Talk:Amnesty International/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Israel and Sudan

This whole section includes an overwhelming amount of information about the circumstances in Sudan:

In 2004 the Jerusalem Center for Public Affairs's NGO Monitor released a study comparing Amnesty International's treatment of Israel to its response to the twenty years of ethnic, religious and racial violence in Sudan (a predominantly Arab country) in which (at that time) two million people had been killed and four million displaced. They argued that Sudan's human rights abuses were incomparably worse than Israel's. US Secretary of State Colin Powell said “there is perhaps no greater tragedy on the face of the earth.”[18] Columnist Anthony Lewis further wrote that “the Sudanese Government in Khartoum bombs southern villages and blocks food relief flights to areas where it wants the population to starve.”[18] In June 2001, the UN's International Labor Organisation reported that in Sudan, as well as in three other African countries, “the wholesale abduction of individuals and communities is not uncommon."[19] The New York Times reported murder, abductions, and property destruction against the southern Sudanese.[20]

But there is not a single mention of what has gone down in Israel. Either we include an equal amount of information concerning the alleged human rights abuses in Israel, or we delete most of the above information and leave it as the following:

In 2004 the Jerusalem Center for Public Affairs's NGO Monitor released a study comparing Amnesty International's treatment of Israel to its response to the twenty years of ethnic, religious and racial violence in Sudan (a predominantly Arab country) in which (at that time) two million people had been killed and four million displaced. They argued that Sudan's human rights abuses were incomparably worse than Israel's.

As it stands, the page contains no information about why Amnesty International has been concerned with Israel. The only thing coming close to such information is a bunch of quotes FROM ISRAELIS decrying Amnesty's claims of "assassinations." And yet there is an overwhelming amount of information about Sudan. How can we include quotes from Israeli officials claiming that they are not serious human rights offenders when there is no objective data concerning the alleged human rights abuses in Israel? This is a really serious violation of NPOV. I believe that the quotes actually should stay, but that the page should include additional information about the actual allegations of human rights abuses in Israel.

Please review WP:NOR. You can't make up your own arguments to counter things you don't like in the article. Jayjg ^(talk) 00:18, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

I didn't say anything about making up my own arguments. I advised that we "include an equal amount of information concerning the alleged human rights abuses in Israel".... have you been watching the news in the past, um, 20 years? there are certainly such allegations all over the media and all throughout academia and the political world as well; I would hardly have to "make up my own arguments" to balance out the page. as it stands, the page is horribly biased as it mentiones allegations of human rights abuses in israel, does nothing to explain what these allegations are, and proceeds to go through a laundry list of alleged human rights abuses in sudan.

70.107.29.149 21:53, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

The section with the Catholic Church needs to be cleaned up in general. Ex: "a Vatican whopper."

Before we write up information about Israel's "human rights abuses", shouldn't we varify that there even are human rights violation worth talking about? In studying Israel's actions extensively, I've discovered several things: 1) Israel does not directly target civilians, 2) Israel takes special care to prevent civilian casualties when targeting terrorists, often at the expense of her own soldiers, 3) Israel has a right and a responsibility to defend her own citizens, Jewish and Arab, and must therefor take action against terrorism even if this sometimes limits the movement of Palestinians in the West Bank. However, not acting against terrorism and thus leaving the citizens of Israel vulnerable to suicide bombings, missile fire, and shootings is a much greater violation of human rights than seting up a check point, which is in fact not a violation of human rights, just a traffic delay. Yes, Israel does make mistakes sometimes, however, these are nothing near the human rights violations of countries like Sudan. The reason this site does not list the human rights abuses in Israel is that there are very few if any worth mentioning. User:emilybluma 22 July 2007

AI and Catholocism

I added {{citecheck}} because there are issues with sources.

For example, Wikipedia states "BBC [... said] that the Holy See was removing all of its funding them". However, what the BBC actually said - as shown in the article used as a reference - was "The Vatican has urged all Catholics to stop donating money to Amnesty International" and "The Church's request covers funding from Catholic groups, non-governmental organisations, parishes, schools and individuals." It does not say or imply that the Vatican directly funds AI.

More worryingly, the same paragraph begins: "According to BBC and media outlets taking their cue from the BBC". This is a leading and biased statement with no purpose beyond attempting to discredit the BBC and media's reporting.

