Talk:Amnesty International

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 make readers not be really aware of the racist videos that Navalny has made after removing the paragraph explaining on what he did was wrong. But 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 not really grasp what Navalyn has done, and what Amnesty international has forgiven him on, and you are not allowing readers to truly understand the scale of controversy but censoring that from them. Which I don't agree with. And if we cannot agree here, perhaps we should take this to dispute resolution fairly. 49.180.164.128 (talk) 14:56, 22 February 2024 (UTC)

I agree that such details may be important, but they are described already on Criticism_of_Amnesty_International#Alexei_Navalny. Here we just need to provide a brief summary. My very best wishes (talk) 15:00, 22 February 2024 (UTC)

The issue is that you removed so much that the average reader can be mislead into possibly believing that Navalyn has done no wrong and Amnesty international judged his past videos were acceptable. That's of course false. So I ask to include Amnesty international statement on why they changed their statement. It's not because they realised it's all lies but because they now have a rule where they don't solely recognise past behaviour as being the same as current. So do restore and add the vital and relevant sentence at the end; Amnesty International stated they will no longer exclude people from being called Prisoners of Conscience "solely based on their conduct in the past," as they recognize people's "opinions and behaviour may evolve over time." 49.180.164.128 (talk) 15:12, 22 February 2024 (UTC)

Look, if you want to edit controversial subjects, such as that one, please create named WP account and use it (unless you already have it). That would allow me to properly respond at your user talk page, for example. My very best wishes (talk) 15:33, 22 February 2024 (UTC)

If you want me to go to a dispute resolution noticeboard. I am game. If you want to talk to me, you can talk to me here. Regardless I am not asking a lot. Just add in Amnesty international statement on the change of their policy that allows them to admit Navalyn in as a prisoner of conscience. This was actually already added in before yesterday by someone else yet you deleted it twice by my count. And if you don't have any opposition to me adding in the amnesty international statement, then I will add it in tomorrow and that will be it for me indefinitely. I don't see how that is even wrong but I don't wish to edit war with you as that's just a waste of time for the both of us. So if you have any relevant comments to oppose this, please do make it clear here before I restore it. 49.180.164.128 (talk) 17:02, 22 February 2024 (UTC)

Well, I checked their statement [2] and the point you marked bold above seems to be very minor. They say they do not endorse any views, political programs or words by people they designate as the prisoner of conscience, Navalny or not. They say they made wrong decision about Navalny and apologize for it. They say this decision was not consistent with their goals or policies. This is all already included. My very best wishes (talk) 00:09, 23 February 2024 (UTC)

Look man, I am not naive. I know that you want readers to think Amnesty international approved of Navalyn actions and considered it to be overhyped and no big deal. And why you keep removing the info on the contrary. Except Amnesty international made a statement that they don't approve of his actions in the past but they changed their rules for him to no longer automatically disqualify someone based on past conduct as they recognise that nobody should be forever trapped by what they did in the past. That statement of why they changed their decision, should never had been deleted. And I am not wanting to waste time discussing with someone who simply uses the above arguments that doesn't seem genuine to me. If we cannot agree and it looks to be this case even if we spend months talking on it. I think we should consider dispute resolution channels. As I don't have much faith in this talk if you keep acting like Amnesty international statement isn't needed (because it signifies that Navalny did something wrong and you remove every single info that hints that Amnesty disapprove of it). 49.180.164.128 (talk) 04:50, 23 February 2024 (UTC)

To clarify, The issue that we have between us is the same. You keeps removing information that gives a clearer and minimum picture of why Amnesty International had changed their decision on Navalyn. And it wasn't because they approved of his past actions. They made it very clear they do not approve of it. Instead they said that past behaviour shouldn't make someone trapped forever, and that they have changed their rules to now no longer automatically disqualify someone for prisoner of conscience. That information is true and obviously absolutely vital. Yet by removing it all and only saying that Amnesty apologised. It makes it sound like Navalyn actions were acceptable by them, wasn't that bad and should had been accepted with their original rules. That is a major distortion of the article by making it appear that Amnesty falsely recognised Navalyn's past actions as bad and then later thought it was good and then apologized for it. As that didn't happen.[3] I have added in Amnesty International statement and if you disagree. I will not waste time to edit war but consider our discussion over as I made it clear enough and will take it up to dispute resolution chain and have others decide it. 49.180.164.128 (talk) 05:00, 23 February 2024 (UTC)

