Jump to content

Talk:Criticism of Amnesty International

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Inf-in MD (talk | contribs) at 13:05, 10 December 2021 (→‎Removing well sourced, long standing criticism). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

WP:RS

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)[reply]

If such is the case, it should be obvious that Covert Action Quarterly is not a "reliable source". —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.141.154.97 (talk) 16:44, 27 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
just for the record, ngo monitor is NOT highly political (any more than the new york times, the bbc, etc.). but, yes, since they are mostly involved in original research, their material is best used if found in secondary sources. (but sometimes, you can quote them too) Soosim (talk) 16:48, 27 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Deletion by user:Crotalus horridus

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)[reply]

reorganisation

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)[reply]

Why should Sri Lanka criticism be non-notable?

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)[reply]

I removed the non-notable tag. This campaign received substantial media attention in Sri Lankan and worldwide online sources. Eg. [2], [3], [4], [5], [6], [7], [8], [9] -FriendOfPanda (talk) 16:26, 7 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Irish Independant - Kevin Myers

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)[reply]

Amazing how supporters of Amnesty seem to believe that the majority of criticisms directed at Amnesty International are not notable. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.141.154.97 (talk) 16:49, 27 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Defensive Jihad

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)[reply]

Selection Bias?

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)[reply]

Western Vs. Non-Western Bias

"(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

protest AI for its anti-death penalty stance?

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)[reply]

In Taiwan, many people who are pro-death penalty think that abolishing the death penalty is to tread the human rights of the innocent victims of murderers, that those who oppose the death penalty are bullying the innocent victims, and that people and those who oppose the death penalty are hypocritical, some of them even think that those who oppose the death penalty are murderer-supporters.--EPN-001GF IZEN བཀྲ་ཤིས་བདེ་ལེགས། 21:42, 24 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Some people has even written a letter, accusing AI(and the European Union) of bullying Taiwanese people by condemning the death penalty in Taiwan:
http://bbi.com.tw/pcman/Gossiping/1Gs6FRYn.html

--EPN-001GF IZEN བཀྲ་ཤིས་བདེ་ལེགས། 07:04, 25 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Donatella Rovera: Palestinian testimonies

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)[reply]

As Roland said when he deleted it, it is not "criticism of Amnesty International". It is an account of the difficulties faced by human rights organisations in reporting from conflicts where every player is motivated to misrepresent the truth. The summary is that Amnesty is aware of the problem and seeks the truth behind the allegations. It is not criticism, more like praise. Zerotalk 15:07, 28 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

NPOV tag on prostitution section

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. Zerotalk 14:07, 31 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

anti-Semitism

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)[reply]

External links modified

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: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 18:17, 26 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

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: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 12:41, 21 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

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: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 14:39, 2 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Original research

This source says nothing about Amnesty being discriminatory against "Western countries". It barely even mentions Amnesty.VR talk 03:53, 11 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

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: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 16:39, 14 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Selection bias

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)[reply]

References

  1. ^ Amnesty International "Amnesty International response to Andrés Ballesteros et al.", AMR 23/006/2007, 21 February 2007. Retrieved 23 April 2010.

Syrian government's denial

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)[reply]

Amnesty's visit to the PMOI camp in Albania

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)[reply]

If Channel4 documentary did not criticize Amnesty, then we don't use this as a source to criticize Amnesty. The NGO's criticism of Amnesty is not sufficient to support this inclusion. Please stop edit warring over this. User Zero0000 has provided you clear reasoning as to why this inclusion does not meet Wikipedia guidelines. Barca (talk) 17:15, 13 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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.

Please read WP:SYNTH and WP:RS, which user Zero0000 already pointed out to you. Barca (talk) 23:12, 13 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

WP:SYNTH deprecates attempts to justify a statement in one of our articles by presenting sources which don't directly support that argument, but which provide information which an editor believes indirectly support the argument when taken together. Your statement

"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."