The section is also seriously unbalanced. Renato Martino and U.S. Catholic Bishops are quoted at length, while AI's position is poorly explained to the point of missing links to the actual policy.

I'll try and fix this, but if not I may just tag this whole mess as {{NPOV}}. --h2g2bob (talk) 00:12, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

"It does not say or imply that the Vatican directly funds AI" but it did in the original reporting, i remember because i put this in, and hence why we have a denial of funding by the Holy See by Kate Gilmore. It appears this is now reported as advice given to catholics, i'll change it. I looked for the statement made by the catholic church but it was not on thier website when i last looked.^{(Hypnosadist)} 00:56, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

Looks like the new policy has been ratified in mexico, there should be something on AI's website soon. [1] ^{(Hypnosadist)} 14:38, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

Human rights groups and the Middle East

To the interested: an article related to this, Human rights groups and the Middle East, is currently being considered for deletion. You may refer to the article for more information. This is intended to be neutral and a friendly notice. --Nosfartu 06:08, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

cleanup required: wikiscanner has revealed that people from Amnesty International offices have removed AI criticism sections

See wikiscanner, look up Amnesty International and see these three edits:

• 40461974
• 40462106
• 40462162

i think that for an Amnesty International researcher to remove criticism from the AI wikipedia entry rather than trusting neutral third parties to do this is something that at least needs to be investigated properly by others. AI does a lot of good stuff - that doesn't mean we should hide criticism. i'm putting in a cleanup tag. Boud 01:39, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

Re-added all that was not a duplicate of something that had been re-added by a wikipedian. ^{(Hypnosadist)} 03:07, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

Redundant sections?

Section 5.4 and 5.6 appear to cover the same topic, with little differences.

5.4: Guantánamo Bay comments

In the foreword[30] to AI’s Report 2005[31], the Secretary General, Irene Khan, referred to the Guantánamo Bay prison as "the gulag of our times, entrenching the practice of arbitrary and indefinite detention in violation of international law. ...

5.6: 2005: Guantánamo Bay "the gulag of our times."

In a foreword to AI's International Report 2005, the Secretary General, Irene Khan, made a passing reference to the Guantánamo Bay prison as "the gulag of our times," breaking an internal AI policy on not comparing different human rights abuses. ...

Is there a meaningful difference between them, or should they be merged? Identity0 20:52, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

Merge it. ^{(Hypnosadist)} 00:17, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

IEC chairpersons

Hi, I'm the archivist at the International Secretariat of AI in London, and have taken the opportunity to complete the list of former chairpersons of the International Executive Committee as it had a few omissions/inaccuracies before. All the best, Heather —Preceding unsigned comment added by HeatherF (talk • contribs) 14:10, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

Genesis

I don't really think the link to genesis is appropriate when it is used in this context (See beginning of history section). 130.195.86.40 23:25, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

Lead section

I removed the last edit since I am not sure if that belongs in the lead. I believe the article has plenty of critisism of this group in the article. Anyways, --Tom (talk) 20:29, 28 November 2007 (UTC)ps it looks like 2/3 of the article is devoted to critisism?? oh well, --Tom (talk) 20:32, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

I agree, but according to discussion at in the edit history [2] of the article on human rights group Freedom House - the view by some users is that criticism should be present in the intro. If the article on FH has criticism in the intro this article on Amnesty, which is an equally or probobly more criticised organization, should have it too. All sides should be treated equally. /Slarre (talk) 21:29, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

Maybe if its a major issue and is weighted properly. Just because another article does this, doesn't mean is appropriate here.--Tom 00:10, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

wp:lead is what is appropriate, and it states "the lead section should briefly summarize the most important points covered in an article". ^{(Hypnosadist)} 06:43, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

The intro has to briefly cover all major topics covered by the article, this includes the criticism AI gets for its stances. ^{(Hypnosadist)} 21:33, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

The criticism of AI section has bloated abit and i feel that we could cut some of the "AI's new abortion policies and the Roman Catholic Church" section without loosing the reasons for this criticism. Also the "work" section could be increased to include famous campains that AI have run and more detail about current projects. ^{(Hypnosadist)} 21:44, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

Managed to cut a bit off and improve readabilty in the RCC section, having read through the criticism section a fair portion of it is taken up by rebuttals of those critcisms by AI and other notable people. ^{(Hypnosadist)} 22:06, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

spin off history part

The article is too long. Maybe we could spin off the history part, leaving only a cut down version in this article. There is not much to lose. The history section is full of duplicate information and above all lacks a clear structure. --spitzl 15:38, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

proposal for a new structure

I think there are a couple things that need to be done to make this article readable. Above all it might be useful to change the structure. Shouldn't articles about organizations start with the mission statement? I would also move the history part further down, as I doubt that this is the most interesting part for readers.

