Talk:Criticism of Amnesty International

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)
 * 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)


 * 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)

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" If you find particular content POV, try to make them NPOV. FriendOfPanda (talk) 03:29, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

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)

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)
 * I removed the non-notable tag. This campaign received substantial media attention in Sri Lankan and worldwide online sources. Eg., , , , , , , -FriendOfPanda (talk) 16:26, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

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)
 * 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)

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)

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)

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)
 * 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)
 * 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)

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)


 * 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)

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)

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)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 1 one external link on Criticism of Amnesty International. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/20061202020951/http://www.amnestyusa.org/countries/kuwait/document.do?id=D45F2AF72CFB7A7E802569A600600E2C to http://www.amnestyusa.org/countries/kuwait/document.do?id=D45F2AF72CFB7A7E802569A600600E2C

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

Cheers.—cyberbot II  Talk to my owner :Online 18:17, 26 February 2016 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 one 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:
 * Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20110927224604/http://www.cicweb.ca/scene/2009/02/american-jewish-congress-amnesty-internationals-criticism-of-israeli-action-in-gaza-distorts-the-law-of-war/ to http://www.cicweb.ca/scene/2009/02/american-jewish-congress-amnesty-internationals-criticism-of-israeli-action-in-gaza-distorts-the-law-of-war/
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080718120253/http://web.amnesty.org/library/Index/ENGPOL100142005 to http://web.amnesty.org/library/Index/ENGPOL100142005
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.amnesty.org.uk/news_details.asp?NewsID=18567

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).

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

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 one 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:
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.namibian.com.na/Netstories/2000/January/Africa/aggression.html
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.hrw.org/press/2003/01/wr2003.htm
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070710201508/http://web.amnesty.org/actforwomen/sexual_and_reproductive_rights-eng to http://web.amnesty.org/actforwomen/sexual_and_reproductive_rights-eng

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).

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

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)

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:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20071219085543/http://www.hrvc.net/news8-03/23b-8-03.html to http://www.hrvc.net/news8-03/23b-8-03.html
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.hrw.org/press/2003/01/wr2003.htm
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.amnesty.org.uk/news_details.asp?NewsID=18567
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20150916001122/http://www.awid.org/news-and-analysis/1100-organizations-and-individuals-ask-amnesty-international-support to http://www.awid.org/news-and-analysis/1100-organizations-and-individuals-ask-amnesty-international-support

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

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

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. " The reference is to an Amnesty webpage which is a brief summary of and link to a three-page report. 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 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)

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)

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)
 * 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)

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)

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)


 * 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)

2019 Report on workplace bullying within Amnesty International
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)

Text: Amnesty International's Secretary General Kumi Naidoo did not accept resignations and instead offered generous redundancies to managers concerned, including to Mootoo's senior director Anna Neistat directly implicated in the report on Mootoo's death.

Issue: Anna Neistat was not “directly implicated” by the Laddie report.https://www.amnesty.org/download/Documents/ORG6094132018ENGLISH.PDF No individual was directly implicated. Anna Neistat’s name is mentioned along with other managers and SLT members in recounting conversations and interactions relevant to the report’s remit.

Action: Delete reference to Anna Neistat.

--RG-Stockholm (talk) 11:48, 11 February 2020 (UTC)

Text: After none of the managers responsible of bullying at Amnesty were held accountable a group of workers petitioned for Amnesty's chief to resign. On 5 December 2019 Naidoo resigned from his post of Amnesty's Secretary General citing ill health [76] and appointing Julie Verhaar as an interim Secretary General. In their petition, workers demanded her immediate resignation as well.

Issue: Kumi’s resignation was completely unrelated to both the petition and to the issues raised in the Konterra and Laddie reports. Kumi stated publicly that he resigned for health reasons.

The petition in question has since been updated and misrepresents the reasons behind Kumi’s resignation. It is not clear that this was started by “a group of workers” -please cite?

Action: Please remove the sentence about Kumi Naidoo’s resignation from this paragraph. It should have a separate heading to clearly distinguish it from the events that went before. The section on Kumi’s resignation should read: Resignation of Kumi Naidoo

On 5 December 2019 Naidoo resigned from his post of Amnesty's Secretary General for health reasons. He appointed Julie Verhaar as interim Secretary General.

--RG-Stockholm (talk) 11:48, 11 February 2020 (UTC)

Reply 11-FEB-2020

 * 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.
 * 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.
 * In the section of text below titled Sample edit request, these items are shown in an example 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:

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."

