This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to multiple WikiProjects. | |||||||||||||||||||||
|
Warning: active arbitration remedies The contentious topics procedure applies to this article. Parts of this article relate to the Arab–Israeli conflict, which is a contentious topic. Furthermore, the following rules apply when editing the parts of the page related to the contentious topic:
Editors who repeatedly or seriously fail to adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, any expected standards of behaviour, or any normal editorial process may be blocked or restricted by an administrator. Editors are advised to familiarise themselves with the contentious topics procedures before editing this page. If it is unclear which parts of the page are related to this contentious topic, the content in question should be marked within the wiki text by an invisible comment. If no comment is present, please ask an administrator for assistance. If in doubt it is better to assume that the content is covered.
|
The
Wikimedia Foundation's
Terms of Use require that editors disclose their "employer, client, and affiliation" with respect to any paid contribution; see
WP:PAID. For advice about reviewing paid contributions, see
WP:COIRESPONSE.
|
WP:RS: "Reliable sources are credible published materials with a reliable publication process; their authors are generally regarded as trustworthy or authoritative in relation to the subject at hand." NGO Monitor is a highly political website with an open agenda and does not independently meet the criteria for being a reliable source. If its material can be found in a reliable third-party publication then the material should be restored.-- 76.214.115.168 ( talk) 23:38, 30 September 2008 (UTC)
This is a spinout and not a POV fork -- do not delete this gratuitously. The main article only has a summary and this article has more detailed accounts. This practice is accepted and a similar entry exists for "Criticism against Human Rights Watch" [1] If you find particular content POV, try to make them NPOV. FriendOfPanda ( talk) 03:29, 31 July 2009 (UTC)
i just did a major reorganisation. i hope i didn't accidentally remove any sections - if i did, then that was unintentional.
Amnesty International's international office, the International Secretariat, is physically located in London, and probably most of the IS's funding comes from a few rich Western countries - especially USA, UK and France. AI attempts to overcome the obvious biases that this can be naturally expected to create - e.g. individual researchers at the IS cannot work on their own countries, the present and previous Secretary-General are/were from non-Western countries. i'm not giving references here, since this is not material for the article (unless someone finds that someone notable (not me) said essentially the same thing in a WP:RS); i'm just saying this to give a common sense explanation of what seems to me to be a reasonably NPOV organisation of the article. There is one claim regarding 20% funding by AI USA, by Boyle, which is in the present version of the article.
The point is that claims of Amnesty being anti-non-Western vs Amnesty being anti-Western are qualitatively two big groups of criticisms. (i've put "anti-non-Western", because Amnesty by definition criticises all governments - it is not a develop-your-governmental-self-esteem NGO and criticising human rights violations in non-Western countries is not necessarily pro-Western.) So this seems to be a useful way to give some minimal structure to the various criticisms.
Selection bias, abortion, and organisational continuity criticisms don't really seem to fit in to the main two groups of anti-non-Western and anti-Western criticism, IMHO.
i didn't want to put any strong label on whether or not Israel is "Western", but IMHO saying that it is Western-supported should be reasonably uncontroversial. The USA annually pours billions of dollars into Israel AFAIK, and the United States, Marshall Islands, Palau and UK generally vote with Israel in the United Nations General Assembly against the rest of the world, sometimes with western European support.
Please discuss an alternative structure if you have a better suggestion. Boud ( talk) 13:00, 5 August 2009 (UTC)
i don't see why the Sri Lanka criticism should be non-notable. en.wikipedia is not the USA.wikipedia.org nor UK.wikipedia.org . If this was a big issue in Sri Lanka, a country of about 20 million people, which recently hit international news headlines because of the apparent ending of a several decade long civil war, then that's surely sufficient for notability. Notability doesn't require Western-newspaper notability - after all, this class of claim against Amnesty is that Amnesty is anti-non-Western biased, so we should judge using South Asian, and especially Sri Lankan sources. Look around and you should find them on the web. Boud ( talk) 13:00, 5 August 2009 (UTC)
I think the article should stress that this criticism by the Irish Independant was in an opinion column by the controversial journalist Kevin Myers. Is it wikipedia policy to attribute this comment to the paper?
I'm also unsure if a comment by a (fairly prominent admittedly, but certainly not outside of Ireland) now-tabloid journalist is notable, particularly when it is not even the topic of the opinion column in question.
134.226.1.229 (
talk) 22:03, 15 December 2009 (UTC)
this got a bit of attention in the media, a lot of people didnt like it... it should be incorporated into the article —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.26.132.27 ( talk) 14:05, 19 April 2010 (UTC)
This section needs reworking. The link is broken in any case, and the section doesn't make it clear if it's quoting AI or making a statement about their policies. 70.246.145.122 ( talk) 14:59, 23 April 2010 (UTC)
"(I)deological/foreign policy bias against either non-Western countries, or Western-supported countries." No, they don't play favorites in this regard, as the article itself shows; Bashingg on the US and China equally does give them that parity (if not honesty). A REDDSON
In Taiwan, the most of people are pro-death penalty and strongly oppose the abolition of the death penalty, while AI protested the death penalty execution in Taiwan, some people went to the facebook page of the AI to protest AI's protest and its anti-death penalty stance, and to express that they are pro-death penalty, you may see some related articles below:
https://www.facebook.com/amnestyglobal/posts/108632675976010
https://www.facebook.com/amnestyglobal/posts/467601183303615
-- EPN-001GF IZEN བཀྲ་ཤིས་བདེ་ལེགས། 21:36, 24 December 2012 (UTC)
-- EPN-001GF IZEN བཀྲ་ཤིས་བདེ་ལེགས། 07:04, 25 December 2012 (UTC)
A recent report by AI member Donatella Rovera criticized her own organization for taking false testimonies of Palestinian witnesses. I'd like to know why this sourced information was removed. I'm waiting for a serious answer before restoring the content. Thanks in advance.-- AmirSurfLera ( talk) 08:29, 28 June 2014 (UTC)
Most of the prostitution section is written like a campaign poster and does not meet Wikipedia requirements of neutral reporting. It is hard to know how it can be fixed apart from rewriting. It starts with a sentence that says the opposite of the document it refers to, and it doesn't get better after that. Zero talk 14:07, 31 August 2015 (UTC)
The title of the section "Refusal to oppose anti-Semitism" seems a bit POV. They obviously do oppose anti-semitism so it seems a bit dodgy to put such a title. The issue is whether they wanted to vote specifically to pass such a statement: One could pass 1000 statements stating opposition to 1000 evil things but that seems a complete waste of effort. Many motions are presented each year and many are of a similar form. Just because amnesty didn't vote for motion "oppose X" doesn't mean they don't oppose X, if that makes sense.
Other issues with the section:
- the "anti-Muslim prejudice in Britain" report cited is actually about Discrimination against Muslims in Europe. - the main reference was the JC which does seem to have a bit of a bias to bash Amnesty (maybe due to its criticism of Israel?) - Often amnesty gets criticised for raising an issue (in this case discrimination against Muslims) by some saying "Why are they not raising an issue about another group?".
Maybe someone less connected to Amnesty than myself could look at this with a NPOV and help out, thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.148.66.38 ( talk) 18:13, 18 October 2015 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to one external link on
Criticism of Amnesty International. Please take a moment to review
my edit. If necessary, add {{
cbignore}}
after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{
nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}}
to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.
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: 18 January 2022).
Cheers.— cyberbot II Talk to my owner:Online 18:17, 26 February 2016 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 3 external links on Criticism of Amnesty International. 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:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{
Sourcecheck}}
).
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: 18 January 2022).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 12:41, 21 July 2016 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 3 external links on Criticism of Amnesty International. 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:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{
Sourcecheck}}
).