Suggestions for a new structure:
 
 1. Mission statement
 2. Organization structure
 3. Campaigns
 4. History (cut down version)
 5. Criticism
 ...

--spitzl 15:44, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

POV tag

I added a POV tag because half of the page is criticism and not even close to half of the talk about Amnesty International is criticism. - Jarn (talk) 06:17, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

I removed the pov tag. Perhaps you are looking for another tag, but unless you can show where there is POV and how we can fix it, the tag isn't helpful. If you are interested in merging the criticism section into the rest of the article (or out of it) that doesn't concern POV, but another issue altogether. —Viriditas | Talk 06:27, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

Article split. —Viriditas | Talk 06:31, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

I'm not particularly happy about having a POV fork but it may be the only way as we also need a fork for AI's campaigns and then we can have a group of articles. ^{(Hypnosadist)} 06:44, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

See WP:SPINOUT for a different view of the article split. I see it as a detailed, summary style article. After the split, the main article is currently a healthy 33 kB. Which campaigns should have their own articles? I'm only asking so I can help out. —Viriditas | Talk 13:08, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

Are you ok with the new SVG logo?

Just checking you guys are fine with my SVG of AI logo? --==Will Taylor (Vector Converter)== 16:11, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Actually, no. It's not the new logo... should be replaced. Hdc-en (talk) 23:25, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

The 'Toast To Liberty' Story

Hi everyone. The story about the Portuguese students being imprisoned for their toast to liberty is a nifty one, but it's not true. There's some year-old discussion in the following section (Origins) with some more background. Do your best to sort through the conspiracy theorising!

The story is widely known, so it needs to be in the article. At the moment, it's noted as being 'controversial'. It's not controversial; it's false. I'm making a small (referenced) edit to reflect this.Jumpmanlounge (talk) 01:53, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

Are you aware the link you added to the article is dead? It's in archive.org, but you need to talk about it a bit more. We've got sources, such as [3], [4], [5], and others. Putting aside whether it is accurate for the moment, please explain why the article you want to add is important. Viriditas (talk) 02:39, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

Viriditas - thanks for getting back to me. The article I'm linking to is a first-person account from someone who was involved with Benenson (and others) in the years leading up to the founding of AI.

The aim of Veliz's article is to correct what he calls AI's creation myth - i.e. the toast to liberty. He goes into the backstory behind AI's genesis in detail, which begins many years before 1961. His is a fully referenced first-person account. I am aware that AI often claim the accuracy of the 'toast to liberty', but they don't back it up with evidence (specifically, the newspaper article itself). Veliz does provide a wealth of data supporting his account.

It's worth mentioning that Quadrant, the magazine that published the article, is right-wing and ideologically driven. The article is anti-communist and the author takes pains to imply than AI is a communist organisation. It isn't a neutral article and the bulk of it is rightly ignored by Wikipedia. However, the simple fact that the 'toast to liberty' newspaper article is false is very clear should be noted as a fact. Jumpmanlounge (talk) 03:08, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

If that is so, then other more reliable sources will have covered the alleged controversy. Please find them. Viriditas (talk)

Thanks again for taking the time to respond, Viriditas.

The Quadrant article is an excellent reference because it specifically concerns the origin of AI, written by someone who was closely involved. It's not the only reference. The following link is a published extract from a book (http://www.bu.edu/agni/essays/print/2001/54-rabben.html) written by Linda Rabben, anthropologist and 'Brasil specialist for Amnesty's International Secretariat':

The creation myth does have a large kernel of truth, but the real story of Amnesty’s beginning is much more complicated and drawn out.