Regards, Spintendo  21:46, 11 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Kindly open a new edit request at your earliest convenience when ready to proceed with the missing items from your request. Thank you!

Request edit
Thanks for your help! Please see details as requested below.

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)

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)


 * 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)


 * 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)


 * 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  template's answer parameter to read from yes to no. Thank you! Regards, Spintendo  17:44, 13 February 2020 (UTC)
 * 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)
 * 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)

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)

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 18-FEB-2020
Regards, Spintendo  00:59, 19 February 2020 (UTC)
 * 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.

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 25-FEB-2020
Regards, Spintendo  12:20, 25 February 2020 (UTC)
 * 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.
 * The COI editor has not stated the difference between direct implication and non-direct implication. Please advise.

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)

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 25-FEB-2020
Regards, Spintendo  12:20, 25 February 2020 (UTC)
 * 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.

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

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)

Removing well sourced, long standing criticism
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)


 * 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)


 * 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)
 * 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)
 * 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)
 * I see a Facebook-group commissioning Collier for a report, correct? Huldra (talk) 23:53, 8 December 2021 (UTC)
 * 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)
 * 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)
 * 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)

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)
 * 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)
 * 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)

Your last edit removed some text saying that 40 STAFF MEMBERS AND VOLUNTEERS shared antisemitic content. This was not just random supporters of AI. Staff members and volunteers sharing racist content is indeed a problem! Please put this text back. -- Bob drobbs (talk) 05:35, 9 December 2021 (UTC)
 * 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)
 * 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)
 * 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)
 * 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)

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)
 * This is completely false, nonsense by an editor who hasn't done even minimal research on the topic:, . WP:CIR Inf-in MD (talk) 00:23, 10 December 2021 (UTC)
 * 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)
 * If you cant explain it and refuse to strike it then we can see what happens next.  nableezy  - 00:46, 10 December 2021 (UTC)
 * 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)


 * 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" . 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)
 * 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)
 * 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)
 * They do have a board. The rest remains true.  nableezy  - 01:40, 10 December 2021 (UTC)

As it has been established that Mr Collier is indeed not a notable commentator, and as Jewish Human Rights Watch is likewise non-notable, Ive removed the material as UNDUE.  nableezy  - 22:33, 10 December 2021 (UTC)

2nd iteration

 * Collier's notability may have been a plus, but this report covered by a bunch of sources is notable. They're absolutely due for an article about criticism.  I've added new text which is nicely balanced almost 50/50 between info from Collier's report, and Amnesty's response.  -- Bob drobbs (talk) 23:35, 10 December 2021 (UTC)
 * For the nth time; bring it to talk first! That it is "nicely balanced"; to me; this is like saying an article is  "nicely balanced" between "flat earthers" and "non-flat earthers", Huldra (talk) 23:51, 10 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Notability has nothing to do with article content. Please see WP:N where it says as much. If you feel this report is notable you can write an article about it. Whether or not it should be included here is more a subject of WEIGHT. I do not think a non-notable blogger writing a report for a non-notable group merits inclusion here, even if it was covered in a handful of news outlets.  nableezy  - 00:07, 11 December 2021 (UTC)
 * If notability has nothing to do with article content, then why do you seem to constantly refer to him as a "non-notable blogger" in these conversations and in your edit comments? -- Bob drobbs (talk) 00:15, 11 December 2021 (UTC)
 * You would have a better argument that a criticism from a notable commentator should be covered per DUE, but a report being notable doesnt mean it should be covered. DUE is about giving views their proportionate coverage in reliable sources. I submit that in proportion to the topic of criticism of Amnesty International, and even further in relation to the subtopic of Amnesty International and Israel-related criticism, that Collier's proportionate coverage in reliable sources is effectively nill. And that should be reflected here. And as noted by Zero, the material being attributed to the report simply is not in the report, and the report itself could never be considered a reliable source. So we do not need to include it at all.  nableezy  - 22:00, 11 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Sigh, read WP:V and WP:ONUS.Selfstudier (talk) 00:20, 11 December 2021 (UTC)

WP:V
Let's start with WP:V.