I made an account just now - HarmonyCrusador‬. From now on when it comes to this topic and future discussions, you have a named account to address. I only made it because it's only a matter of time when my IP changes by itself. And also I get the gist that long term editors seem to look down or have suspicion on IP editors despite nothing inherently wrong with IP editing. 49.180.164.128 (talk) 08:47, 23 February 2024 (UTC)

Since you already created this named account, please use it for editing everywhere rather than multiple IPs. Doing otherwise can be regarded as a violation of WP:SOCK. My very best wishes (talk) 14:06, 23 February 2024 (UTC)

Dude, you keep coming up with terms like "editorializing" and making up labels as your excuses to remove the information I have added.[4] I don't think I am able to discuss with you and feel it's time to take this to dispute resolution. P.S. I took your suggestion to make an account. So don't give me lectures for doing so, just after I took your own suggestion and followed it. HarmonyCrusador (talk) 15:42, 23 February 2024 (UTC)

Also, I chose not to edit war with you and advanced this instead first to 3rd Opinion. My addition should not be unfairly labelled as editorialising. It's instead filling in an omission of fact that provides tremendous historic context. Anyone would have been automatically disqualified under Amnesty International's old policy of zero tolerance to hate speech. When they decided to reverse their decision, they needed to give a very good reason to the public and they offered one in a statement in which Wikipedia readers should minimally know, as it's vital. Yet as it indirectly acknowledge that Navalyn actions weren't good, you seem to scrub only that and put so much effort in removing even brief mentions of it. I don't think that's fair to readers to hide that history from them.[5] HarmonyCrusador (talk) 17:01, 23 February 2024 (UTC)

WP:3O

There is an open request at WP:3O, [6] for assistance with dispute resolution. But it is not immediately clear to me what exact change is being discussed. @HarmonyCrusador and My very best wishes:, can each of you briefly summarize the disagreement and provide the version or diff that you would like to see added/changed/retained? (Anyone else is welcome to provide the actual 3O if they get to it before me, but I believe the recap would help anyone else as much as it would myself). VQuakr (talk) 18:59, 23 February 2024 (UTC)

I wanted to add this in.[7] But they removed it. I wanted to add in that Amnesty, in addressing their new decision on Navalyn stated they have changed their rules where they will no longer disqualify someone for POC status solely on that they did in the past, as they recognize people's "opinions and behaviour may evolve over time." I think that's vital context. HarmonyCrusador (talk) 19:11, 23 February 2024 (UTC)

A side note; all that info of Amnesty no longer disqualifying based on past conduct solely, was already there at least May 2021 and have stayed there for a long while apparently until recently.[8] So they really deleted someone else's contribution and I now I am just trying to restore that as I know that contribution is important enough to deserve inclusion. I originally had wanted to add this info [9] Then that other editor swiftly removed it (not that long after I disagreed with them on another thread and replied directly to them).[10] HarmonyCrusador (talk) 19:35, 23 February 2024 (UTC)

@VQuakr. I understand that HarmonyCrusador has placed already the content they wanted to page Criticism of Amnesty International (see this edit) and I agreed already that it was OK [11]. Now, speaking on the edit on this page [12], it says that Amnesty has changed their rules in 2021 to reinstate the status of Navalny. However, this clearly contradicts facts as explained here, hence this better be omitted on this page, as to not misinform readers. My very best wishes (talk) 21:34, 23 February 2024 (UTC)

Your argument in your own words in that link, is that "they temporarily rejected his status for a few months under the influence of Russian propaganda campaign". Except Amnesty international said the decision came internally and they do judge Navalyn's past actions as bad and it wasn't influenced by Moscow.[13] So Amnesty international doesn't support what you say above.