Also, 'Keepers of the Flame: Understanding Amnesty International' (http://www.amazon.com/Keepers-Flame-Understanding-Amnesty-International/dp/0801472512/ref=sr_11_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1222227419&sr=11-1 or searchable on Google Books) points out that AI leadership, or anyone else, have not been able to find a trace of the 'toast to liberty' newspaper article (p55).

Finally, answers.com (http://www.answers.com/topic/amnesty-international) has a well-researched summary of AI's early years, including a note that the 'toast to liberty' newspaper article never existed.

Thanks again for your time - if you feel any of the above are more appropriate references, I'd be happy to add them as further support in the main wiki article.Jumpmanlounge (talk) 03:47, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

Out of all of that, the best reference is Buchanan, T. (2002) "The Truth Will Set You Free': The Making of Amnesty International". Journal of Contemporary History 37(4) pp. 575–97. This is still on Answers.com, which mirrors much of Wikipedia. So the question then becomes, was this once in the "Early history (1961–1979)" section of this article? Let's assume it was. I'm going to go through the page history and see if it was removed. If it was, I will restore it. Viriditas (talk) 09:01, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

Ok, my assumption was correct. The version on Answers.com is in part, an earlier mirror of this article from 2007. The material you are trying to add to the article was previously added by another editor. It was removed on 4 January 2008 by User:Dumbledore.[6] I don't have access to JSTOR at the moment, so I've requested a copy of the article from a friend so I can review it. Viriditas (talk) 09:17, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

From what I can tell, Dumbledore was right; there appears to be a deliberate attempt to smear AI. Just because Buchanan can't track down the original newspaper article, doesn't mean it doesn't exist. Alternative explanations aside, this is a non-issue. Trying to make AI out to be a pack of liars just because someone can't find a newspaper article from 1960 is trivial. The use of the term "creation myth" here appears to be baseless. The "human rights is a communist conspiracy" meme is ridiculous. Viriditas (talk) 09:50, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

BBC News and dozens of other reliable sources support AI's origin story.[7] Perhaps the reason that Buchanan can't find the article in The Daily Telegraph is because it never appeared there. Peter Benenson claims he was reading the Daily Telegraph sometime in November 1960. Does the name of the newspaper even matter? No, of course not. The question is whether the incident involving the two Portuguese students ever occurred. Did it? Viriditas (talk) 10:09, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

I have no objection to quoting or paraphrasing Stephen Hopgood in "Keepers of the Flame". Viriditas (talk) 10:28, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

Viriditas, thanks again for taking the time. I guess this is how Wikipedia is supposed to work. It's very cool.

Just to clarify, I also think it's ridiculous (not to mention intelligence-insulting reductionism) to link human rights organisations, like AI, to communism. I use the term 'creation myth' in a positive fashion; the 'toast to liberty' story is a symbol of exactly what AI stands for - whether or not it actually happened, it's excellent shorthand for the great action that one man can take in defence of freedom, if only he were unselfish enough to do.

How about this as compromise wording, inserted after the the words 'toast to liberty'?:

Benenson's account is disputed in some quarters [ref Veliz's Quadrant article] and AI have been unable to find the newspaper article in question [ref Keepers of the Flame]. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jumpmanlounge (talk • contribs) 00:08, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

I haven't found any mainstream RS that recognize a "dispute", so I will not agree to that part. I will concede that Hopgood (and others) make it clear that the incident in question has not been found, but that doesn't mean it never happened. Looking at the actions of Salazar's Polícia Internacional e de Defesa do Estad (PIDE) for the time frame that Benenson refers to (early 1960s) reveals that hundreds of arrests took place and many of them were students. Now, why can't anyone find a record of this particular incident? My guess is that nobody has really looked. Benenson recalls reading about it in the Daily Telegraph, which he apparently said was odd, since he didn't usually read that paper. So what is going on here? Well, having run into this type of situation before while doing research, let's consider three explanations: 1) The researchers who tried to track the story down failed to do the job correctly. That's probably unlikely considering the experts involved; 2) The publishing and date information is wrong, and the story was printed in a different paper and at a different time than the one given. It's a possibility, but one wonders why it wouldn't have been corrected after four decades. Which leads us to, 3) The incident never happened and the tale was fabricated. Again, unlikely. A very brief search of events in the Salazar regime during that time shows that human rights violations were occurring in the student community, and arrests were being made with long sentences meted out to the accused. One would not have to "invent" such a thing, as they were happening on a daily basis and that can be verified. It would be beyond silly to fabricate such an incident when real ones were occurring at the same time. I have just received a copy of Buchanan's article and will review it in the next hour with further comments. Viriditas (talk) 08:52, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

