Talk:Kenneth Roth

Category of Biography
I just added the biography stub for politics. While I'm not sure what category Mr. Roth would fall into of the given biography stub categories, I know that his article is a stub and his biography is also important enough to deserve at least some expansion. (EarnestyEternity (talk) 22:23, 3 May 2009 (UTC))

Criticism
The majority of this section is linked to article by Bernstein and concerns HRW the organization, Roth is not named at all. The inclusion of it here is just coatracking in a BLP - it's already used in the criticism of HRW article.--Glumboot (talk) 02:21, 15 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Good point. Removed. Freelance-frank (talk) 16:12, 13 August 2021 (UTC)

There is almost no information at all in this article. Indeed, there is almost no biographical information about Kenneth Roth on the internet. Marc Garlasco's info is much longer and he is much less senior than Kennth Roth. Can somebody please remedy this? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.172.97.38 (talk) 11:58, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

This isn't criticism of Roth, just criticism of HRW by various other organizations and people. Besides I'm not aware of other BLPs that include sections titled "criticism". 96.251.137.152 (talk) 04:40, 17 June 2014 (UTC)

Is it any sort of criticism? This article mentioned in no way Roth's Neo Nazi affiliation. Seems to be very pro Roth and anti human rights in general. 13:25, 28 April 2015 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.108.174.49 (talk)

Roth Commenting Syria: Roth is using his position for a political agenda. His statements are very biased. See eg. twitter https://twitter.com/KenRoth/status/682593329306025984 I can only assume that he consumes Western financed biased organisations like "Syrian HR Observatory in London", White Helmet, Syrian Media Hub etc. All of these are against Assad, and do not represent the Syrian People. http://www.bbc.com/news/world-middle-east-34173549 This bbc opionion poll demonstrates that the syrian opposition is opposed, by the syrian people, second to IS. But that is where Roth gathers all his information from. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.43.123.120 (talk) 21:34, 31 December 2015 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Kenneth Roth. 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 archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110622033719/http://www.bowdoin.edu/president/letters/2009/2009-honorands.shtml to http://www.bowdoin.edu/president/letters/2009/2009-honorands.shtml
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.ottawacitizen.com/news/Canada%2Blonger%2Bleads%2Bhuman%2Brights/3674742/story.html

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

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 10:45, 4 May 2017 (UTC)

Foxman remark
Foxman remarks on greater than an eye for an eye as appropriate in fighting "the Arabs"-then goes on to regard Lebanese civilian casualties as collateral damage to prevent rocket attacks, even though these attacks occurred AFTER the war broke out. But he said explicitly that greater than an eye for an eye is appropriate-suggesting that he DOES believe in targeting Arab civilians-even though his later statements seem to contradict his earlier ones.

This parallels Israel itself. Dan Halutz declared that "nothing is safe, as simple as that", implying that that which was not nothing was not safe, thus by implication declaring the war to be one of ANNHILIATION against the Lebanese people as a whole. He afterwards apologized for the pain Lebanese suffered at Qana when Hezbollah fighters were targeted who weren't there and Lebanese civilians that they had used as a shield were killed (which Israel had no reason to suspect would be there, despite Hezbollah's habit of using Lebanese civilians as human shields).70.190.102.49 (talk) 22:47, 22 October 2017 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Kenneth Roth. 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 archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130430171301/http://www.sandiego.edu/peacestudies/institutes/ipj/programs/distinguished_lecture_series/biographies/kenneth_roth.php to http://www.sandiego.edu/peacestudies/institutes/ipj/programs/distinguished_lecture_series/biographies/kenneth_roth.php

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

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 18:25, 8 December 2017 (UTC)

Page vandalised, nobody reacting?
? Arminden (talk) 03:28, 28 April 2021 (UTC)

Raphael Magarik opinion
Hello, I deleted the Raphael Magarik opinion as he is not known enough and just an "assistant professor". https://engl.uic.edu/profiles/magarik-raphael/

--Vanlister (talk) 12:15, 13 August 2021 (UTC) Moved from my talk page since it is relevant only to this article. Freelance-frank (talk) 16:10, 13 August 2021 (UTC)
 * This looks like a response to my reversion of a sentence deleted without original explanation.
 * Thank you for your explanation of this removal here, and thanks in general for your improvements to this article.
 * I disagree. It is reasonable to want particular features in an attributed opinion, but not all academics need to be late-career. Indeed, at present it seems a bigger issue that such a heavy proportion of opinions are from NGOs and nonprofits opposed to hrw on principle. More academic voices seems desirable, assuming they are represented in RS.
 * Regarding Magarik in particular, this Forward opinion seems due. The Forward is a generally decent source for this topic. Magarik is published in RS in both articles and opinion sections, including regarding contemporary Jewish issues: . He is also referenced in articles by others to discuss Jewish issues: . Magarik's opinion sections have themselves been responded to in op-eds, suggesting that his opinions in RS have weight:.
 * Freelance-frank (talk) 16:10, 13 August 2021 (UTC)

