refworld with a critical mass of knowledge and information and are drawn from the NGO sector, Intergovernmental Organisations, Academic Institutions and National Governments. Our partners are widely recognized, particularly in jurisprudence, for having achieved a reputation for delivering authoritative, relevant and timely assessments and analysis of socio-political, human rights, and legal situations around the world."

This quote is the heading of the UNHCR's list of Information Partners last updated 25 February 2010, 16:08 GMT, retrieved 25 February 2010 18:11 GMT, on its web site. Anyone questioning the notability of the United Nations? And for one of the "widely recognized" partners "for having achieved a reputation" that does not sound all too trivial, the UNHCR states:

International Federation of Human Rights
FIDH's mandate is to contribute to the respect of all the rights defined in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. FIDH aims at obtaining effective improvements in the protection of victims, the prevention of Human Rights violations and the sanction of their perpetrators.

The tag will be removed within minutes, and the reference will be included.
▲ SomeHuman 2010-02-25 18:23 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on International Federation for Human Rights. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added {{dead link}} tag to http://www.fidh.org/-Annual-Report
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130730050029/http://www.fidh.org/-women-s-rights- to http://www.fidh.org/-women-s-rights-
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130801011051/http://www.fidh.org/-migrants-rights- to http://www.fidh.org/-migrants-rights-
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130804075845/http://www.fidh.org/-Terrorism- to http://www.fidh.org/-Terrorism-
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130730165119/http://www.fidh.org/-globalization-esc-rights- to http://www.fidh.org/-globalization-esc-rights-

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 09:54, 5 December 2017 (UTC)

Non-primary sources and rewrite from third-party POV still very much needed...

The tags dated 2009 and 2015 stating the need for more non-primary sources and saying that the article reads too much like an advertisement remain very much valid. Boud (talk) 00:11, 6 November 2018 (UTC)