Very interesting. Buchanan confirms much of what I wrote above, but more importantly, points in the direction of neither fabrication or dispute, but outright embellishment, in the tradition of chinese whispers. Let me think about this. Viriditas (talk) 09:50, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

Ok. I support a footnote in the same way Buchanan uses it, with or without Hopgood. I'm working on this now. Viriditas (talk) 12:19, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

Done, but needs improvement. Viriditas (talk) 15:12, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

I think it's just about spot on. It succinctly captures the facts and the spirit of the references - a great improvement on my original edit. Love your work, Viriditas, and thanks for the help. Jumpmanlounge (talk) 10:09, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

British English

Amnesty International was an English creation, ergo this page should be written in British English. I've Anglicised the spellings, but people keep changing them back to Americanisms.

If you can give a genuine reason why it should not be written in British English, then please let me know. Otherwise, I will continue to undo revisions. Ta KillerKat (talk) 18:03, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

Most American spellings are just old British ones that have been changed in the UK but not in the USA. Epa101 (talk) 18:35, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

After a look at Amnesty's website, it seems as if they use both American and British spellings depending on the subject matter. They are an international organisation rather than a British one. Either system should be acceptable. Epa101 (talk) 13:02, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

That would depend on which site you looked at. The British site is completely different to the American one. They are only international having branched from the UK. Under Wikipedia rules, that means British English is the accepted standard. KillerKat (talk) 00:28, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

An image on this page may be deleted

This is an automated message regarding an image used on this page. The image File:AI logo 2008.svg, found on Amnesty International, has been nominated for deletion because it does not meet Wikipedia image policy. Please see the image description page for more details. If this message was sent in error (that is, the image is not up for deletion, or was left on the wrong talk page), please contact this bot's operator. STBotI (talk) 14:15, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

Incorrect logo

The logo currently used on this page (and on Wikipedias in other languages) is not the correct currently used Amnesty logo. It's a strange, ugly-looking, self-made version of the logo. Can somebody replace it? See http://www.amnesty.org for the real logo. Hdc-en (talk) 23:35, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

Ciriticism - WP:RS violation removal

ref. this edit.
The Asian Tribune is a tiny online newspaper published by an expatriate living in Sweden, and NGO Monitor is an Israeli partisan group that defends Israel against its repeated run-ins with Amnesty International over Israel's human rights record. The Asian Tribune source in question is a five-paragraph editorial in the online paper that serves as an introduction to a reprint of an editorial written by NGO Monitor's Executive Director that appears in the New York Sun. Surely, if there is criticism of Amnesty International worth noting in this encyclopedia there must be stronger sources. A more serious problem is that the material misrepresents the sources. The Asian Tribune does not praise NGO Monitor or its director, and does not endorse their editorial or the conclusion - it merely reprints it word for word.
(apologies to Wikidemon for plagiarism of his summary of the issue here) —Preceding unsigned comment added by GrizzledOldMan (talk • contribs) 04:03, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

Removed redundant information and irrelevant quotation. Bias types are already linked and defined - there is no need to clutter the article with their definitions, nor add an article reference which is irrelevant to the definitions. GrizzledOldMan (talk) 21:45, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

Stop removing notable criticism, one sentance with a good unique source is not "cluttering". ^{(Hypnosadist)} 22:07, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

Criticism is fine. An editorial is not a valid WP:RS - "Opinion pieces are only reliable for statements as to the opinion of their authors, not for statements of fact".

Specifically:

1. The article is an editorial - it is the opinion of that writer - nobody else. Yes, criticism is the focus of this Wiki article, but reliable secondary sources need to be used. If you can find a WP:RS, then fine - add it, in such a way that it does not make a mess of the article, and adheres to WP:NPOV guidelines

2. selection bias is clearly linked. Cluttering up the article with "this includes" statements does not improve the readability or content of the article.

3. WP:RS - reliable secondary sources should be used. The article in question is written by an official from NGO Monitor, citing his own organization's work. That makes it a primary source, and thus should not be used in a Wikipedia article.