 * Jerusalem Post: In 2019, David Collier was commissioned to research Amnesty International. His 200-page report alleges an institutional anti-Israel bias; “Targets are not chosen for their actions, but rather for their identity.”
 * Times of Israel: The report also documented 40 Amnesty staff members, including volunteers and employees, sharing allegedly antisemitic content online.
 * Times of Israel: Amnesty replied "David Collier is an individual with a very clear agenda. He did not approach us for comment or give us right of reply before publishing any of these allegations. Amnesty International is an independent and impartial organization that adheres to the highest research standards in all its work."

What exactly in here do you believe is not verifiable? -- Bob drobbs (talk) 00:59, 11 December 2021 (UTC)
 * You have been reverted a couple of times and asked not to edit war (even slowly) and if you put it in again, I might also revert it. That's your explanation right there.Selfstudier (talk) 01:07, 11 December 2021 (UTC)
 * An example of what is not verifiable is "The report also documented 40 Amnesty staff members, including volunteers and employees, sharing allegedly antisemitic content online." It is true that TofI wrote that, but it is not true that the report contains that. Even the most unreliable sources are reliable for what they contain. I invite you to read Collier's own description of the report here. The word "antisemitic" does not appear even once. Why should we post a stronger claim about the report than Collier himself claims? Turning to the report itself, it does contain accusations of antisemitism but not against 40 people. A likely origin of the false claim is this sentence: "The research quantified the participation in the group of those who share antisemitic posts and found that the levels were all above 60%." However "group" in that sentence is not Amnesty International but Palestine Live and "report" is not this report but an earlier Collier report on Palestine Live. Zerotalk 01:27, 11 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Zero0000, I pulled up the actual report and did not read the whole thing. I couldn't immediately verify it, but also am not going to immediately reject it. Let me give you the benefit of the doubt.  Is there anything else that fails verifiability? -- Bob drobbs (talk) 03:11, 11 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Not to mention that ONUS is a part of V so "Let's start with" V tells me that no attention was paid to what I wrote or else it was just ignored? Selfstudier (talk) 01:39, 11 December 2021 (UTC)

WP:Onus
On to Onus. Here's how I determined that this meets wp:due.


 * 1) Covered in RS: check.  Two solid sources.
 * 2) Appropriate for page: check. Absolutely 100%, it's about "criticism of AI" on a page about "criticism of AI"
 * 3) Appropriately weighted - check, a short paragraph. (Half of which is being pushed by you guys.)

Don't think I'm just pushing a POV here; above I've said NGO watch is overrepresented and should be cut down.

And excuse me if I don't just trust Nableezy's claims that it doesn't meet due. He's 100% contradicting himself: "As it has been established that Mr Collier is indeed not a notable commentator ...  Ive removed the material as UNDUE ... Notability has nothing to do with article content."

So, without claiming that someone who is labelled by RS as a researcher, independent journalist, activists, and blogger is "just a blogger" please share why you feel this is undue. -- Bob drobbs (talk) 03:17, 11 December 2021 (UTC)


 * How about this part? "Consensus may determine that certain information does not improve an article." WP:CONSENSUS Do you think you have it? UNDUE is part of WP:NPOV so it is being said that the addition of this material is not NPOV. Can you say why you think it is NPOV? Do you think the material represents a significant viewpoint held by others besides Collier? If so, is this significant viewpoint already in the article?(Selfstudier (talk) 12:37, 11 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Yes, I think a lot of people believe that Amnesty International focuses a disproportionate amount of it's attention toward Israel, and that at least some of the employees and staff of AI are biased again Israel. This attributed viewpoint is absolutely significant enough inclusion in article about criticism, and there's no NPOV issues with that.  And if there are similar viewpoints already included then we should be able to cut down on the amount of text, but that's no reason to totally exclude any mention of these reports along with the sources talking about them.
 * Why do you believe that any mention of these reports violated wp:due?  -- Bob drobbs (talk) 04:50, 12 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Criticism of that nature has a part in this article for sure. The issue here is whether it improves the article to report such criticism from an amateur who is known for extreme bias in the other direction. Surely there are sources more worthy than that. Zerotalk 05:51, 12 December 2021 (UTC)
 * One of the larger (could be the largest) sections in the article is devoted to criticism from IsGov, NGOmonitor (this needs looking at but if they aren't reporting it, it didn't happen) and others, although it seems quite dated. If the issue reported by Collier is a thing, why are there so few extant reports about that. Perhaps there are and they are just not in the article but if there is then I agree that we ought to be able to find something better than Collier's report.Selfstudier (talk) 10:28, 12 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Zero0000, on what basis are you describing him as an amateur? I've never seen that term used in any RS.  In this instance, it seems he was "commissioned" aka paid for this work.
 * I think amateur is as good a description as any (also see talk page at SPSC where JHRW (according to the Times) are claiming the report as their report and don't even mention Collier.)Selfstudier (talk) 19:09, 12 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Selfstudier, how many extant sources do you feel are necessary to mention a report or statement? Looking at the anti-Palestinianism page. Would you argue that unless a statement by a BDS group is discussed in depth, by at least 3 independent reliable secondary sources, then any mention of the statement _must_ be removed?
 * I'm not going to go and harm that page to make a point, but I do expect you to apply the same standard to both pages. -- Bob drobbs (talk) 18:21, 12 December 2021 (UTC)
 * You lost me, are you talking about some problem on different pages? If so, best to raise it at those pages? Selfstudier (talk) 19:05, 12 December 2021 (UTC)