Criticism and controversy bias

 * "he criticized the alleged excessive Israeli response to Hezbollah's indiscriminate rocket attacks on northern Israeli towns"
 * "a notable public face for these organizations in arguing that Israel perpetrated war crimes"
 * "Roth shows "significant levels of sarcasm, vitriol, and deep-seated hostility" toward Israel"
 * "for establishing a Middle East/North Africa (MENA) team composed of anti-Israel activists"
 * "Roth is critical of the blockade of the Gaza strip, which he saw as a humanitarian crisis of "Israel's own making"."
 * "Roth's fellowship at the Carr Center for Human Rights Policy at the Harvard Kennedy School was denied due to his stance at Human Rights Watch on Israel."

The section is filled with responses to every single criticism he ever directed towards Israel? And not only that but conflating controversies regarding antisemitism with Israel in the same section? WP:VALID: While it is important to account for all significant viewpoints on any topic, Wikipedia policy does not state or imply that every minority view, fringe theory, or extraordinary claim needs to be presented along with commonly accepted mainstream scholarship as if they were of equal validity. But the section does just that. Every time he had something negative to say about Israel, the section jumps to find someone who said something opposing and adds it to what is already a conflated section! The fact that he got denied a fellowship position at Harvard due to pro-Israel lobbying is even added there and portrayed negatively! Makeandtoss (talk) 17:19, 6 January 2023 (UTC)


 * I noticed that as well. NGO monitor...ugh. Selfstudier (talk) 18:15, 6 January 2023 (UTC)


 * The whole section, "Remarks on Israeli's policies and actions", has several problems. First, it's too long. Second, it's an incoherent collection of snippits. It looks as if an intern at NGO Monitor went through their "Kenneth Roth" file and copied random quotes and trivial invective and debates about wording over the last 18 years. Third, it plays into the anti-semitic trope that the Israeli government has an army of paid employees and volunteers who scan the media and respond to every criticism of Israel (right or wrong) with their own rebuttal. I realize that there are critics of Roth's views on Israel, but can we get more balanced and objective sources than NGO Monitor or the Algemeiner Journal (have you ever seen the Algemeiner Journal?)? ––Nbauman (talk) 18:31, 9 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Not sure how that is an "anti-semitic" trope, unless you are being sarcastic. Makeandtoss (talk) 08:37, 10 January 2023 (UTC)
 * I reverted a wholesale revert of recent edits by a new account with no other edits, I agree that the section is too long and is just a hotchpotch of random accusations. NGO is a very poor source ("Despite its neutral-sounding name, NGO Monitor, since its founding in 2001, has almost exclusively tracked nongovernmental organizations that are critical of Israel, HRW chief among them" . In fact since this is a BLP, I think NGO monitor should not be used at all for contentious claims. Algemeiner isn't much better. Selfstudier (talk) 10:10, 10 January 2023 (UTC)


 * I'm in favor of removing these two sources from the article all together. Makeandtoss (talk) 12:34, 11 January 2023 (UTC)
 * And again, another single edit account, the Lebanon furore is already covered, as well as being more than 15 years ago, these tweets were a minor event in the overall "attack" on Roth/HRW at the time. Selfstudier (talk) 10:44, 11 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Under WP:WEIGHT, we should cut most of those obscure charges over the last 18 years. They fail the test of, "Will anybody care about this 10 years later?" Instead we should give more detail to the current controversy over the Carr Center, which is getting enormous coverage right now in almost every major general news outlet, and addresses a significant issue, the influence of financial donors, Israel and others, on human rights scholarship. Roth has said in recent published interviews that he doesn't think the opposition came from national security figures at the Carr Center, since they tend to cooperate with HRW. Roth also said that he has no solid proof that Israeli donors influenced his cancellation, but he would like to make the issue clear, and he would like a statement from Harvard that donors will have no influence on academic policies. --Nbauman (talk) 18:15, 11 January 2023 (UTC)
 * It is hard to avoid the impression that a lot of this criticism is manufactured from tweets ie Roth tweeted something and the usual suspects said Oh, this is terrible..quote, quote, blah. Most of this comes via NGO monitor, afaics. Selfstudier (talk) 10:39, 12 January 2023 (UTC)

The article, following POV editing and edit warring by a WP:SPA now has:

In reaction to Roth comment, Harvard law professor Alan Dershowitz wrote, "When it comes to Israel and its enemies, Human Rights Watch cooks the books about facts, cheats on interviews, and puts out predetermined conclusions that are driven more by their ideology than by evidence."