Please don't start an edit war. I posted the removal here on talk so that it might be discussed. If you have a concern, please state it. From what I can see, it's pretty clear that it comes under WP:RS violation. Additionally, arbitration sanctions imposed in WP:ARBPIA may apply, if you continue this. GrizzledOldMan (talk) 23:14, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

1)Don't threaten editors with Arbcom sanctions, its not polite and violates AGF. The edit was quite reasonable for me to make even if you disagree with the content there is no obvious vandalism or disruption so they could not be applied this is a content dispute.

2)"Please don't start an edit war." Again AGF is one of our core policies stop violating it or "arbitration sanctions imposed in WP:ARBPIA may apply" (see how rude and threatening that sounds).

3)"That makes it a primary source, and thus should not be used in a Wikipedia article" Wrong on two counts, first primary sources are used all the time in wikipedia and its not a primary source as that would be the data itself on the number of complaints made. When NGO monitor colated the data and formed an opinion on it then that opinion became a secondary source.

4)"selection bias is clearly linked" But with your version the reader has no idea what the bias is! Its not clear that that bias is against the countries with better human rights records when most people would expect them to complain more about those that are the worst human rights violators. ^{(Hypnosadist)} 13:14, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

Considering that we're talking about a 3-line summary here of another article (Criticism of Amnesty International) it's a bit of a storm in a teacup. Nonetheless, a sentence here explaining what AI's selection bias is supposed to be is appropriate. Problem is, the source given ([8]) (a) doesn't support that statement (it quotes the Economist making a much more specific statement about country focus - making that statement support the WP sentence in question implies WP:OR); (b) is an opinion piece from the Director of NGO Monitor. There are better sources for this - eg ref 7 in the Criticism article (at time of writing). Also, I note there is a whole debate about AI's (and HRW's) work on Colombia, which that footnote refers to, which isn't explored in that Criticism article. Rd232 ^talk 14:14, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

The WP:ARBPIA warning was a matter of courtesy, not a threat. Considering the material, it could very well apply here if this escalates. If you read that as a threat - well, that has nothing to do with me.

If the reader wants to look up selection bias, it's quite easy to click on it. You don't see the tibia article littered with "and this is a bone too". The editorial does nothing to help the casual reader understand the issue.

There are serious questions as to it's WP:RS - if it's important enough an issue, surely you can find a better source. Also, if you choose to replace the source material, please work it into the text in such a manner that it does not break the flow of the text. Hacking in, "this also includes" is a poor way to inject an addition. GrizzledOldMan (talk) 21:08, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

Removed again. I have asked for you to explain/justify your edit here, and you've hacked it in again. "... this includes" does not add to the readability of the document, nor does it help the reader understand the issue. I see no reason why this statement does anything to improve the article. In fact, it lowers the quality. GrizzledOldMan (talk) 10:47, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

Considering that you yourself recently added the source I alluded to above to the Criticism article, I was hoping you'd be more helpful. Confusing issues of wording with issues of sourcing isn't helpful either. Anyway, I hope the present version satisfies you, it's very close to what you put in the Criticism article! Rd232 ^talk 11:23, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, I seem to get in endless disputes with POV pushers who try to twist the meaning and intent of editing guidelines to insert flagrantly partisan views/sources into articles. I was probably snappy with my criticism. Not your fault - sorry. Yes, as it stands it's more informative and presents a clearer view of the criticism. Much better. Ta.

Clarification - the initial edit was hacked in as an excuse to kludge a partisan source into the article - not an attempt to improve the article. I really hadn't given much thought to improving the wording the article, aside from stopping AI's article from becoming a coatrack for partisans. GrizzledOldMan (talk) 13:27, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

Well finding new ways to improve an article can help avoid arguments getting stuck in ruts (does depend on the situation though - sometimes you can put effort in and it just adds to the dispute...) Anyway, if you have the time, some of the middle sections here could do with better inline citation. Rd232 ^talk 15:52, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

