Talk:Amnesty International

Comments by Amnesty USA Director

Unfortunately, there seems to be some confusion regarding Paul O'Brien's comments. It is quite clearly recorded in the sources (see paragraph 2 of the articles cited) that O'Brien himself states:

1. "We are opposed to the idea — and this, I think, is an existential part of the debate — that Israel should be preserved as a state for the Jewish people". The "we" is a statement of Amnesty's position, not that of American Jews (NB: O'Brien is not Jewish and therefore would not use the first-person; he IS the Director of Amnesty US, and was speaking in that capacity). Now of course it could be that he made a factual error in making this claim, and someone even more high-ranking - e.g. Amnesty's SG herself - will come out and correct the remarks made by one of the organization's top officials; in that case, were RS to report this, we could add that, too, of course.

Additionally, elsewhere in the articles O'Brien is also directly quoted as sating:

2. "Amnesty takes no political views on any question, including the right of the State of Israel to survive".

3. "My gut tells me that what Jewish people in this country want is to know that there’s a sanctuary that is a safe and sustainable place that the Jews, the Jewish people can call home."

1 and 3 should note be conflated and it is perplexing that anyone who has read the sources would attempt to do so ; that is plainly not what the sources say. (I did not include 3, because I wanted to preserve DUE, and the "gut feeling" of a non-Jewish, Irish individual regarding the views of American Jews did not seem to be the most important part of the story, though it is certainly a shocking claim within the norms of contemporary American identity discourse; rather the head of the second-largest Amnesty franchise speaking about the policy views of Amnesty IS major news. If editors feel point 3 belongs in addition to point 1, that is fine with me; I think it is also fair to include point 2 for balance, and readers can attempt to make sense of the relationship between 1 and 2. Finally, I don't think the audience is really so important and just clogs up the passage, but I am happy to leave it as a gesture of good will to the previous editor.

Unless you can provide other RS that contradict the many sources cited, please do not make further changes without discussing them first here;I'm sure we can proceed in a calm, rational, and proper way.Publius In The 21st Century (talk) 14:37, 12 March 2022 (UTC)

The edit originally read "In March 2022, Paul O'Brien, the Amnesty International USA Director, stated that "Israel should not exist as a Jewish state" (overcited with 4 sources) which was thoroughly misleading. Now it reads OK so no need for any discussion. Selfstudier (talk) 14:48, 12 March 2022 (UTC)

Splendid. As to the first point, I'm afraid you'll have to take that up with the sources; note that the headline of one of the sources is quite literally: "Israel ‘shouldn’t exist as a Jewish state,’ Amnesty USA director tells Democratic group". Also very glad we are both clear on the fact that point 1 is correct, pace comments in the revision history. Many thanks for your constructive approach in this instance - it is excellent to avoid a messy debate, and I'm glad we could work together to achieve consensus. Publius In The 21st Century (talk) 17:43, 12 March 2022 (UTC)

WP:HEADLINES are not a reliable source. Perhaps that is the explanation for your misleading edit. Selfstudier (talk) 17:49, 12 March 2022 (UTC)

With respect, SS, in the future, I would politely request that you read more carefully the sources that have been cited; this will save all involved a considerable amount of time. Any reader of the sources cited will observe the following phrases in the body of their texts:

"Israel 'shouldn’t exist as a Jewish state,' O’Brien told some 20 in-person and 30 virtual attendees at the Wednesday lunch event'"

"An Amnesty International official said that the organization is opposed to Israel continuing to exist as a Jewish state."

"Amnesty International USA Executive Director Paul O’Brien is currently under fire for saying during a March 9 event that Israel 'shouldn’t exist as a Jewish state.'"

It was on this basis that I originally wrote "On March 2022, Paul O'Brien, the Amnesty International USA Director, stated that 'Israel should not exist as a Jewish state.'" As will be plain from the evidence cited here, this is an accurate summary of the sources cited; I therefore reiterate that if it is felt this language is misleading, one must take that up with the sources, not with an accurate summary of what they say.