The quote is in the source and cherry picked out of context, for instance, this is missing (among other things) "The remainder of Dershowitz’s press citations were similarly flawed or irrelevant to Human Rights Watch’s report. Dershowitz did not respond to the criticism."

Or, again in relation the Lebanon war, per Mearsheimer/Walt

"Fifth, pro-Israel groups conducted a large-scale campaign to smear Amnesty International and especially Human Rights Watch for their critical reports on Israel's bombing campaign ...(all the criticisms that are in the article)...Charges of anti-Semitism were quickly leveled at both human rights groups. Kenneth Roth, the executive director of HRW, took the brunt of those attacks, even though he is Jewish and his father was a refugee from Nazi Germany. Responding to such charges, the Georgetown law professor and columnist Rosa Brooks only slightly overstated the case when she wrote in the Los Angeles Times that "anyone familiar with Human Rights Watch—or with Roth—knows this to be lunacy. Human Rights Watch is non-partisan—it doesn't 'take sides' in conflicts. And the notion that Roth is anti-Semitic verges on the insane." Brooks went on to say, "But what's most troubling about the vitriol directed at Roth and his organization isn't that it's savage, unfounded and fantastical. What's most troubling is that it's typical. Typical, that is, of what anyone rash enough to criticize Israel can expect to encounter. In the United States today, it just isn't possible to have a civil debate about Israel, because any serious criticism of its policies is instantly countered with charges of anti-Semitism." Selfstudier (talk) 13:27, 12 January 2023 (UTC)


 * I don't believe there should be a criticism section at all per WP:CRIT. The article should summarize his views, and major criticisms should be incorporated into that summary. If there are any major controversial actions he's taken or been involved with, then they should be incorporated into his career history. Individual examples become unhelpful very quickly if they aren't being used to support a focused overview. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 17:02, 13 January 2023 (UTC)

Remarks on Israel's policies
I once handed a story in to an editor. He handed it back to me and said, "Rewrite this. Don't touch it up. Start from the beginning and rewrite it."

I would say the same about the section, "Remarks on Israel's policies." As we've discussed here, it's incoherent. It's a hodgepodge of repeated accusations (starting 18 years ago) that Roth is an anti-Semite, because he criticized Israel.

It's required under WP:NPOV to include criticism of subjects in WP entries, Under WP:WEIGHT, we should include repeated claims like the one that Roth is an anti-Semite. But we should give the strongest argument once, with the rebuttal if any. I think the Dershowitz claims that Selfstudier quoted (in full) would be enough.

At this writing, in the context of Roth's appointment to Harvard, I think the best example of Roth's contentious views is his argument, that he's been repeating, that Israel is violating the laws against apartheid. He said that he was restrained from accusing Israel of apartheid because he was waiting for the peace process to play out, but now he's convinced that the peace process is hopeless. (You can pick his best quote.) The next step is to find the best rebuttal to Roth, but not the unsupported invective we have now. But it's not encyclopedic (or good writing) to list a catalog of obscure writers calling Roth an anti-Semite.

What do people think about blanking that section and starting over again? --Nbauman (talk) 01:54, 20 January 2023 (UTC)


 * Whatever is done with the section, surely it needs to actually mention what Kenneth Roth has stated about Israel, right? The whole controversy here arose ever since Human Rights Watch released a report saying that Israel is practicing apartheid. The fact that this is nowhere mentioned in this section is bizarre. Whether the section is rewritten entirely, or what is currently written is modified, it should have a sentence where it explains how HRW (and Kenneth Roth) have accused Israel of the crime of apartheid (with a wikilink to Israel and apartheid). JasonMacker (talk) 03:44, 27 January 2023 (UTC)
 * The controversy goes back aways, an outfit called NGO monitor has been stirring it up for a long time. One problem is we cannot arbitrarily decide that Roth = HRW. Selfstudier (talk) 10:06, 27 January 2023 (UTC)


 * I went ahead and removed this section; preserving here by providing this link. My rationale was that the section was undue, and provided excessive intricate detail and exhaustive back & forth on apparently minor disagreements. --K.e.coffman (talk) 21:36, 30 April 2024 (UTC)

Recent edits
I removed the subsection "Rwanda genocide" from the "Controversies" section. This section was cited exclusively to the opinions of Fred Oluoch-Ojiwah, who appears to be a nn reporter with The New Times (Rwanda). It's unclear how these opinions are due; nor does this meet the definition of a controversy. i.e.: a disagreement, typically when prolonged, public, and heated. Preserving here by providing this link. --K.e.coffman (talk) 22:02, 30 April 2024 (UTC)
 * Further trimming of the section: . The section listed one article as a source and did not amount to a controversy, especially as the source did not specifically focus on Roth's role in it and it did not impact his role in the organisation. --K.e.coffman (talk) 03:25, 3 May 2024 (UTC)