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: 18 January 2022).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 14:39, 2 December 2016 (UTC)
This source says nothing about Amnesty being discriminatory against "Western countries". It barely even mentions Amnesty. VR talk 03:53, 11 May 2017 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 4 external links on Criticism of Amnesty International. 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:
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: 18 January 2022).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 16:39, 14 August 2017 (UTC)
Currently, this section has one sentence and one source, "In 2007, Amnesty stated that it reports disproportionately on relatively more democratic and open countries. [1]" The reference is to an Amnesty webpage which is a brief summary of and link to a three-page report [10]. The summary and the report make no reference to Amnesty reporting differently on different types of countries and do not use the terms "disproportionately" or "relatively more democratic and open" or any equivalent terms or phrases. I therefore removed the citation and replaced it with the citation-needed tag. The citation has been restored [11] with the edit summary "per source", an edit summary which explains nothing and is appropriate to replacing article text, not a source. Can any editor justify the presence of this citation and explain how it supports the article text? 92.19.24.9 ( talk) 12:17, 12 November 2017 (UTC)
References
I renamed the section, which previously cited pro-Assad media and a conspiracist news website, but it should go in its entirety. Most governments whose abuses are reported on by researchers and advocacy groups deny all charges and accuse organizations of bias and baseless smears. Nothing noteworthy about that. Ignostic199 ( talk) 00:42, 7 December 2018 (UTC)
I have added this section because Amnesty chose to visit a camp where gross human rights abuses allegedly take place to conduct its research into events in Iran that happened in 1988. A British TV station, Channel4, made this allegation in a documentary. The visit was criticised by a NGO representing families who believe members are held against their will there. Zero0000 has censored this account supposedly for "violations of Wikipedia's rules" because he asserts that the Channel4 documentary did not mention Amnesty by name. However, it did mention the camp that Amnesty visited, and the NGO directly criticised Amnesty for its decision to visit the camp. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rastjoo ( talk • contribs) 16:27, 1 January 2019 (UTC)
Five points here in response to these "objections" to the inclusion of the section by Rastjoo:
1. The Channel4 documentary reported that members at the camp, which Amnesty visited to elicit information about a matter unrelated to conditions at the camp, were being abused.
2. The NGO, the Nejat society, used the findings of Channel4 in its criticism of Amnesty. So it is perfectly relevant to mentioned Channel4's report because it lends weight to the criticism of Amnesty by the NGO. THIS IS CALLED CONTEXT/BACKGROUND.
3. Why is an NGO's criticism of Amnesty (representing hundreds of people) "insufficient" but that of an individual who is a strong supporter of Israeli policy, like Elliott abrams (criticism of Amnesty' stance on Israel), sufficient? What constitutes "sufficiency"?
4. You haven't cited any guideline or any rule demonstrating that there has been a violation.
5. This is not an edit war. You are simply preventing the page from being expanded.
I would like to also point out that this page deals with criticism of AI, NOT whether the criticism is valid or invalid.
The rule WP:SNYTH is used for attempts to CONFLATE the information of two separate sources. The use of the Channel4 documentary is, however, used to CORROBORATE the NGO's criticism and provide CONTEXT to the criticism of AI. Readers can see for themselves that Channel4 made no direct criticism of Amnesty but they did, in fact, highlight alleged abuses at the camp which the NGO complained to Amnesty about. Regarding WP:RS, why are there references on this page to Elliot Abrams and NGO Monitor, both staunchly pro-Israel parties, but an Iranian NGO that represents families held at the camp in Albania apparently is not reliable? This is clearly BIAS and arbitrary. By Rastjoo — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rastjoo ( talk • contribs) 00:49, 14 January 2019 (UTC)
relies on the reader synthesizing support for a statement in our article by "seeing for themselves" a fact that is still not directly supported by the articles cited. That's just inviting our readers to violate WP:SYNTH, and it's not encyclopedic. loupgarous ( talk) 21:15, 3 December 2019 (UTC)"Readers can see for themselves that Channel4 made no direct criticism of Amnesty but they did, in fact, highlight alleged abuses at the camp which the NGO complained to Amnesty about."
This edit request by an editor with a conflict of interest was declined. The request was not specific enough. |
Edit request
| ||
---|---|---|
Please see below requests for changes to factual inaccuracies in this section. Text: The report said that…staff described the senior leadership team as out-of-touch, incompetent and callous. Issue: Lacking context. Konterra found that “there is a tendency for many staff to villainize the SLT as privileged, out of touch, incompetent, and callous” Action: Please delete or change to full sentence -- RG-Stockholm ( talk) 11:48, 11 February 2020 (UTC) Text: Amnesty International's Secretary General Kumi Naidoo did not accept resignations and instead offered generous redundancies to managers concerned, including to Mootoo's senior director Anna Neistat directly implicated in the report on Mootoo's death. Issue: Anna Neistat was not “directly implicated” by the Laddie report. https://www.amnesty.org/download/Documents/ORG6094132018ENGLISH.PDF No individual was directly implicated. Anna Neistat’s name is mentioned along with other managers and SLT members in recounting conversations and interactions relevant to the report’s remit. Action: Delete reference to Anna Neistat. -- RG-Stockholm ( talk) 11:48, 11 February 2020 (UTC) Text: After none of the managers responsible of bullying at Amnesty were held accountable a group of workers petitioned for Amnesty's chief to resign. On 5 December 2019 Naidoo resigned from his post of Amnesty's Secretary General citing ill health [76] and appointing Julie Verhaar as an interim Secretary General. In their petition, workers demanded her immediate resignation as well. Issue: Kumi’s resignation was completely unrelated to both the petition and to the issues raised in the Konterra and Laddie reports. Kumi stated publicly that he resigned for health reasons. The petition in question has since been updated and misrepresents the reasons behind Kumi’s resignation. It is not clear that this was started by “a group of workers” -please cite? Action: Please remove the sentence about Kumi Naidoo’s resignation from this paragraph. It should have a separate heading to clearly distinguish it from the events that went before. The section on Kumi’s resignation should read: Resignation of Kumi Naidoo On 5 December 2019 Naidoo resigned from his post of Amnesty's Secretary General for health reasons. He appointed Julie Verhaar as interim Secretary General. |
-- RG-Stockholm ( talk) 11:48, 11 February 2020 (UTC)
Sample edit request
|
---|
|
Regards,
Spintendo 21:46, 11 February 2020 (UTC)
References
Instructions for Submitters: Describe the requested changes in detail. This includes the exact proposed wording of the new material, the exact proposed location for it, and an explicit description of any wording to be removed, including removal for any substitution.
Instructions for Submitters: If the rationale for a change is not obvious (particularly for proposed deletions), explain.
The
Wikimedia Foundation's
Terms of Use require that editors disclose their "employer, client, and affiliation" with respect to any paid contribution; see
WP:PAID. For advice about reviewing paid contributions, see
WP:COIRESPONSE.
|
This edit request by an editor with a conflict of interest has now been answered. |
Thanks for your help! Please see details as requested below.