I am glad that we are all happy with how the text on the main page now reads, and for this reason, I trust that there will be no further need for a back-and-forth here; I emphasize that I have written up this summary to provide a clear overview to any neutral observers who may wish to understand the nature of the exchange and draw their own conclusions about who has or has not been misleading, mistaken, or confused.Publius In The 21st Century (talk) 15:14, 13 March 2022 (UTC)

Your original edit was very misleading, it's very simple, not confusing at all. It's fixed so nothing more to discuss. Selfstudier (talk) 15:39, 13 March 2022 (UTC)

References

Ukraine report

Dear users @Mahadoc and @LilianaUwU, about "systematically lobbying pro-Russian interests": there is indeed a controversy on the last Ukraine report, for example, see NPR, but one should formulate it much more carefully (please keep in mind that AI published a dozen of reports critisizing Russian war crimes in Ukraine). Could you propose a text here? Please avoid using heaps of news articles from Ukraine and use instead some more in-depth RS. Wikisaurus (talk) 17:10, 5 August 2022 (UTC)

Agreed, those on the receiving end of Amnesty reports always find them objectionable. Amnesty is also green at RSP. Selfstudier (talk) 17:13, 5 August 2022 (UTC)

Can we use these sorces?

1. https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/the-times-view-on-amnesty-internationals-ukraine-report-putins-propagandists-kcf3m5ww0
2. https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2022/08/06/amnesty-now-utterly-morally-bankrupt/
3. https://www.euronews.com/2022/08/06/amnesty-internationals-ukraine-chief-quits-in-protest-at-russian-propaganda-report
4. https://www.lemonde.fr/en/international/article/2022/08/06/amnesty-international-in-turmoil-after-publication-of-its-report-on-the-war-in-ukraine_5992721_4.html

Please help to write it in the correct way. Mahadoc (talk) 14:27, 7 August 2022 (UTC)

This edit by Wikisaurus, and especially the edit summary (I checked the edit summary more than the actual details of the edit), look fully justified to me. If someone wants to shift this to a new section of Criticism of Amnesty International (which needs some restructuring for consistency), or, after waiting to see how WP:NOTABLE this report becomes, to an individual article, then in that case the less significant blabla by keyboard pundits and "analysts" (in the academic specialty of "knowledge") might be justifiably included as "Reactions" (current events typically get long sections with blabla reactions by politicians "that was a bad thing", which eventually get compressed or compressed+split). However, currently, best restrict to the more significant information, such as "first, about the report and its authors; second, criticism of the content of the report; third, the history of the public reactions of the report; fourth, the reaction of Amnesty on the publi[c] outrage", as Wikisaurus said. I would just clarify the second point to criticism by qualified experts. Even in the hypothetical case of Callamard resigning under grassroots pressure, it's not clear that this would justify a separate article, although it would strengthen the event's notability in relation to the history of Amnesty International. Boud (talk) 17:55, 11 August 2022 (UTC)

Informal survey: It doesn't make sense to have roughly equal length sections in both Amnesty International and Criticism of Amnesty International on the issue of the Ukraine "UA forces endangering civilians report". One of these should have the more detailed summary of key points; the other should have a brief summary and cross-reference. If (and it's a big if, which is why I bolded it) Callamard resigns in response to the controversy, then keeping a detailed section here might be justified, since grassroots pressure and a resignation "at the top" is a significant event in an organisation's existence (whether a government, a ministry or an NGO). However, I would tend to go for the putting the detailed info into the Criticisms article and the summary here. So to maximise the chance of convergence, I'll make that the proposal and people can Support/Oppose with reasons.

