Talk:Amnesty International

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. [1] 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)

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)

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]" [2]. 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)

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)

Y 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)