Edit request
|
---|
1. Referring to the first paragraph in the section "2019 Report on workplace bullying within Amnesty International", please delete the following text: "and that staff described the senior leadership team as out-of-touch, incompetent and callous." 2. Reason for change: The current sentence omits important context. The Konterra report found that “there is a tendency for many staff to villainize the SLT as privileged, out of touch, incompetent, and callous" ( https://www.amnesty.org/download/Documents/ORG6097632019ENGLISH.PDF p. 27) 1. Referring to the second paragraph of the section "2019 Report on workplace bullying within Amnesty International", please delete the second clause of the penultimate sentence: "including to Mootoo's senior director Anna Neistat directly implicated in the report on Mootoo's death." 2. Reason for change: Anna Neistat was not “directly implicated” by the Laddie report. No individual was directly implicated. 1. Referring to the third paragraph of the section "2019 Report on workplace bullying within Amnesty International", please delete this text: "After none of the managers responsible of bullying at Amnesty were held accountable a group of workers petitioned for Amnesty's chief to resign. On 5 December 2019 Naidoo resigned from his post of Amnesty's Secretary General citing ill health [76] and appointing Julie Verhaar as an interim Secretary General. In their petition, workers demanded her immediate resignation as well." 2. Please add the following text: "On December 5 2019 Naidoo resigned from Amnesty International citing ill health. Naidoo said, "Now more than ever, the organisation needs a secretary general who is fighting fit and can see through its mandate with vitality that this role, this institution, and the mission of universal human rights deserve." 3. Using as the reference: https://www.civilsociety.co.uk/news/amnesty-international-s-secretary-general-kumi-naidoo-steps-down-for-health-reasons.html) 3. Reason for change: The current text is misleading and implies that Kumi Naidoo resigned as a result of a petition. Kumi’s resignation was completely unrelated to both the petition and to the issues raised in the Konterra and Laddie reports. Kumi stated publicly that he resigned for health reasons. There is no citation to show that the petition was started by a group of Amnesty workers. -- 165.225.80.110 ( talk) 11:42, 12 February 2020 (UTC)
1. Please add the following text directly beneath the heading "Israel": Amnesty International has been heavily criticized by NGO Monitor, a non-governmental organization which has been characterized as "extremist" ( https://law.acri.org.il//pdf/lettertoperes310110.pdf, (p.1)) , "right-wing" ( https://web.archive.org/web/20170203023611/http://www.france24.com/en/20130617-biased-wikipedia-israel-political-meddling-arnie-draiman-monitor-ngo) and "politically motivated"( http://policyworkinggroup.org.il/report_en.pdf (p.11)). 2. Reason for change: More than half of the "Israel" section is composed of criticism from one organization, NGO Monitor. This criticism is presented as though it is impartial. It is essential to acknowledge before citing them so heavily that NGO Monitor have themselves been criticised for bias and selective pro-Israel campaigning. |
-- 165.225.80.110 ( talk) 12:52, 12 February 2020 (UTC)
{{
request edit}}
template's answer parameter to read from |ans=yes
to |ans=no
. Thank you! Regards,
Spintendo 17:44, 13 February 2020 (UTC)
Thank you, much appreciated. Please can you advise on the other requests I made above, specifically regarding Anna Neistat, and the context for the Konterra report? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 165.225.80.246 ( talk) 17:46, 19 February 2020 (UTC)
Part of an edit requested by an editor with a conflict of interest has been implemented. Please see the reply section below for additional information about this request. |
1. Referring to the third paragraph of the section "2019 Report on workplace bullying within Amnesty International", please delete this text:
"After none of the managers responsible of bullying at Amnesty were held accountable a group of workers petitioned for Amnesty's chief to resign. On 5 December 2019 Naidoo resigned from his post of Amnesty's Secretary General citing ill health [76] and appointing Julie Verhaar as an interim Secretary General. In their petition, workers demanded her immediate resignation as well."
2. Please add the following text:
"On December 5 2019 Naidoo resigned from Amnesty International citing ill health. Naidoo said, "Now more than ever, the organisation needs a secretary general who is fighting fit and can see through its mandate with vitality that this role, this institution, and the mission of universal human rights deserve."
3. Using as the reference: https://www.civilsociety.co.uk/news/amnesty-international-s-secretary-general-kumi-naidoo-steps-down-for-health-reasons.html)
3. Reason for change: The current text is misleading and implies that Kumi Naidoo resigned as a result of a petition. Kumi’s resignation was completely unrelated to both the petition and to the issues raised in the Konterra and Laddie reports. Kumi stated publicly that he resigned for health reasons. There is no citation to show that the petition was started by a group of Amnesty workers. --165.225.80.110 (talk) 11:42, 12 February 2020 (UTC)
-- 165.225.80.110 ( talk) 11:05, 17 February 2020 (UTC)
Edit request partially implemented
Regards, Spintendo 00:59, 19 February 2020 (UTC)
This edit request by an editor with a conflict of interest was declined. The request was not specific enough. |
The following Wikipedia contributor may be personally or professionally connected to the subject of this article. Relevant policies and guidelines may include
conflict of interest,
autobiography, and
neutral point of view.
|
The Wikimedia Foundation's Terms of Use require that editors disclose their "employer, client, and affiliation" with respect to any paid contribution; see WP:PAID. For advice about reviewing paid contributions, see WP:COIRESPONSE. |
1. Referring to the first paragraph in the section "2019 Report on workplace bullying within Amnesty International", please delete the following text:
"and that staff described the senior leadership team as out-of-touch, incompetent and callous."
2. Reason for change: The current sentence omits important context. The Konterra report found that “there is a tendency for many staff to villainize the SLT as privileged, out of touch, incompetent, and callous" ( https://www.amnesty.org/download/Documents/ORG6097632019ENGLISH.PDF p. 27)
1. Referring to the second paragraph of the section "2019 Report on workplace bullying within Amnesty International", please delete the second clause of the penultimate sentence:
"including to Mootoo's senior director Anna Neistat directly implicated in the report on Mootoo's death."
2. Reason for change:
Anna Neistat was not “directly implicated” by the Laddie report. No individual was directly implicated.
-- 165.225.80.110 ( talk) 11:39, 24 February 2020 (UTC)
Regards, Spintendo 12:20, 25 February 2020 (UTC)
References
Instructions for Submitters: Describe the requested changes in detail. This includes the exact proposed wording of the new material, the exact proposed location for it, and an explicit description of any wording to be removed, including removal for any substitution.
1. The context is this: “there is a tendency for many staff to villainize the SLT as privileged, out of touch, incompetent, and callous" ( https://www.amnesty.org/download/Documents/ORG6097632019ENGLISH.PDF p. 27) The word "villainize changes the meaning of the sentence.
please replace "and that staff described the senior leadership team as out-of-touch, incompetent and callous" with “there is a tendency for many staff to villainize the SLT as privileged, out of touch, incompetent, and callous" ( https://www.amnesty.org/download/Documents/ORG6097632019ENGLISH.PDF p. 27) -- 165.225.80.110 ( talk) 13:43, 25 February 2020 (UTC)
This edit request by an editor with a conflict of interest was declined. Per WP:CITEVAR, WP:WINARS. |
The Wikimedia Foundation's Terms of Use require that editors disclose their "employer, client, and affiliation" with respect to any paid contribution; see WP:PAID. For advice about reviewing paid contributions, see WP:COIRESPONSE. |
In the section titled "Israel", within the "Allegations of anti-Western bias" section:
1. Please add the following text directly beneath the heading "Israel":
Amnesty International has been heavily criticized by NGO Monitor, a non-governmental organization which has been characterized as being pro-Israel ( https://www.jta.org/2007/08/31/default/haaretz-columnist-dropped-by-british-zionists) ( https://www.economist.com/international/2007/09/13/new-pariah-on-the-block) and as right-wing ( http://www.france24.com/en/20130617-biased-wikipedia-israel-political-meddling-arnie-draiman-monitor-ngo) --165.225.80.110 (talk) 11:02, 13 February 2020 (UTC)
2. Reason for change:
More than half of the "Israel" section is composed of criticism from one organization, NGO Monitor. This criticism is presented as though it is impartial. It is essential to acknowledge before citing them so heavily that NGO Monitor have themselves been criticised for bias and selective pro-Israel campaigning. -- 165.225.80.110 ( talk) 11:43, 24 February 2020 (UTC)
Regards, Spintendo 12:20, 25 February 2020 (UTC)
Citations added! -- 165.225.80.110 ( talk) 13:48, 25 February 2020 (UTC)
"In December 2019, a 200-page report on Amnesty International arguing the NGO is strongly biased against the Jewish state." -- AnonMoos ( talk) 05:28, 30 October 2020 (UTC)
@ Huldra: You seem to be removing well-sourced material from the Jerusalem Post and The Times of Israel that been on this page for more than a year, solely because David Collier's name was now attached to it. The Jerusalem Post and Times of Israel are RS, so I have no idea what your argument is there.