@Wikisaurus, Mahadoc, LilianaUwU, Selfstudier, Mzajac, Super Dromaeosaurus, and Sjö: and any others interested:

Proposal: the main detailed section for the controversial Ukraine report should be the section Criticism of Amnesty International#Report on placement of Ukrainian forces in civilian areas and only a brief summary (with references) and cross-reference with {{main}} should remain in the section Amnesty International#Ukraine. Boud (talk) 10:00, 28 August 2022 (UTC)

• Support (proposer) Amnesty International is half a century old and will likely continue for many more decades, so shifting (and integrating) the detailed content to the Criticism article and keeping/creating a summary here is a lot more sustainable and more likely to satisfy WP:DUE than the other way around. If Callamard resigns, then in proportion to the topic of Amnesty International as a whole, it will still not be justified to have a long section here; the details would still make more sense in the Criticism article. Boud (talk) 10:00, 28 August 2022 (UTC)
• Support, but in my opinion the resignation in protest by the Ukrainian branch director, admission of fault by German and Canadian local branches, and specific public criticism by number of international experts already elevate this to a significant event. —Michael Z. 15:45, 28 August 2022 (UTC)
• Support Whether the Ukraine report turns out to be more significant than all the Russian reports over time remains to be seen. And whether either of those things are really significant for Amnesty overall, the same. Selfstudier (talk) 16:16, 28 August 2022 (UTC)
• Support I shortened this section a little per consensus above. My very best wishes (talk) 04:49, 22 February 2024 (UTC)

Problems with criticism section

There is a clear error in the section about criticism of Amnesty International: it states that Benenson wrote to Colonial Office Minister Lord Lansdowne. However, in 1963, the Colonial Office Minister was Lord Duncan Sandys. Henry Petty-Fitzmaurice, 5th Marquess of Lansdowne died in 1927 and was not a Minister for the Colonial Office.--Karma1998 (talk) 19:15, 9 August 2022 (UTC)

Artists for Amnesty

This section does not appear to be cited at all, save for one reference to a web page where Amnesty International endorses the film Blood Diamond, without any reference to an Artists for Amnesty program.

I am unable to find any sources for this myself, though admittedly this was only through a quick Google search. I did find an Artists for Amnesty blog on the Amnesty International UK website, and so I wouldn't discount the possibility that secondary sources exist documenting this program, but without that, as I understand it, the whole section would not be considered notable enough for inclusion.

More straightforward is the list of films apparently endorsed by Amnesty: any of them for which a citation can't be found should absolutely be removed. Notably, I find it unlikely that Amnesty International has endorsed a film such as Django Unchained: that film was high profile and controversial enough that I'd assume an explicit endorsement would be well reported. Not impossible, but the kind of claim that begs for a citation.

I'd edit it myself, but I am (quite rightfully) not considered qualified enough. Battle1368 (talk) 15:24, 23 July 2023 (UTC)

Amnesty international censorship

There's been censorship[1] of information that shouldn't be removed. Facts like on Navalny where he had created videos where he dresses up as pest exterminator and a dentist and respectively called immigrants as cockroaches and rotten teeth. Such details are removed with bias and by people not looking to build an impartial encyclopaedia that tells all the facts. Facts like the fact that Navalny refused to renounce those sick videos, are also being deleted despite they are well sourced by reliable sources. There shouldn't be censorship like this. 49.180.164.128 (talk) 05:07, 22 February 2024 (UTC)

@My very best wishes You are again edit warring and removing information. You shouldn't remove Amnesty international statement on why they changed their decision on Navalny. It's not because they recognised he did no wrongs but they recognised it's wrong but in the past. You obviously hope to have the world not be aware of the racist videos that Navalny has made and removed multiple paragraphs explaining on what he did was wrong. His videos of advocating for fascism and to urge to deport every non-russian ethnic person from Russia, is the controversy. Amnesty international forgiving him on that, is what's controversial. But you have altered the chapter so much that the average reader would have no idea what Navalyn has done, and what Amnesty international has forgiven on, and you are not allowing readers to understand the controversy but censoring it from them. Which I don't agree with. If we cannot agree here, perhaps we take this to dispute resolution fairly. 49.180.164.128 (talk) 14:56, 22 February 2024 (UTC)