Khan pay criticism

Someone has donated a longer paragraph to the issue on this main page, and copied the identical contents to the main criticism article. I see several issues with this: First, the content should not be duplicate identical. On this main page, it should probably be shortened. Second, while it is currently a hot topic, wikipedia is not a news agency. which again speaks for shortening here and keeping it long on the criticism page. While I am absolutely with the critical faction here, I think that ending the paragraph with the disillusionment sentence is a bit too polemic for wikipeda. What is the value of the comment, seriously, for an encyclopedia? Be honest, if you substract your personal anger, what does the quote add in terms of information? Lastly, I hear there has been an internal clarification for members which sheds quite more light on the issue -- has this been made public so that we can update the matter here and corrroborate with a link? I'd find it appropriate, if you, who introduced the paragraph, would give this fixes a go, but if not, I'll do that shortly if no further discussion can counter my argments. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.49.49.104 (talk) 11:56, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

Image copyright problem with File:Huntour.jpg

The image File:Huntour.jpg is used in this article under a claim of fair use, but it does not have an adequate explanation for why it meets the requirements for such images when used here. In particular, for each page the image is used on, it must have an explanation linking to that page which explains why it needs to be used on that page. Please check

• That there is a non-free use rationale on the image's description page for the use in this article.
• That this article is linked to from the image description page.

This is an automated notice by FairuseBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. --04:38, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

LGBT activism

I noticed that Amnesty International is in favour of LGBT rights, something which is not even allowed in Communist countries like Cuba and North Korea, as well as in most of Africa and Asia. [9] ADM (talk) 02:38, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

What exactly are you suggesting in terms of amending the article? NB LGBT rights in Cuba are rather different than LGBT rights in North Korea, and lumping all of Africa and especially Asia together is even less accurate. Rd232 ^talk 03:08, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

footnote doesn't work

This just goes to the current day's blog: 34. ^ Press Briefing By Scott McClellan, The White House, 25 May 2005. Retrieved 30 May 2006. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Noloop (talk • contribs) 17:31, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

Spinoff "Criticism of Amnesty International" deleted?

Wikipedia entry "Criticism of Amnesty International" now redirects to the main article. Vandalism? —Preceding unsigned comment added by FriendOfPanda (talk • contribs) 19:01, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

Nay. It's supposed to redirect here. There was an article by that name, but it was deemed very POV and useless since this article already has the criticism, so it now redirects here. Kotiwalo (talk) 19:04, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

How was it 'deemed very POV and useless'? Was there a vote for deletion?FriendOfPanda (talk) 01:54, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

That's what I read from the redirect page's history. Maybe it "was deemed" by one person only. Kotiwalo (talk) 07:26, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

That appears to be the case. User Crotalus_horridus deleted it assuming it to be a POV Fork, which it is not, therefore, I restored it. It is a Spinoff and the standard WP practice.

Eg. Criticism_of_Human_Rights_Watch

-FriendOfPanda (talk) 08:34, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

Seems quite reasonable. Converting entire article into a redirect is quite a dramatic move. Kotiwalo (talk) 11:39, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

Funding of Amnesty

i wonder how this section is missing in an article on an NGO?123.238.73.54 (talk) 09:59, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

It is in the article, but not very prominent, under "Organisation": "Amnesty International is financed largely by fees and donations from its worldwide membership. It does not accept donations from governments or governmental organisations." see also here. Rd232 ^talk 15:57, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

Use of Wikipedia as indirect new site

An editor accuses me of "bad faith" in not automatically accepting anything written using Wiki software. This is preposterous. Wiki software can be used by anybody. One might just as easily say that we should accept all documents written in "Word"! We have no idea what standards other wikis use, nor even, foreign language Wikipedias use, in documenting their articles. For that matter, we can't even trust other Wikipedia articles other than the one we are working on at the time - that is, I cannot quote another article as saying "xxxx" and use that as a source! How much less some other wiki entirely!

For people wanting "up to the minute" sources, I suggest the web, eyewitless news at 11, that sort of thing. Wikipedia is supposed to be encyclopedic which means that it handles material generated by WP:RELY sources, scholars, for example, not random thoughts coming from some other wikis keyboard. Student7 (talk) 03:31, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

children's rights

An editor added the following text to the lead: "Amnesty International openly advocates four particular children's rights, including the end to juvenile incarceration without parole, an end to the recruitment of military use of children, ending the death penalty for people under 18, and raising awareness of human rights in the classroom.[1] Human Rights Watch, an international advocacy organization, includes child labor, juvenile justice, orphans and abandoned children, refugees, street children and corporal punishment.[21]" [10]. I've undone for now since this doesn't really belong in the lead, and the sources are broken. It should probably go in the Work section. Rd232 ^talk 08:37, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