Can you explain why you feel that well sourced criticism about Amnesty International is undue for a page on criticism of Amnesty International? -- Bob drobbs ( talk) 00:42, 8 December 2021 (UTC)
NGO Monitor, which is a 2-bit outfit consisting mostly of one person, gets 5 separate mentions. Why? This is clearly excessive and it should be reduced to one mention. Choose. Zero talk 00:37, 9 December 2021 (UTC)
@ Zero0000: Your last edit removed some text saying that 40 STAFF MEMBERS AND VOLUNTEERS shared antisemitic content. This was not just random supporters of AI. Staff members and volunteers sharing racist content is indeed a problem! Please put this text back. -- Bob drobbs ( talk) 05:35, 9 December 2021 (UTC)
The "Jewish Human Rights Watch" bit is wildly undue, this is not an organization in any meaningful sense. It is a Facebook group and a Twitter feed. There is no website for it, no charity information, no known board, no nothing. This fetishization over the "report" of a blogger making wild claims is silly, and the inclusion here is widely UNDUE. nableezy - 21:54, 9 December 2021 (UTC)
As it has been established that Mr Collier is indeed not a notable commentator, and as Jewish Human Rights Watch is likewise non-notable, Ive removed the material as UNDUE. nableezy - 22:33, 10 December 2021 (UTC)
@ Selfstudier: Let's start with WP:V.
What exactly in here do you believe is not verifiable? -- Bob drobbs ( talk) 00:59, 11 December 2021 (UTC)
On to Onus. Here's how I determined that this meets wp:due.
Don't think I'm just pushing a POV here; above I've said NGO watch is overrepresented and should be cut down.
And excuse me if I don't just trust Nableezy's claims that it doesn't meet due. He's 100% contradicting himself: "As it has been established that Mr Collier is indeed not a notable commentator ... Ive removed the material as UNDUE ... Notability has nothing to do with article content."
So, without claiming that someone who is labelled by RS as a researcher, independent journalist, activists, and blogger is "just a blogger" please share why you feel this is undue. -- Bob drobbs ( talk) 03:17, 11 December 2021 (UTC)
Note that the above user User:Soosim (who was ultimately blocked for socking), outed himself, (back when he started, in 2008), as "Arnie Draiman".
An "Arnie Draiman" worked up until 2020 with "Online Communications" for NGO Monitor
The WP:COI was noted: WP:COI:Gerald Steinberg, NGO Monitor, User Soosim and others.
Unfortunately, Wikipedia has never been "cleaned up" after all the undisclosed WP:PAID editing for NGO Monitor, sigh... Huldra ( talk) 23:37, 9 December 2021 (UTC)
"released a report which included findings similar to the findings of Amnesty's report." Contradicts the first citation and completely cherry picks the second citation out of context. There is clear bias in the quote and its interpretation of the UN report that it supposedly cites. 96.31.177.151 ( talk) 23:53, 21 November 2022 (UTC)
I suggest we undo @ Dovidroth's revert since it reduced the quality of the page. DMH43 ( talk) 14:35, 22 December 2023 (UTC)
I will try to work on it. Sources:
BinaryBrainBug ( talk) 20:25, 17 February 2024 (UTC)
This article on Navalyn is beyond terrible. Seriously, any reader would look at it and think that Navalyn has done nothing wrong and that Amnesty international was simply tricked by lies and that they fully accepted what Navalyn did and it's all a mistake. The word, "mistake", is taken out of context and repeated alot. Which would had been fine if you didn't remove the other context that shows the reality that it wasn't really a mistake but more complicated than that. Amnesty international statement was that they changed their rules where they recognised that Navalyn video was unacceptable but their rules are altered where they no longer exclude a person based solely on what they done in the past and that rule change is what allowed them to admit Navalyn back in. Such basic contextual information is completely omitted for no good reason but effectively mislead readers into believing Navalyn actions were approved by Amnesty, and considered to be overhyped and no big deal, when that was never the case. I added Amnesty international actual statement, summarised and filling in their reasoning for their decision to change. 49.180.164.128 ( talk) 04:42, 23 February 2024 (UTC)
On april, when he died Amnesty described him as a writer while he was a convicted terrorist who kidnapped and murdered a soldier. Many pro-Israel organization criticism them for that. this is a statement from israel official page https://twitter.com/Israel/status/1777612398028800109 https://twitter.com/amnesty/status/1777390873518489613 you can see the comments here too. Why it's not important? Isn't it a criticism about Amnesty? 84.110.218.178 ( talk) 09:02, 28 April 2024 (UTC)
I would like to add the following under Israel:
On April 8, 2024, in a tweet to its followers, Amnesty International sparked criticism when it reffered to terrorist Walid Daqqa as a "writer" following his death in an Israeli prison. Daqqa was imprisoned for 38 years after he was convicted of commanding a PFLP-affiliated group that kidnapped and murdered Israeli soldier, Moshe Tamam, in 1984.
References:
STARR, MICHAEL (9 April 2024). "Amnesty International mourns death of terror prisoner as 'Palestinian writer'". The Jerusalem Post. Retrieved 29 April 2024. Baruch, Hezki (9 April 2024). "Terrorist? Amnesty organization: Walid Daqqa was a writer" (in Hebrew). Arutz Sheva. Retrieved 29 April 2024.
Help required. --
Omer Toledano (
talk) 10:52, 29 April 2024 (UTC)
The fact that Israel attacks AI for anything that is remotely, directly or indirectly, critical of Israel is not news and we are not obliged to report every such case. In the overall scheme of things, this incident is trivial and will be forgotten as soon as the next incident occurs. Zero talk 06:51, 30 April 2024 (UTC)
(was asked to comment) At first glance, I'd be skeptical about the inclusion, possibly being a very specific situation cherry-picked for looking really bad for AI. But I'd probably try to learn more about it. including what other sources said about it. Did AI "walk back" or qualify it later? Or double down and support it? Was the conviction credibly considered to be a weak or strong case? Is it part of a pattern of similar situations by AI? North8000 ( talk) 11:23, 30 April 2024 (UTC)
Note that Amnesty's statement clearly explains what Daqqa was convicted for, as JP acknowledges. It says that Daqqa denied the charge, but it does not pronounce Daqqa as innocent or guilty. Israel's main problem with the statement is that it is critical of Daqqa's treatment in prison, but rather than respond to that issue (on which they know they can't win against AI) they focus on the fact that AI didn't call Daqqa a terrorist. In Israeli parlance, every kid throwing a stone is a terrorist, so this is just predictable Israeli invective of no lasting consequence. Zero talk 12:31, 30 April 2024 (UTC)
The initially quoted Starr article didn't criticize them for not calling him a terrorist. It was an overall critique of the AI article, and it did refer to him as a terrorist. IMO the Starr article is good enough to use as what is identified as a critique. But I think that the proposed text is problematic in a few ways. First, it said something that was not in the article, and didn't summarize what was actually in the article. It also identified him as a terrorist, in the voice of Wikipedia (rather than attribution to the source.) Sincerely, North8000 ( talk) 16:35, 30 April 2024 (UTC)
This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to multiple WikiProjects. | |||||||||||||||||||||
|
Warning: active arbitration remedies The contentious topics procedure applies to this article. Parts of this article relate to the Arab–Israeli conflict, which is a contentious topic. Furthermore, the following rules apply when editing the parts of the page related to the contentious topic:
Editors who repeatedly or seriously fail to adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, any expected standards of behaviour, or any normal editorial process may be blocked or restricted by an administrator. Editors are advised to familiarise themselves with the contentious topics procedures before editing this page. If it is unclear which parts of the page are related to this contentious topic, the content in question should be marked within the wiki text by an invisible comment. If no comment is present, please ask an administrator for assistance. If in doubt it is better to assume that the content is covered.