Paid editing?
Note that the above user User:Soosim (who was ultimately blocked for socking), outed himself, (back when he started, in 2008), as "Arnie Draiman".

An "Arnie Draiman" worked up until 2020  with "Online Communications" for NGO Monitor

The WP:COI was noted: WP:COI:Gerald Steinberg, NGO Monitor, User Soosim and others.

Unfortunately, Wikipedia has never been "cleaned up" after all the undisclosed WP:PAID editing for NGO Monitor, sigh...Huldra (talk) 23:37, 9 December 2021 (UTC)

UN Independent International Commission of Inquiry
"released a report which included findings similar to the findings of Amnesty's report." Contradicts the first citation and completely cherry picks the second citation out of context. There is clear bias in the quote and its interpretation of the UN report that it supposedly cites. 96.31.177.151 (talk) 23:53, 21 November 2022 (UTC)

Undo dovidroth's revert
I suggest we undo @Dovidroth's revert since it reduced the quality of the page. DMH43 (talk) 14:35, 22 December 2023 (UTC)


 * I suggest we undo the revert. DMH43 (talk) 22:23, 1 January 2024 (UTC)


 * While I agree that topic belongs here, it seems too long. Can you reduce it to about half the length? Zerotalk 02:45, 2 January 2024 (UTC)
 * yes. Should I share proposed versions in this thread? DMH43 (talk) 16:42, 2 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Here is my draft:
 * In 2015, Amnesty published a report describing human rights violations during the 2014 Gaza War and a followup report detailing the bombing campaign on Rafah. Finkelstein criticized Amnesty for its heavy reliance on Israeli governmental sources as well as for presenting a narrative which, he claims, downplayed Israeli war crimes. Finkelstein contended the reports failed to adequately address the disparity in the impact of the offenses between Israel and Gaza's armed groups.
 * In the first of the reports, Amnesty cited the Israeli allegation that it had intercepted a vessel carrying Iranian rockets "bound for Gaza" without citing the a UN expert panel which found that the Iranian weapons were in fact bound for the Sudan, not Gaza. Finkelstein also points out that the report cited the Israeli claim that the ground invasion had been launched to "destroy the tunnel system..., particularly those with shafts discovered near residential areas located in Israel" but had not cited official Israeli documentation demonstrating that these tunnels had only been used for military operations.
 * Finkelstein accused Amnesty of whitewashing Israeli war crimes by assuming the presence of a valid military objective when no evidence suggesting the presence of a military objective had been presented. For example,
 * On 1 August, amid "heavy bombardment of a civilian area," a drone-launched missile killed a 20-year-old man. Multiple witnesses recalled relentless bombing, shelling, and missile attacks, while "people were running..., all raising white flags."
 * Amnesty describes this event as "[appearing] to be indiscriminate," while Finkelstein claims that the lack of a plausible military target indicates a deliberate attack on civilians.
 * He also criticized Amnesty for its legal analysis, claiming that it applied international law in a biased manner that favored Israeli interpretations. Specifically, he asserted that Amnesty International had adopted a distorted understanding of concepts such as proportionality and distinction. For example, Finkelstein claims that the targeting of Lieutenant Hadar Goldin in order to prevent a prisoner swap cannot be considered to be a valid military objective and thus the appropriate legal principle is the deliberate targeting of civilians and civilian objects. DMH43 (talk) 17:47, 2 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Can you link the reverts in question? Makes it easier to discuss. Chavmen (talk) 10:34, 2 January 2024 (UTC)
 * here is @Dovidroth's edit DMH43 (talk) 16:41, 2 January 2024 (UTC)
 * It might be worth noting that Dovidroth has been banned from the Palestine/Israel Conflict topic for 90 days: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Dovidroth#Notice_that_you_are_now_subject_to_an_arbitration_enforcement_sanction DMH43 (talk) 16:54, 2 January 2024 (UTC)