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)[reply]

2019 Report on workplace bullying within Amnesty International

Edit request
I am a current Amnesty International staff member

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Reply 11-FEB-2020

🔼  Clarification requested  

  • To expedite your request, it would help if you could provide the following information:
  1. The exact location where proposed text is to be placed should be given.
  2. Exact, verbatim descriptions of any text and/or references to be removed, and their locations within the article, should also be given.[1]
  3. If the reasons for changes are to be found within the provided proposed references (as they should be) then the specific portions of text which contain those reasons should be highlighted or otherwise brought attention-to within the request.[2]
  • In the section of text below titled Sample edit request, these items are shown in an example request:
Sample edit request

1. Please remove the third sentence from the second paragraph of the Sun section:

"The Sun's diameter is estimated to be approximately 25 miles in length."


2. Please add the following claim as the third sentence of the second paragraph of the Sun section:

"The Sun's diameter is estimated to be approximately 864,337 miles in length."


3. Using as the reference:

Prisha Harinath (2020). The Sun. Academic Press. p. 1.


4. Reason for change being made:

"The previously given diameter was incorrect. The Harinath source states on page 1 that the diameter is 864,337 miles."
  • Kindly open a new edit request at your earliest convenience when ready to proceed with the missing items from your request. Thank you!


Regards,  Spintendo  21:46, 11 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ "Template:Request edit". Wikipedia. 30 December 2019. 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.
  2. ^ "Template:Request edit". Wikipedia. 30 December 2019. Instructions for Submitters: If the rationale for a change is not obvious (particularly for proposed deletions), explain.

Request edit


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)[reply]


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 "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)[reply]

I agree with your motivation here. NGO Monitor is a 2-bit organization consisting mostly of one person. Its visibility in Wikipedia is way out of proportion to its importance. However, your proposed solution is not great. It would be better to prune the coverage of NGO Monitor rather than add counter-charges. Zerotalk 22:41, 12 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Pruning at your discretion is fine too - however there needs to be some acknowledgment of NGO Monitor's bias, even if it less forceful than my suggestions! Could you use this text from NGO Monitor's own page?:
"It has been characterized as being pro-Israel (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NGO_Monitor#cite_note-economist.com-4) (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NGO_Monitor#cite_note-jta.org-5) and as right-wing (https://web.archive.org/web/20170203023611/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)[reply]
Thank you for the clarifications, they are much appreciated. One final clarification remains: The requesting IP editor needs to disclose their COI (the previous disclosure shown above was not filled out correctly). If the requesting IP editor receives, or expects to receive, compensation for any contribution they make, they must disclose their employer, client, and affiliation to comply with Wikipedia's terms of use and the policy on paid editing. I see that you are a staff member, but we need to know who has paid you for these edits to be requested (if you are paid). Please indicate that in the disclosure template, and place the template at the top of the talk page just under the other header boxes. Please advise when complete by changing the {{request edit}} template's answer parameter to read from |ans=yes to |ans=no. Thank you! Regards,  Spintendo  17:44, 13 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Amended as requested - to confirm, I have not been paid specifically for these edits, but am making them while receiving a salary from Amnesty International. I have assumed this makes me a paid contributor?--— Preceding unsigned comment added by 165.225.80.110 (talk) 15:00, 14 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for providing the necessary disclosure, it is much appreciated. I have revised the claim statement regarding the resignation to only state the bare facts, that of the resignation and the appointment of his interim replacement. (More information on this in my reply below.) Regards,  Spintendo  00:59, 19 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

2019 Report on workplace bullying within Amnesty International

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)[reply]

Reply 18-FEB-2020

✅  Edit request partially implemented  

  • As stated above, I have altered this statement to only reflect the referenced information, that Naidoo resigned and Verhaar was the replacement.
  • The claim regarding the second petition to Verhaar was researched and no references could be found, so it was removed.
  • I have retained the Naidoo statement regarding their resignation owing to ill health, mainly because that was an aspect of the story that many of the references discussing the resignation reported on — although it may be that WP:MANDY should apply there.
  • The Naidoo quote was not added, as it adds nothing of substance to the article.

Regards,  Spintendo  00:59, 19 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

2019 Report on workplace bullying within Amnesty International

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)[reply]

Reply 25-FEB-2020

🔼  Clarification requested  

  • In suggesting that the current phrase omits important context, the COI editor has failed to propose replacement text which does add this context. Please advise on the exact, verbatim text to be used as the replacement for this passage.[1]
  • The COI editor has not stated the difference between direct implication and non-direct implication. Please advise.