|
The
Wikimedia Foundation's
Terms of Use require that editors disclose their "employer, client, and affiliation" with respect to any paid contribution; see
WP:PAID. For advice about reviewing paid contributions, see
WP:COIRESPONSE.
|
WP:RS: "Reliable sources are credible published materials with a reliable publication process; their authors are generally regarded as trustworthy or authoritative in relation to the subject at hand." NGO Monitor is a highly political website with an open agenda and does not independently meet the criteria for being a reliable source. If its material can be found in a reliable third-party publication then the material should be restored.-- 76.214.115.168 ( talk) 23:38, 30 September 2008 (UTC)
This is a spinout and not a POV fork -- do not delete this gratuitously. The main article only has a summary and this article has more detailed accounts. This practice is accepted and a similar entry exists for "Criticism against Human Rights Watch" [1] If you find particular content POV, try to make them NPOV. FriendOfPanda ( talk) 03:29, 31 July 2009 (UTC)
i just did a major reorganisation. i hope i didn't accidentally remove any sections - if i did, then that was unintentional.
Amnesty International's international office, the International Secretariat, is physically located in London, and probably most of the IS's funding comes from a few rich Western countries - especially USA, UK and France. AI attempts to overcome the obvious biases that this can be naturally expected to create - e.g. individual researchers at the IS cannot work on their own countries, the present and previous Secretary-General are/were from non-Western countries. i'm not giving references here, since this is not material for the article (unless someone finds that someone notable (not me) said essentially the same thing in a WP:RS); i'm just saying this to give a common sense explanation of what seems to me to be a reasonably NPOV organisation of the article. There is one claim regarding 20% funding by AI USA, by Boyle, which is in the present version of the article.
The point is that claims of Amnesty being anti-non-Western vs Amnesty being anti-Western are qualitatively two big groups of criticisms. (i've put "anti-non-Western", because Amnesty by definition criticises all governments - it is not a develop-your-governmental-self-esteem NGO and criticising human rights violations in non-Western countries is not necessarily pro-Western.) So this seems to be a useful way to give some minimal structure to the various criticisms.
Selection bias, abortion, and organisational continuity criticisms don't really seem to fit in to the main two groups of anti-non-Western and anti-Western criticism, IMHO.
i didn't want to put any strong label on whether or not Israel is "Western", but IMHO saying that it is Western-supported should be reasonably uncontroversial. The USA annually pours billions of dollars into Israel AFAIK, and the United States, Marshall Islands, Palau and UK generally vote with Israel in the United Nations General Assembly against the rest of the world, sometimes with western European support.
Please discuss an alternative structure if you have a better suggestion. Boud ( talk) 13:00, 5 August 2009 (UTC)
i don't see why the Sri Lanka criticism should be non-notable. en.wikipedia is not the USA.wikipedia.org nor UK.wikipedia.org . If this was a big issue in Sri Lanka, a country of about 20 million people, which recently hit international news headlines because of the apparent ending of a several decade long civil war, then that's surely sufficient for notability. Notability doesn't require Western-newspaper notability - after all, this class of claim against Amnesty is that Amnesty is anti-non-Western biased, so we should judge using South Asian, and especially Sri Lankan sources. Look around and you should find them on the web. Boud ( talk) 13:00, 5 August 2009 (UTC)
I think the article should stress that this criticism by the Irish Independant was in an opinion column by the controversial journalist Kevin Myers. Is it wikipedia policy to attribute this comment to the paper?
I'm also unsure if a comment by a (fairly prominent admittedly, but certainly not outside of Ireland) now-tabloid journalist is notable, particularly when it is not even the topic of the opinion column in question.
134.226.1.229 (
talk) 22:03, 15 December 2009 (UTC)
this got a bit of attention in the media, a lot of people didnt like it... it should be incorporated into the article —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.26.132.27 ( talk) 14:05, 19 April 2010 (UTC)
This section needs reworking. The link is broken in any case, and the section doesn't make it clear if it's quoting AI or making a statement about their policies. 70.246.145.122 ( talk) 14:59, 23 April 2010 (UTC)
"(I)deological/foreign policy bias against either non-Western countries, or Western-supported countries." No, they don't play favorites in this regard, as the article itself shows; Bashingg on the US and China equally does give them that parity (if not honesty). A REDDSON
In Taiwan, the most of people are pro-death penalty and strongly oppose the abolition of the death penalty, while AI protested the death penalty execution in Taiwan, some people went to the facebook page of the AI to protest AI's protest and its anti-death penalty stance, and to express that they are pro-death penalty, you may see some related articles below:
https://www.facebook.com/amnestyglobal/posts/108632675976010
https://www.facebook.com/amnestyglobal/posts/467601183303615
-- EPN-001GF IZEN བཀྲ་ཤིས་བདེ་ལེགས། 21:36, 24 December 2012 (UTC)
-- EPN-001GF IZEN བཀྲ་ཤིས་བདེ་ལེགས། 07:04, 25 December 2012 (UTC)
A recent report by AI member Donatella Rovera criticized her own organization for taking false testimonies of Palestinian witnesses. I'd like to know why this sourced information was removed. I'm waiting for a serious answer before restoring the content. Thanks in advance.-- AmirSurfLera ( talk) 08:29, 28 June 2014 (UTC)
Most of the prostitution section is written like a campaign poster and does not meet Wikipedia requirements of neutral reporting. It is hard to know how it can be fixed apart from rewriting. It starts with a sentence that says the opposite of the document it refers to, and it doesn't get better after that. Zero talk 14:07, 31 August 2015 (UTC)
The title of the section "Refusal to oppose anti-Semitism" seems a bit POV. They obviously do oppose anti-semitism so it seems a bit dodgy to put such a title. The issue is whether they wanted to vote specifically to pass such a statement: One could pass 1000 statements stating opposition to 1000 evil things but that seems a complete waste of effort. Many motions are presented each year and many are of a similar form. Just because amnesty didn't vote for motion "oppose X" doesn't mean they don't oppose X, if that makes sense.
Other issues with the section:
- the "anti-Muslim prejudice in Britain" report cited is actually about Discrimination against Muslims in Europe. - the main reference was the JC which does seem to have a bit of a bias to bash Amnesty (maybe due to its criticism of Israel?) - Often amnesty gets criticised for raising an issue (in this case discrimination against Muslims) by some saying "Why are they not raising an issue about another group?".
Maybe someone less connected to Amnesty than myself could look at this with a NPOV and help out, thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.148.66.38 ( talk) 18:13, 18 October 2015 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to one external link on
Criticism of Amnesty International. Please take a moment to review
my edit. If necessary, add {{
cbignore}}
after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{
nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}}
to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.
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: 18 January 2022).
Cheers.— cyberbot II Talk to my owner:Online 18:17, 26 February 2016 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 3 external links on Criticism of Amnesty International. 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:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{
Sourcecheck}}
).
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: 18 January 2022).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 12:41, 21 July 2016 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 3 external links on Criticism of Amnesty International. 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:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{
Sourcecheck}}
).