White privilege and racism
I will try to work on it. Sources: BinaryBrainBug (talk) 20:25, 17 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Amnesty International has culture of white privilege, report finds | Amnesty International | The Guardian
 * Muslim employee sues Amnesty over sacking after Alexei Navalny objections | Amnesty International | The Guardian
 * Former Amnesty Employee Appealing Employment Tribunal Decision in Navalny Controversy – Byline Times

Whitewash of Navalyn
This article on Navalyn is beyond terrible. Seriously, any reader would look at it and think that Navalyn has done nothing wrong and that Amnesty international was simply tricked by lies and that they fully accepted what Navalyn did and it's all a mistake. The word, "mistake", is taken out of context and repeated alot. Which would had been fine if you didn't remove the other context that shows the reality that it wasn't really a mistake but more complicated than that. Amnesty international statement was that they changed their rules where they recognised that Navalyn video was unacceptable but their rules are altered where they no longer exclude a person based solely on what they done in the past and that rule change is what allowed them to admit Navalyn back in. Such basic contextual information is completely omitted for no good reason but effectively mislead readers into believing Navalyn actions were approved by Amnesty, and considered to be overhyped and no big deal, when that was never the case. I added Amnesty international actual statement, summarised and filling in their reasoning for their decision to change. 49.180.164.128 (talk) 04:42, 23 February 2024 (UTC)
 * First of all, this page is not about Navalny, but about Amnesty. Secondly, no, there was no whitewash of Navalny in the version prior to your edits . You say: "any reader would look at it and think that Navalyn has done nothing wrong". So, you are making some changes to emphasize that he was wrong and the Amnesty was right. Well, this is actually a whitewash of Amnesty (they apparently tried to deflect the criticism by providing a clarification). No, they did not change the rules because they knew very well about his comments made in 2007 when they assigned him the status for the first time in 2012. Then, they temporarily rejected his status for a few months under the influence of Russian propaganda campaign. Yes, they apologized for that and fixed the mistake. This needs to be said here, and it was said in the version prior to your edits. My very best wishes (talk) 14:23, 23 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Saying that, I think your new version is actually OK. My very best wishes (talk) 14:50, 23 February 2024 (UTC)

The paragraph about Walid Daqqa
On april, when he died Amnesty described him as a writer while he was a convicted terrorist who kidnapped and murdered a soldier. Many pro-Israel organization criticism them for that. this is a statement from israel official page https://twitter.com/Israel/status/1777612398028800109 https://twitter.com/amnesty/status/1777390873518489613 you can see the comments here too. Why it's not important? Isn't it a criticism about Amnesty? 84.110.218.178 (talk) 09:02, 28 April 2024 (UTC)


 * A, there is no weight given to it in reliable source, b you may not edit material related to the Arab Israeli conflict.  nableezy  - 09:23, 28 April 2024 (UTC)
 * It's the official account of Israel on twitter. How it's not a reliable source?
 * And another source:
 * https://www.jpost.com/israel-news/article-796201
 * And please don't comment me - I am not talking with pro rape and kidnap justifier. 84.110.218.178 (talk) 09:27, 28 April 2024 (UTC)
 * In coverage of amnesty it gets approximately 0 weight. So that is what it deserves here. I don’t really give a shit what you think about me, but you don’t get to make demands and expect people to do anything but laugh at them. One more revert and I’ll be asking for you to be blocked. Toodles.  nableezy  - 09:53, 28 April 2024 (UTC)
 * I've removed that section as its WP:UNDUE. The wording from the reports, it sparked controversy is a single reference. There is no discussion and it fails to take cognizance of balance, historical depth and WP:NPOV. Dude if your bringing your agenda on here, its the wrong place for it.   scope_creep Talk  09:09, 29 April 2024 (UTC)

Repeated deletions in Israel section
I would like to add the following under Israel:

''On April 8, 2024, in a tweet to its followers, Amnesty International sparked criticism when it reffered to terrorist Walid Daqqa as a "writer" following his death in an Israeli prison. Daqqa was imprisoned for 38 years after he was convicted of commanding a PFLP-affiliated group that kidnapped and murdered Israeli soldier, Moshe Tamam, in 1984.''