And the information is quoting Amnesty international directly and assuming they are truthful and it's historically significant enough to be included as it came from Amnesty International in explaining that they dislike what Navalyn did and do not stand for it. They made a statement where they told the public they reviewed and their policy has been refined to no longer strip someone based just on what they did in the past.[14] I merely paraphrased them and do not assume they are lying and not trying to do original research like yourself in claiming that they are somehow secretly not being straightforward here and they only disapprove of Navalyn's past because it's all Russian lies and not on a real internal decision recognising that Navalyn's video was highly racist. But you already stated to have accepted my new version on that other page so don't know why you are still trying to revive another argument to remove it yet again.HarmonyCrusador (talk) 07:26, 24 February 2024 (UTC)

I am also responding to the open request at WP:3O for assistance with dispute resolution. Thank you for summarizing the dispute above. First, My very best wishes, you stated that the change HarmonyCrusador wishes to effect says that Amnesty has changed their rules in 2021 to reinstate the status of Navalny. I am having trouble understanding how you are arriving at that interpretation of the edit, which I have copied below (minus the citation; the proposed edit is the bolded portion):

The designation of Navalny as a prisoner of conscience was reinstated in May 2021 where Amnesty made a statement that even though they do not approve of Navalyn's past anti-immigration videos, they stated that they had changed their rules to no longer automatically disqualify someone based solely on their past conduct, as "their opinions and behaviour may evolve over time", and that nobody should be forever trapped by what they did in the past.

From what the sources say, Amnesty did indeed change their guidelines to no longer disqualify people for past conduct. They don't say they did that with the express purpose of reinstating Navalny's status, and if the edit made that claim, you would be correct. But I am not seeing that in this edit.

Am I correct in understanding that this is is the crux of your dispute? If so, could you explain how the proposed edit is making the claim that Amnesty revised their guidelines in order to reinstate Navalny's status?

Perhaps part of the problem is that the wording of this edit is a bit convoluted. My main suggestion to HarmonyCrusador would be to clean up the wording of the proposed edit slightly as it is a bit convoluted. My suggestion:

The designation of Navalny as a prisoner of conscience was reinstated in May 2021; however Amnesty stated that "[s]ome of Navalny's previous statements are reprehensible and we do not condone them in the slightest." They explained that they would no longer automatically disqualify someone from the "prisoner of conscience" label solely because of past behaviour, as "their opinions and behaviour may evolve over time", and that reinstating Navalny's status was not a wholesale endorsement of his political programme, but rather a declaration of "the urgent need for his rights... to be recognised and acted upon by the Russian authorities."

I believe this clarifies definitively that Amnesty made the change as a result of these events, not in order to reinstate Navalny's status per se, while keeping all the relevant facts. Let me know what you both think. Brusquedandelion (talk) 14:57, 24 February 2024 (UTC)

@Brusquedandelion I appreciate your assistance. Feel free to add this yourself; I got no objections. There's genuinely no valid reason to exclude it. However, I doubt the other person will respond positively, given the difficulty in denying it and their apparent reluctance to acknowledge this fact. My main concern lies in the article's bias, which paints Navalny as innocent and unjustly accused. This portrayal isn't accurate, considering he indeed created those videos, and Amnesty confirmed their inappropriateness and that he never retracted his statements. But as a British IP editor kindly pointed out to me yesterday, this topic is highly politicized, and some may be unwilling to accept that Navalny wasn't entirely innocent in this matter. Therefore, though I'm reluctant to accept the other person's edits. As long as they stick to their words that my edits are okay on "Criticism of Amnesty International" and it shall remain untouched, then I'm willing to just settle for their version of this greatly diluted page. And consider this matter to be resolved between us.HarmonyCrusador (talk) 11:28, 25 February 2024 (UTC)

• Well, this content belongs to page Criticism of Amnesty International. It is already included there, and I accepted your addition on that page [15], even though it was something disputable [16] and perhaps needs to be improved. On this page we need only a brief summary of this, at most, and it is currently provided: [17]. Why do you insist to include exactly same content to several pages? Please see Wikipedia:Content forks. My very best wishes (talk) 16:57, 25 February 2024 (UTC)

Criticism

Can you add that they described terroist alid Daqqah as a “Palestinian writer”? I think it's worth mention. https://www.jpost.com/israel-news/article-796201 84.110.218.178 (talk) 19:53, 19 April 2024 (UTC)