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: 18 January 2022).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 14:39, 2 December 2016 (UTC)
This source says nothing about Amnesty being discriminatory against "Western countries". It barely even mentions Amnesty. VR talk 03:53, 11 May 2017 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 4 external links on Criticism of Amnesty International. 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:
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: 18 January 2022).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 16:39, 14 August 2017 (UTC)
Currently, this section has one sentence and one source, "In 2007, Amnesty stated that it reports disproportionately on relatively more democratic and open countries. [1]" The reference is to an Amnesty webpage which is a brief summary of and link to a three-page report [10]. The summary and the report make no reference to Amnesty reporting differently on different types of countries and do not use the terms "disproportionately" or "relatively more democratic and open" or any equivalent terms or phrases. I therefore removed the citation and replaced it with the citation-needed tag. The citation has been restored [11] with the edit summary "per source", an edit summary which explains nothing and is appropriate to replacing article text, not a source. Can any editor justify the presence of this citation and explain how it supports the article text? 92.19.24.9 ( talk) 12:17, 12 November 2017 (UTC)
References
I renamed the section, which previously cited pro-Assad media and a conspiracist news website, but it should go in its entirety. Most governments whose abuses are reported on by researchers and advocacy groups deny all charges and accuse organizations of bias and baseless smears. Nothing noteworthy about that. Ignostic199 ( talk) 00:42, 7 December 2018 (UTC)
I have added this section because Amnesty chose to visit a camp where gross human rights abuses allegedly take place to conduct its research into events in Iran that happened in 1988. A British TV station, Channel4, made this allegation in a documentary. The visit was criticised by a NGO representing families who believe members are held against their will there. Zero0000 has censored this account supposedly for "violations of Wikipedia's rules" because he asserts that the Channel4 documentary did not mention Amnesty by name. However, it did mention the camp that Amnesty visited, and the NGO directly criticised Amnesty for its decision to visit the camp. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rastjoo ( talk • contribs) 16:27, 1 January 2019 (UTC)
Five points here in response to these "objections" to the inclusion of the section by Rastjoo:
1. The Channel4 documentary reported that members at the camp, which Amnesty visited to elicit information about a matter unrelated to conditions at the camp, were being abused.
2. The NGO, the Nejat society, used the findings of Channel4 in its criticism of Amnesty. So it is perfectly relevant to mentioned Channel4's report because it lends weight to the criticism of Amnesty by the NGO. THIS IS CALLED CONTEXT/BACKGROUND.
3. Why is an NGO's criticism of Amnesty (representing hundreds of people) "insufficient" but that of an individual who is a strong supporter of Israeli policy, like Elliott abrams (criticism of Amnesty' stance on Israel), sufficient? What constitutes "sufficiency"?
4. You haven't cited any guideline or any rule demonstrating that there has been a violation.
5. This is not an edit war. You are simply preventing the page from being expanded.
I would like to also point out that this page deals with criticism of AI, NOT whether the criticism is valid or invalid.
The rule WP:SNYTH is used for attempts to CONFLATE the information of two separate sources. The use of the Channel4 documentary is, however, used to CORROBORATE the NGO's criticism and provide CONTEXT to the criticism of AI. Readers can see for themselves that Channel4 made no direct criticism of Amnesty but they did, in fact, highlight alleged abuses at the camp which the NGO complained to Amnesty about. Regarding WP:RS, why are there references on this page to Elliot Abrams and NGO Monitor, both staunchly pro-Israel parties, but an Iranian NGO that represents families held at the camp in Albania apparently is not reliable? This is clearly BIAS and arbitrary. By Rastjoo — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rastjoo ( talk • contribs) 00:49, 14 January 2019 (UTC)
relies on the reader synthesizing support for a statement in our article by "seeing for themselves" a fact that is still not directly supported by the articles cited. That's just inviting our readers to violate WP:SYNTH, and it's not encyclopedic. loupgarous ( talk) 21:15, 3 December 2019 (UTC)"Readers can see for themselves that Channel4 made no direct criticism of Amnesty but they did, in fact, highlight alleged abuses at the camp which the NGO complained to Amnesty about."
This edit request by an editor with a conflict of interest was declined. The request was not specific enough. |
Edit request
| ||
---|---|---|
Please see below requests for changes to factual inaccuracies in this section. Text: The report said that…staff described the senior leadership team as out-of-touch, incompetent and callous. Issue: Lacking context. Konterra found that “there is a tendency for many staff to villainize the SLT as privileged, out of touch, incompetent, and callous” Action: Please delete or change to full sentence -- RG-Stockholm ( talk) 11:48, 11 February 2020 (UTC) Text: Amnesty International's Secretary General Kumi Naidoo did not accept resignations and instead offered generous redundancies to managers concerned, including to Mootoo's senior director Anna Neistat directly implicated in the report on Mootoo's death. Issue: Anna Neistat was not “directly implicated” by the Laddie report. https://www.amnesty.org/download/Documents/ORG6094132018ENGLISH.PDF No individual was directly implicated. Anna Neistat’s name is mentioned along with other managers and SLT members in recounting conversations and interactions relevant to the report’s remit. Action: Delete reference to Anna Neistat. -- RG-Stockholm ( talk) 11:48, 11 February 2020 (UTC) Text: After none of the managers responsible of bullying at Amnesty were held accountable a group of workers petitioned for Amnesty's chief to resign. On 5 December 2019 Naidoo resigned from his post of Amnesty's Secretary General citing ill health [76] and appointing Julie Verhaar as an interim Secretary General. In their petition, workers demanded her immediate resignation as well. Issue: Kumi’s resignation was completely unrelated to both the petition and to the issues raised in the Konterra and Laddie reports. Kumi stated publicly that he resigned for health reasons. The petition in question has since been updated and misrepresents the reasons behind Kumi’s resignation. It is not clear that this was started by “a group of workers” -please cite? Action: Please remove the sentence about Kumi Naidoo’s resignation from this paragraph. It should have a separate heading to clearly distinguish it from the events that went before. The section on Kumi’s resignation should read: Resignation of Kumi Naidoo On 5 December 2019 Naidoo resigned from his post of Amnesty's Secretary General for health reasons. He appointed Julie Verhaar as interim Secretary General. |
-- RG-Stockholm ( talk) 11:48, 11 February 2020 (UTC)
Sample edit request
|
---|
|
Regards,
Spintendo 21:46, 11 February 2020 (UTC)
References
Instructions for Submitters: Describe the requested changes in detail. This includes the exact proposed wording of the new material, the exact proposed location for it, and an explicit description of any wording to be removed, including removal for any substitution.
Instructions for Submitters: If the rationale for a change is not obvious (particularly for proposed deletions), explain.
The
Wikimedia Foundation's
Terms of Use require that editors disclose their "employer, client, and affiliation" with respect to any paid contribution; see
WP:PAID. For advice about reviewing paid contributions, see
WP:COIRESPONSE.
|
This edit request by an editor with a conflict of interest has now been answered. |
Thanks for your help! Please see details as requested below.
