Talk:Human Rights Watch

	This Media related article has not received a brainstar for quality. Please consider expanding the article appropriately. See RationalWiki:Article rating for more information.

Full name

Shouldn't the article use the full name and the abbreviation redirect to it? human 14:17, 25 February 2008 (EST)

Gaza Controversy?

Anyone want to wade into the controversy over the Goldstone report? I don't, but it strikes me as possibly important and definitely relevent. Researcher 16:22, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

I'm removing the Jeffery Goldberg citation unless someone gives me a good reason to keep it

We shouldn't be citing what is clearly outlined as hearsay as if it were fact in our article. Goldberg concludes that a Human Rights Watch representative met with Saudi officials and concludes that he must have been fund raising in spite of a clear explanation from the organization that they've never solicited funds nor taken funds from Saudi Arabia, and meet with their officials to press their human rights concerns, which Goldberg calls a non-answer, because they dare to criticize Israel at any point, and Goldberg is a blood soaked monster who openly lusts for slaughter in the name of protecting Israel at least annually in the Atlantic.

Actually re-reading the sheer dishonesty Goldberg uses to try to hammer Roth into either saying something that might be untrue without his knowledge(like that there might have been people "indirectly associated with" the saudi government at an event he hosted) or that looks vaguely and non-specifically bad (what he eventually settles on for their last communique), I'm removing it now. You can add it back if there's any reason to take it more seriously than a hack job.

It's not like HRW gives Saudi Arabia a light touch, they've been one of the leading voices in stopping the genocide in Yemen and rightly blaming the Saudi government for it.

They rightly denounced MBS as a tyrant and a mass murderer before he even took office, but Goldberg was heaping praise on him for being very vaguely pro Israel(to his credit Goldberg mentions Yemen in passing). One of these two has dubious ethics with respect to Saudi Arabia. It's not the one this article says. ikanreed ^{🐐Bleat at me} 16:16, 27 April 2021 (UTC)

Vivanco

I'm not particularly convinved that the claim that Vivanco was quote mined stands up. Seems to pretty clearly indicate the HRW report on Venezuela had set out to "discover" abuses ahead of time and Vivanco's statement being an admission of this gels with the sloppy research. ^{— Unsigned, by: Tikitime2 / talk / contribs}

They aren't some group that only reports on US opponents — it's obvious from navigating their site the slightest bit. Just two months ago they provided a key report on Israel's use of white phosphorous. Chillpilled (talk) 00:03, 9 December 2023 (UTC)

I haven't really paid attention to HRW... but what exactly does coverage of the Israel-Palestine conflict have to do with their coverage of Venezuela? Because Venezuela is a very different case from I/P even though both are of relevance to American foreign policy. Carthage (talk) 00:11, 9 December 2023 (UTC)

Because Tiki is the one who added an entire "Washington bias" section, which includes the Venezuela part, which is basically provided as some kind of example of their bias. With one of the counter-examples, extraordinary rendition, I found HRW did report on it. In the Venezuela case with the blogger, they mention in their response that they cited him one time for only a non-controversial fact. The insinuation that a major newspaper with an oppositional political stance is automatically on-par with "Daily Mail and EDL rants on Facebook" was bemusing as well. About the Nobel prize people, one of them is a 9/11 truther... Nobel disease looks like a rule more than an exception sometimes. RE: HRW people working in US agencies, I'd be curious to know what positions they had. One was just some kind of "analyst", it makes me wonder if their training is directly relevant to the mission of either org. Chillpilled (talk) 00:17, 9 December 2023 (UTC)

I would like Tiki to make their case why claims that Vivanco was quote-mined don't hold up to scrutiny. That said, if only one of them is a 9/11 truther.... and applying the "Nobel disease" rule to every signer of a list signed by a 100 scholars and recipients of the Prize seems statistically dubious tbh. That said, I think it would merit a little more scrutiny than usual, but I wouldn't throw the baby out with the bathwater. Poisoning the well, fallacy fallacy, and all that. The cited piece for the extraordinary rendition also doesn't mention the response (and, therefore, the response speed) of any human rights organizations. Carthage (talk) 00:33, 9 December 2023 (UTC)

I realize that, and considered not even bringing it up but figured why not. I mean for some reason people who bring up this open letter always seem to lead with mentioning the Nobel recipients (two of them signed) like that's what lends it weight (which is what the letter itself seems to lead with anyway), and it irked me slightly. If anything I think the presence of UN human rights experts is probably what lends it much more weight than that. I haven't bothered studying the list of other experts. If I were to do that I would be interested in their histories, and the relevance of their expertise to the subject. But the amount of them that apparently signed does lend it some more weight as well. Chillpilled (talk) 00:43, 9 December 2023 (UTC)

The burden of proof lies firmly with the people making the accusation of quote-mining. Just saying "it's out of context" isn't enough, you have to provide the context. Perhaps the "we did the report to" line means "we published the report so our findings could warn others" as oppossed to what it looks like which is "we commissioned the report with the intention of proving that venezuela is XYZ"? And the fact that the HRW will critique the U.S. doesn't prove it's impartial anymore than American cops occasionally arresting white guys means they don't have a problem with racism. HRW, like many similar NGO's is going to be a mixed back, more of a warring federation than it is a well oiled machine. Tikitime2 (talk) 00:43, 14 January 2024 (UTC)