Regards,  Spintendo  12:20, 25 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ "Template:Request edit". Wikipedia. 30 December 2019. 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)[reply]

NGO Monitor not an impartial source

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)[reply]

Reply 25-FEB-2020

  Unable to implement  

  1. The references provided with the proposed text have not been formatted according to the citation style currently used in the article. All references added to an article need to use the same citation style which is already in use with the article.
  2. Two of the three references provided with the request are to other articles in Wikipedia.

Regards,  Spintendo  12:20, 25 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]


Citations added! --165.225.80.110 (talk) 13:48, 25 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This sentence no verb.

"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)[reply]

Removing well sourced, long standing criticism

@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)[reply]

User:Bob drobbs: The first is citing a blog, on the Council on Foreign Relations website, and; surprise! not every word Elliott Abrams has said is noteworthy. Again, it is WP:UNDUE.
Please undo, and bring it to talk, (as you did on the Antisemitism in Europe-article), thanks; Huldra (talk) 23:37, 8 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Huldra: And what about the section on David Collier's report that has been a part of this article for more than a year before you chose to remove it? Do you think the Jerusalem Post is not a RS? What about Times of Israel? -- Bob drobbs (talk) 23:41, 8 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Bob drobbs: Sight, there are things that have been here more than a decade, and which should be removed ..and things I should have added a decade ago (like the history of Beit She'an), but something else always turned up. That it has been here for a long time is absolutely no argument for keeping it. Only WP:DUE, Huldra (talk) 23:46, 8 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Huldra: This is an article about "Criticism of Amnesty International". You're claiming that a criticism of Amnesty International, that was covered in depth by the Jerusalem Post and Times of Israel, is not WP:DUE for any mention on this page. Is that correct? -- Bob drobbs (talk) 23:50, 8 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I see a Facebook-group commissioning Collier for a report, correct? Huldra (talk) 23:53, 8 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I altered the Collier part, it is just about worth a sentence and his allegations are of no significance in the face of a contemptuous dismissal from Amnesty. Idk about the other bit, I'll leave that to you to sort out.Selfstudier (talk) 23:54, 8 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
And I just removed the sentence from Elliott Abrams. I took a look and couldn't find any secondary sources to support it. -- Bob drobbs (talk) 23:57, 8 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Huldra: What does who commissioned the report have anything to do with WP:DUE?
I'll ask Huldra to write me a report about Collier, how about that? Selfstudier (talk) 00:00, 9 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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. Zerotalk 00:37, 9 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Its staff page lists more than a dozen people , so I don't know where you pulled that "one person" notion out of (though I have a good guess). Inf-in MD (talk)
Everybody knows that NGO Monitor = Gerald Steinberg. But it doesn't change the fact that NGO Monitor has a presence in Wikipedia far in excess of what is due, and this article is an example. Zerotalk 07:47, 9 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Zero0000, I have not looked into this in depth yet, but at first glance I 100% agree with you regarding this page. I've been pushing hard for a single short paragraph which gives Collier's view, based on a small stack of sources. And I stand by that. However 8 sections talking about NGO Monitor, most of which seem to be supported by a single reference, seems way out of balance. -- Bob drobbs (talk) 07:55, 9 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@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 2/021 (UTC)

Certainly not. I don't think Collier's "report" should be here at all, and if we have to mention it we certainly won't repeat wild claims from it. We all know what counts as "antisemitic" for Collier and we aren't obliged to play that game. Zerotalk 07:51, 9 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Can you at least acknowledge that you were wrong. The text you deleted was speaking about bigotry coming from 40 people who _work_ for AI. I was not 40 out of the 7,000,000 who "support" AI. -- Bob drobbs (talk) 07:59, 9 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I've been reading Collier's "report". The "40 Amnesty staff members, including volunteers and employees, who shared allegedly antisemitic content online" is not there as far as I can see. That summary is from Jewish News, which I don't consider a reliable source. There might be 40 people mentioned in total (it's hard to count due to the chaotic structure) but the "profiles" are not usually dated relative to their Amnesty involvement and only a few of them are explicitly accused of antisemitism. Usually they are accused of anti-Israeli obsession and bias. Generally he has selected people who live in Israel/WB/Gaza and attacked them for mostly tweeting on Palestinian issues rather than on Iran, Iraq, etc.. Collier's scientific method includes counting the words in tweets regardless of their context (I didn't make that up). Zerotalk 08:55, 9 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
JN went bust and were going to merge with JC at one point, it is a "ToI partner" but I cannot readily discover what that entails, does it mean ToI is taking responsibility? Since it is now being used to promulgate non UK stories and is being increasingly cited, maybe we need to look at an RSN discussion some point. A JP report the day before hasn't this 40 blah blah in it, also says Amnesty wouldn't commentSelfstudier (talk) 17:34, 9 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