Leftist Globalization NPOV

I removed "Amnesty International felt this shift was important, not just to give credence to its principle of the indivisibility of rights, but because of the growing power of companies and the undermining of many nation states as a result of globalization" because it was uncited and non-neutral. This was changed because it is phrased as AI's belief, but given a "no citation" end point. a) Is it precedent, or constructive, to give the benefit of the doubt if something's uncited? I don't think so. b) Stating as fact a motive for someone else's opinion is not merely quoting their opinion. If I were to say "My racist friend hates ethnic group y, becuase ethnic group y is unintelligent" I would be saying that they are unintelligent. Likewise, by saying (paraphrased) "AI felt it was important, because companies and globalization are underming nation states" one is implying (qua speaker/writer) the second half of the sentence is true; especially uncited, which emphaizes the npov as AI isn't even being presented as saying this. I know most of the people who would be editing an article like this would agree with such sentiment, so I may be argueing up a hill, but disprove my cynicism please. Many articles on subjects more business-oriented are biased that way because that's the audience it finds; balance is good for all.

Now, if this is AI's citable opinion, including the second half, then obviously it should be included, but in a way that shows this is AI's opinion. D prime (talk) 11:32, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

When a encyclopedia writes X says "My racist friend hates ethnic group y, becuase ethnic group y is unintelligent," it means X is biased, not that the encyclopedia is biased.66.183.59.211 (talk) 06:37, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

Automate archiving?

Does anyone object to me setting up automatic archiving for this page using MiszaBot? Unless otherwise agreed, I would set it to archive threads that have been inactive for 30 days and keep at least ten threads.--Oneiros (talk) 23:48, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

 Done--Oneiros (talk) 18:53, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

What was the point of that . You talk bout it and then you correct the problem Yourself. You should at least wait for a response.. --JabocJacobOhYeah (talk) 22:47, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

Pay Controversy

The dating sometimes is incomplete (year). Is it because of BE?--FreedomSarah (talk) 15:35, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

NPOV

"AI focused on human rights" is subjective with many claiming AI is against human rights. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 97.95.129.245 (talk) 20:21, 1 September 2012 (UTC)

abuse of humanrights MICHAEL MOSES FOLORUNSHO

SIR,

   MY,names are MICHAEL MOSES FOLORUNSHO,I AM A SECURITY OFFICER AT NO 58 LATEEF AREGBE, GRAMATE BUSTOP okota , lagos . i want to say some unknown thouts (gang) broke into my residence premises,break the padlocks,while i am with the keys , beat me up and detained me at no in OKOTA POLICE STATION  LAGOS, I WROTE AN OFFICIAL Statement at the station that on the 28th of feburary 2013 , mr olaniyi oladele(0803471583,08023591529) employed me to work as a residential security at no 58 lateef aregbe okota, allowance twenty thousand naira only monthly,BISI OMOYENI(O80211221660)) HE SAID he is the owner(landlord) of the property  anD comes around with mopol police uniformed officers,on the 3rd of june 2013 broke into the premises no 58 lateef aregbe gramate bustop okota,i confronted them as the official security of the property , the gang beat me up ,detained me at okota police station , where i documented a statement under officer wale of Nigeria police force okota,lagos (07065946882). the electricity bills coming to the residence are bearing different names  and BISI OMEYENI CLAIMS he is an ex deputy governor of EKITI STATE , canpaining for governor revival of EKITI. CLAIMS HE IS THE LANDLORD , THE ELECTRICITY BILSS ARE  NOT PAID , Iam employed without employment letter ,life insurance , poor salary,no medical facilities and security information .presently i am on the streets in okota , my human rights abused, no home ,no food , money, medical assistance and  my life is under serious security threat by people that slave me under duress ,humilination, and forceful conduct. 

please i need the our international organizations in and across africa to intervain , investigate and investigate this security threat.the truth is justice GOD BLESS — Preceding unsigned comment added by 197.255.171.174 (talk) 13:36, 4 June 2013 (UTC)

Links

>> Salil Shetty: 'Speaking truth to power'(Lihaas (talk) 19:43, 10 February 2014 (UTC)).