Edit request
|
---|
1. Referring to the first paragraph in the section "2019 Report on workplace bullying within Amnesty International", please delete the following text: "and that staff described the senior leadership team as out-of-touch, incompetent and callous." 2. Reason for change: The current sentence omits important context. The Konterra report found that “there is a tendency for many staff to villainize the SLT as privileged, out of touch, incompetent, and callous" ( https://www.amnesty.org/download/Documents/ORG6097632019ENGLISH.PDF p. 27) 1. Referring to the second paragraph of the section "2019 Report on workplace bullying within Amnesty International", please delete the second clause of the penultimate sentence: "including to Mootoo's senior director Anna Neistat directly implicated in the report on Mootoo's death." 2. Reason for change: Anna Neistat was not “directly implicated” by the Laddie report. No individual was directly implicated. 1. Referring to the third paragraph of the section "2019 Report on workplace bullying within Amnesty International", please delete this text: "After none of the managers responsible of bullying at Amnesty were held accountable a group of workers petitioned for Amnesty's chief to resign. On 5 December 2019 Naidoo resigned from his post of Amnesty's Secretary General citing ill health [76] and appointing Julie Verhaar as an interim Secretary General. In their petition, workers demanded her immediate resignation as well." 2. Please add the following text: "On December 5 2019 Naidoo resigned from Amnesty International citing ill health. Naidoo said, "Now more than ever, the organisation needs a secretary general who is fighting fit and can see through its mandate with vitality that this role, this institution, and the mission of universal human rights deserve." 3. Using as the reference: https://www.civilsociety.co.uk/news/amnesty-international-s-secretary-general-kumi-naidoo-steps-down-for-health-reasons.html) 3. Reason for change: The current text is misleading and implies that Kumi Naidoo resigned as a result of a petition. Kumi’s resignation was completely unrelated to both the petition and to the issues raised in the Konterra and Laddie reports. Kumi stated publicly that he resigned for health reasons. There is no citation to show that the petition was started by a group of Amnesty workers. -- 165.225.80.110 ( talk) 11:42, 12 February 2020 (UTC)
1. Please add the following text directly beneath the heading "Israel": Amnesty International has been heavily criticized by NGO Monitor, a non-governmental organization which has been characterized as "extremist" ( https://law.acri.org.il//pdf/lettertoperes310110.pdf, (p.1)) , "right-wing" ( https://web.archive.org/web/20170203023611/http://www.france24.com/en/20130617-biased-wikipedia-israel-political-meddling-arnie-draiman-monitor-ngo) and "politically motivated"( http://policyworkinggroup.org.il/report_en.pdf (p.11)). 2. Reason for change: More than half of the "Israel" section is composed of criticism from one organization, NGO Monitor. This criticism is presented as though it is impartial. It is essential to acknowledge before citing them so heavily that NGO Monitor have themselves been criticised for bias and selective pro-Israel campaigning. |
-- 165.225.80.110 ( talk) 12:52, 12 February 2020 (UTC)
{{
request edit}}
template's answer parameter to read from |ans=yes
to |ans=no
. Thank you! Regards,
Spintendo 17:44, 13 February 2020 (UTC)
Thank you, much appreciated. Please can you advise on the other requests I made above, specifically regarding Anna Neistat, and the context for the Konterra report? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 165.225.80.246 ( talk) 17:46, 19 February 2020 (UTC)
Part of an edit requested by an editor with a conflict of interest has been implemented. Please see the reply section below for additional information about this request. |
1. Referring to the third paragraph of the section "2019 Report on workplace bullying within Amnesty International", please delete this text:
"After none of the managers responsible of bullying at Amnesty were held accountable a group of workers petitioned for Amnesty's chief to resign. On 5 December 2019 Naidoo resigned from his post of Amnesty's Secretary General citing ill health [76] and appointing Julie Verhaar as an interim Secretary General. In their petition, workers demanded her immediate resignation as well."
2. Please add the following text:
"On December 5 2019 Naidoo resigned from Amnesty International citing ill health. Naidoo said, "Now more than ever, the organisation needs a secretary general who is fighting fit and can see through its mandate with vitality that this role, this institution, and the mission of universal human rights deserve."
3. Using as the reference: https://www.civilsociety.co.uk/news/amnesty-international-s-secretary-general-kumi-naidoo-steps-down-for-health-reasons.html)
3. Reason for change: The current text is misleading and implies that Kumi Naidoo resigned as a result of a petition. Kumi’s resignation was completely unrelated to both the petition and to the issues raised in the Konterra and Laddie reports. Kumi stated publicly that he resigned for health reasons. There is no citation to show that the petition was started by a group of Amnesty workers. --165.225.80.110 (talk) 11:42, 12 February 2020 (UTC)
-- 165.225.80.110 ( talk) 11:05, 17 February 2020 (UTC)
Edit request partially implemented
Regards, Spintendo 00:59, 19 February 2020 (UTC)
This edit request by an editor with a conflict of interest was declined. The request was not specific enough. |
The following Wikipedia contributor may be personally or professionally connected to the subject of this article. Relevant policies and guidelines may include
conflict of interest,
autobiography, and
neutral point of view.
|
The Wikimedia Foundation's Terms of Use require that editors disclose their "employer, client, and affiliation" with respect to any paid contribution; see WP:PAID. For advice about reviewing paid contributions, see WP:COIRESPONSE. |
1. Referring to the first paragraph in the section "2019 Report on workplace bullying within Amnesty International", please delete the following text:
"and that staff described the senior leadership team as out-of-touch, incompetent and callous."
2. Reason for change: The current sentence omits important context. The Konterra report found that “there is a tendency for many staff to villainize the SLT as privileged, out of touch, incompetent, and callous" ( https://www.amnesty.org/download/Documents/ORG6097632019ENGLISH.PDF p. 27)
1. Referring to the second paragraph of the section "2019 Report on workplace bullying within Amnesty International", please delete the second clause of the penultimate sentence:
"including to Mootoo's senior director Anna Neistat directly implicated in the report on Mootoo's death."
2. Reason for change:
Anna Neistat was not “directly implicated” by the Laddie report. No individual was directly implicated.
-- 165.225.80.110 ( talk) 11:39, 24 February 2020 (UTC)
Regards, Spintendo 12:20, 25 February 2020 (UTC)
References
Instructions for Submitters: Describe the requested changes in detail. This includes the exact proposed wording of the new material, the exact proposed location for it, and an explicit description of any wording to be removed, including removal for any substitution.
1. The context is this: “there is a tendency for many staff to villainize the SLT as privileged, out of touch, incompetent, and callous" ( https://www.amnesty.org/download/Documents/ORG6097632019ENGLISH.PDF p. 27) The word "villainize changes the meaning of the sentence.
please replace "and that staff described the senior leadership team as out-of-touch, incompetent and callous" with “there is a tendency for many staff to villainize the SLT as privileged, out of touch, incompetent, and callous" ( https://www.amnesty.org/download/Documents/ORG6097632019ENGLISH.PDF p. 27) -- 165.225.80.110 ( talk) 13:43, 25 February 2020 (UTC)
This edit request by an editor with a conflict of interest was declined. Per WP:CITEVAR, WP:WINARS. |
The Wikimedia Foundation's Terms of Use require that editors disclose their "employer, client, and affiliation" with respect to any paid contribution; see WP:PAID. For advice about reviewing paid contributions, see WP:COIRESPONSE. |
In the section titled "Israel", within the "Allegations of anti-Western bias" section:
1. Please add the following text directly beneath the heading "Israel":
Amnesty International has been heavily criticized by NGO Monitor, a non-governmental organization which has been characterized as being pro-Israel ( https://www.jta.org/2007/08/31/default/haaretz-columnist-dropped-by-british-zionists) ( https://www.economist.com/international/2007/09/13/new-pariah-on-the-block) and as right-wing ( http://www.france24.com/en/20130617-biased-wikipedia-israel-political-meddling-arnie-draiman-monitor-ngo) --165.225.80.110 (talk) 11:02, 13 February 2020 (UTC)
2. Reason for change:
More than half of the "Israel" section is composed of criticism from one organization, NGO Monitor. This criticism is presented as though it is impartial. It is essential to acknowledge before citing them so heavily that NGO Monitor have themselves been criticised for bias and selective pro-Israel campaigning. -- 165.225.80.110 ( talk) 11:43, 24 February 2020 (UTC)
Regards, Spintendo 12:20, 25 February 2020 (UTC)
Citations added! -- 165.225.80.110 ( talk) 13:48, 25 February 2020 (UTC)
"In December 2019, a 200-page report on Amnesty International arguing the NGO is strongly biased against the Jewish state." -- AnonMoos ( talk) 05:28, 30 October 2020 (UTC)
@ Huldra: You seem to be removing well-sourced material from the Jerusalem Post and The Times of Israel that been on this page for more than a year, solely because David Collier's name was now attached to it. The Jerusalem Post and Times of Israel are RS, so I have no idea what your argument is there.