This is completely false, nonsense by an editor who hasn't done even minimal research on the topic: [12], [13]. WP:CIR Inf-in MD (talk) 00:23, 10 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Would you care to explain your CIR link? And any person can file a lawsuit. The "group" in question here consists of a Facebook group and a Twitter feed. Minimal research would indeed show there is no website, no charity information, no known board, no nothing. And the existence of a lawsuit does not change any of that. But again, what exactly is you CIR link for? Pins and needles for a response. nableezy - 00:45, 10 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
If you cant explain it and refuse to strike it then we can see what happens next. nableezy - 00:46, 10 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
As far as "minimal research", their twitter feed (here) lists no information besides a gmail email address. Their Facebook group claims that www.jhrw.com is their website, a website that does have a DNS registration but does not exist. I restate, and your links do nothing to answer that, there is no website for it, no charity information, no known board, no nothing. Which part of that is false? Your link to the UK company information services is to "JEWISH RIGHTS WATCH", not Jewish Human Rights Watch. Is that a competence issue? nableezy - 00:52, 10 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
WP:CIR says "Sometimes editors have good intentions, but are not competent enough to edit in a net positive manner. They create work that others have to clean up." - that seems to be the case here. You were unable to perform the most basic of research that would have shown you that what you claimed ("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.") is completely false- as my links show , it is a registered corporation (a PLC) in the UK, with a board that is named, with an address etc.. There's a reason I gave you the second link - the court filing which says "Jewish Rights Watch (t/a "Jewish Human Rights Watch ".) "t/a" being "trading as" ([14]). That, too, is part of the competence required, which you lack. You created work for other editors (me) who had to do this basic research that you were not competent to do, and more work to explain this basic stuff to you and clean up the wrong and misleading stuff you posted here. Editors who think Twitter is the place to do their research fail WP:CIR. Inf-in MD (talk) 01:00, 10 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, doubling down I see. CIR says the ability to read and write English well enough to avoid introducing incomprehensible text into articles and to communicate effectively. You feel I lack that? Ok, got it. Will note this for later. As to the matter at hand, I grant you that they seem to be a registered corporation. And apparently a board. No charity information or website, and they seem to exist solely on Twitter and Facebook. The website they claim as theirs does not exist. The idea that what I wrote is "completely false" shows a lack of competence in understanding the word completely, as you did demonstrate I was incorrect that they do not have a board. Every other thing I said however remains true, and your lack of civility is heart-warming but not all that important to me. But definitely noted. nableezy - 01:11, 10 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Talk about doubling down. What you wrote ("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.") is completely false. They are an organization -a registered UK PLC. They have a known board. They have all their corporate information - filings, audited financials, business address- in the link I gave you which you were not competent to find on you own. In the real world, not every organization has a website, and that is not a requirement to be an organization in a meaningful sense. They obviously do not "exist solely on Twitter and Facebook" , as they filed a law suit, meaning some real person had to appear in court, and their known board members have been quoted in the press. The domain name they claim is registered , and you can contact them via the registrar if you want to convince yourself that they own it. there's no requirement that a live website be up and running for every domain name, my company owns more than a dozen such domains, with no live website on any of them. If you don't know this, well, WP:CIR</>. Inf-in MD (talk) 01:31, 10 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
They do have a board. The rest remains true. nableezy - 01:40, 10 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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.

Unfotunately, 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)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Criticism_of_Amnesty_International&oldid=1059604178"