References:

Help required. --Omer Toledano (talk) 10:52, 29 April 2024 (UTC)
 * "I would like..." is not a great argument. Just sayin' Sean.hoyland (talk) 10:57, 29 April 2024 (UTC)
 * It's petty squabbling and inappropriate here. A7 is a junk source and this doesn't even give a fair report of the JP article. Zerotalk 14:03, 29 April 2024 (UTC)
 * The subject matter of the article is Criticism of Amnesty International. Please stay on topic. I think we can all agree that the AI organization tweet did raise criticism. Now then, what is the main objection facilitating the repeated deletions of this paragraph by various members of the community? --Omer Toledano (talk) 15:17, 29 April 2024 (UTC)
 * Not all sourced material need be included. Why is this material DUE? Selfstudier (talk) 15:53, 29 April 2024 (UTC)
 * Because it has to do with the article's main subject matter which is the "criticism" of the Amnesty International organization. --Omer Toledano (talk) 17:11, 29 April 2024 (UTC)
 * Yes, you said that. But that's not what I am asking, per WP:VNOT "While information must be verifiable for inclusion in an article, not all verifiable information must be included." and WP:DUE requires due weight. Why does this particular information have weight? It seems rather a trivial complaint at first sight, that AI called someone a writer? Selfstudier (talk) 17:31, 29 April 2024 (UTC)
 * The criticism is a derivative of him being referred to and mourned as a "writer" while making short to no mention at all of his past terrorist activities, the reason for which he was imprisoned. Therefore, in light of this criticism, it is to this Wikipedian's humble opinion that it should be included as a valid critique of Amnesty International. --Omer Toledano (talk) 18:10, 29 April 2024 (UTC)
 * According to the JP article, Amnesty said "Daqqah was not convicted of carrying out the murder himself, but of commanding the group, an accusation he always rejected, and his conviction was based on British emergency regulations dating back to 1945, which require a much lower standard of proof for conviction than Israeli criminal law." AI talks about his conviction and what it was for but disputes the validity of it, which they are entitled to do if they wish, that does not seem to me to be doing anything terribly wrong.
 * Arutz Shiva is a dubious source, are there any other, ideally international, sources, critiquing AI for their statement? Selfstudier (talk) 18:27, 29 April 2024 (UTC)
 * I think that the critique, whether justified or not, is still a critique and therefor has a place in an article dealing with criticism. --Omer Toledano (talk) 19:02, 29 April 2024 (UTC)
 * If there is only one reasonable source, I don't agree. Let's see what others have to say. Selfstudier (talk) 19:05, 29 April 2024 (UTC)
 * Here's another reference I found:
 * --Omer Toledano (talk) 04:55, 30 April 2024 (UTC)
 * And here's another one with a mention of the critique in Asharq Al-Awsat:
 * Israel's Foreign Ministry said in a social media post: "Amnesty, you have a disturbing obsession with glorifying sadistic murderers."
 * --Omer Toledano (talk) 05:00, 30 April 2024 (UTC)
 * Israel's Foreign Ministry said in a social media post: "Amnesty, you have a disturbing obsession with glorifying sadistic murderers."
 * --Omer Toledano (talk) 05:00, 30 April 2024 (UTC)

The fact that Israel attacks AI for anything that is remotely, directly or indirectly, critical of Israel is not news and we are not obliged to report every such case. In the overall scheme of things, this incident is trivial and will be forgotten as soon as the next incident occurs. Zerotalk 06:51, 30 April 2024 (UTC)