Can you explain why you feel that well sourced criticism about Amnesty International is undue for a page on criticism of Amnesty International? -- Bob drobbs ( talk) 00:42, 8 December 2021 (UTC)
NGO Monitor, which is a 2-bit outfit consisting mostly of one person, gets 5 separate mentions. Why? This is clearly excessive and it should be reduced to one mention. Choose. Zero talk 00:37, 9 December 2021 (UTC)
@ Zero0000: Your last edit removed some text saying that 40 STAFF MEMBERS AND VOLUNTEERS shared antisemitic content. This was not just random supporters of AI. Staff members and volunteers sharing racist content is indeed a problem! Please put this text back. -- Bob drobbs ( talk) 05:35, 9 December 2021 (UTC)
The "Jewish Human Rights Watch" bit is wildly undue, this is not an organization in any meaningful sense. It is a Facebook group and a Twitter feed. There is no website for it, no charity information, no known board, no nothing. This fetishization over the "report" of a blogger making wild claims is silly, and the inclusion here is widely UNDUE. nableezy - 21:54, 9 December 2021 (UTC)
As it has been established that Mr Collier is indeed not a notable commentator, and as Jewish Human Rights Watch is likewise non-notable, Ive removed the material as UNDUE. nableezy - 22:33, 10 December 2021 (UTC)
@ Selfstudier: Let's start with WP:V.
What exactly in here do you believe is not verifiable? -- Bob drobbs ( talk) 00:59, 11 December 2021 (UTC)
On to Onus. Here's how I determined that this meets wp:due.
Don't think I'm just pushing a POV here; above I've said NGO watch is overrepresented and should be cut down.
And excuse me if I don't just trust Nableezy's claims that it doesn't meet due. He's 100% contradicting himself: "As it has been established that Mr Collier is indeed not a notable commentator ... Ive removed the material as UNDUE ... Notability has nothing to do with article content."
So, without claiming that someone who is labelled by RS as a researcher, independent journalist, activists, and blogger is "just a blogger" please share why you feel this is undue. -- Bob drobbs ( talk) 03:17, 11 December 2021 (UTC)
Note that the above user User:Soosim (who was ultimately blocked for socking), outed himself, (back when he started, in 2008), as "Arnie Draiman".
An "Arnie Draiman" worked up until 2020 with "Online Communications" for NGO Monitor
The WP:COI was noted: WP:COI:Gerald Steinberg, NGO Monitor, User Soosim and others.
Unfortunately, Wikipedia has never been "cleaned up" after all the undisclosed WP:PAID editing for NGO Monitor, sigh... Huldra ( talk) 23:37, 9 December 2021 (UTC)
"released a report which included findings similar to the findings of Amnesty's report." Contradicts the first citation and completely cherry picks the second citation out of context. There is clear bias in the quote and its interpretation of the UN report that it supposedly cites. 96.31.177.151 ( talk) 23:53, 21 November 2022 (UTC)
I suggest we undo @ Dovidroth's revert since it reduced the quality of the page. DMH43 ( talk) 14:35, 22 December 2023 (UTC)
I will try to work on it. Sources:
BinaryBrainBug ( talk) 20:25, 17 February 2024 (UTC)
This article on Navalyn is beyond terrible. Seriously, any reader would look at it and think that Navalyn has done nothing wrong and that Amnesty international was simply tricked by lies and that they fully accepted what Navalyn did and it's all a mistake. The word, "mistake", is taken out of context and repeated alot. Which would had been fine if you didn't remove the other context that shows the reality that it wasn't really a mistake but more complicated than that. Amnesty international statement was that they changed their rules where they recognised that Navalyn video was unacceptable but their rules are altered where they no longer exclude a person based solely on what they done in the past and that rule change is what allowed them to admit Navalyn back in. Such basic contextual information is completely omitted for no good reason but effectively mislead readers into believing Navalyn actions were approved by Amnesty, and considered to be overhyped and no big deal, when that was never the case. I added Amnesty international actual statement, summarised and filling in their reasoning for their decision to change. 49.180.164.128 ( talk) 04:42, 23 February 2024 (UTC)
On april, when he died Amnesty described him as a writer while he was a convicted terrorist who kidnapped and murdered a soldier. Many pro-Israel organization criticism them for that. this is a statement from israel official page https://twitter.com/Israel/status/1777612398028800109 https://twitter.com/amnesty/status/1777390873518489613 you can see the comments here too. Why it's not important? Isn't it a criticism about Amnesty? 84.110.218.178 ( talk) 09:02, 28 April 2024 (UTC)
I would like to add the following under Israel:
On April 8, 2024, in a tweet to its followers, Amnesty International sparked criticism when it reffered to terrorist Walid Daqqa as a "writer" following his death in an Israeli prison. Daqqa was imprisoned for 38 years after he was convicted of commanding a PFLP-affiliated group that kidnapped and murdered Israeli soldier, Moshe Tamam, in 1984.
References:
STARR, MICHAEL (9 April 2024). "Amnesty International mourns death of terror prisoner as 'Palestinian writer'". The Jerusalem Post. Retrieved 29 April 2024. Baruch, Hezki (9 April 2024). "Terrorist? Amnesty organization: Walid Daqqa was a writer" (in Hebrew). Arutz Sheva. Retrieved 29 April 2024.
Help required. --
Omer Toledano (
talk) 10:52, 29 April 2024 (UTC)
The fact that Israel attacks AI for anything that is remotely, directly or indirectly, critical of Israel is not news and we are not obliged to report every such case. In the overall scheme of things, this incident is trivial and will be forgotten as soon as the next incident occurs. Zero talk 06:51, 30 April 2024 (UTC)
(was asked to comment) At first glance, I'd be skeptical about the inclusion, possibly being a very specific situation cherry-picked for looking really bad for AI. But I'd probably try to learn more about it. including what other sources said about it. Did AI "walk back" or qualify it later? Or double down and support it? Was the conviction credibly considered to be a weak or strong case? Is it part of a pattern of similar situations by AI? North8000 ( talk) 11:23, 30 April 2024 (UTC)
Note that Amnesty's statement clearly explains what Daqqa was convicted for, as JP acknowledges. It says that Daqqa denied the charge, but it does not pronounce Daqqa as innocent or guilty. Israel's main problem with the statement is that it is critical of Daqqa's treatment in prison, but rather than respond to that issue (on which they know they can't win against AI) they focus on the fact that AI didn't call Daqqa a terrorist. In Israeli parlance, every kid throwing a stone is a terrorist, so this is just predictable Israeli invective of no lasting consequence. Zero talk 12:31, 30 April 2024 (UTC)
The initially quoted Starr article didn't criticize them for not calling him a terrorist. It was an overall critique of the AI article, and it did refer to him as a terrorist. IMO the Starr article is good enough to use as what is identified as a critique. But I think that the proposed text is problematic in a few ways. First, it said something that was not in the article, and didn't summarize what was actually in the article. It also identified him as a terrorist, in the voice of Wikipedia (rather than attribution to the source.) Sincerely, North8000 ( talk) 16:35, 30 April 2024 (UTC)