 * You are digressing from the main issue. It's not an "attack" nor is Israel the one being criticized here. It is criticism aimed towards Amnesty International, which is the topic of this article. Seeing that this criticism has been cited in multiple sources and was officially reiterated in a public statement by the Israeli government, that alone should provide enough weight for it to be included in the article under the "Israel" subheading. --Omer Toledano (talk) 07:10, 30 April 2024 (UTC)
 * https://www.nysun.com/article/fury-in-israel-after-amnesty-international-mourns-terrorist-behind-murder-mutilation-of-israeli-teen
 * https://www.spectator.co.uk/article/amnesty-laments-death-of-palestinian-torture-group-leader/
 * https://www.dailywire.com/news/amnesty-international-mourns-death-of-palestinian-terrorist-claims-it-is-israel-that-has-no-regard-for-human-life
 * https://www.spectator.co.uk/article/amnesty-laments-death-of-palestinian-torture-group-leader/
 * It's not only the Israeli government, as you can see. Peace Love10 (talk) 07:34, 30 April 2024 (UTC)
 * And this is the criticism expressed about Amnesty, you can agree or not, but the entry deals with criticism of Amnesty, therefore it should be presented. Peace Love10 (talk) 07:44, 30 April 2024 (UTC)
 * All of those are poor sources. This lacks weight to include, and you may not participate in this discussion.  nableezy  - 08:36, 30 April 2024 (UTC)
 * why The Spectator, The Jerusalem Post, The Daily Wire, The New York Sun, Townhall are "poor sources"? Peace Love10 (talk) 08:43, 30 April 2024 (UTC)
 * The Spectator article, in the Coffee House section, is personal analysis, the Daily Wire is generally unreliable, the NY Sun isnt the worst but even then it doesnt demonstrate anything besides Israel being upset at something Amnesty did, it has 0 weight in the overall topic of criticism of Amnesty International. And again, per WP:ARBECR you may not participate in this discussion.  nableezy  - 08:50, 30 April 2024 (UTC)
 * So great, you can add the Jerusalem Post as a single source. Also in the rest of the entry it appears as a single source, so it's probably not a problem. And again, The entry is "criticism of Amnesty" and the subject is "criticism of Amnesty in its relation to Israel". You don't have to agree with it, think it's petty, but it's a criticism that Israeli officials direct at the organization.
 * And what I was told - I can participate in these discussions, not edit the page. I read the ARBECR, Where is it written? Peace Love10 (talk) 09:04, 30 April 2024 (UTC)
 * This isn’t a compendium of every time Israel has been upset about something from AI, it is an encyclopedia article on that topic. I’ve answered the other question on your talk page.  nableezy  - 09:39, 30 April 2024 (UTC)

(was asked to comment) At first glance, I'd be skeptical about the inclusion, possibly being a very specific situation cherry-picked for looking really bad for AI. But I'd probably try to learn more about it. including what other sources said about it. Did AI "walk back" or qualify it later? Or double down and support it? Was the conviction credibly considered to be a weak or strong case? Is it part of a pattern of similar situations by AI? North8000 (talk) 11:23, 30 April 2024 (UTC)
 * It doesnt look bad for AI, this has been treated as nothing by basically everybody. Walid Daqqa was a Palestinian writer, he authored several books while imprisoned (for 38 years) by Israel. That Israel feels that somebody they claim was supposedly commanding a group responsible for the capture and killing of a soldier is a "terrorist" is something I guess, but it doesnt mean anything for anybody else, including Amnesty International.  nableezy  - 11:35, 30 April 2024 (UTC)

Note that Amnesty's statement clearly explains what Daqqa was convicted for, as JP acknowledges. It says that Daqqa denied the charge, but it does not pronounce Daqqa as innocent or guilty. Israel's main problem with the statement is that it is critical of Daqqa's treatment in prison, but rather than respond to that issue (on which they know they can't win against AI) they focus on the fact that AI didn't call Daqqa a terrorist. In Israeli parlance, every kid throwing a stone is a terrorist, so this is just predictable Israeli invective of no lasting consequence. Zerotalk 12:31, 30 April 2024 (UTC)


 * I think you are missing the point yet again and are mish-mashing. Kindly allow me to reiterate, the critique is towards Amnesty International as per the topic of this article "Criticism of Amnesty International". The criticism conveyed in this critique speaks of Amnesty International mourning Daqqa as a "writer" while belittling his terrorist activities and the 38 years spent in prison for said terrorist activities. The critique, whether justified or unjustified, is still a critique, one which was made mention of in various sources which cite an official statement by the Israeli government and as such a critique, it belongs in this article, called "Criticism of Amnesty International", under the "Israel" subheading. --Omer Toledano (talk) 17:22, 30 April 2024 (UTC)
 * Since you were canvassed to this page by another editor (who has now been blocked for it) I will not reply to you further. Suffice it to say that I disagree and it is you who misunderstands. Zerotalk 01:16, 1 May 2024 (UTC)

The initially quoted Starr article didn't criticize them for not calling him a terrorist. It was an overall critique of the AI article, and it did refer to him as a terrorist. IMO the Starr article is good enough to use as what is identified as a critique. But I think that the proposed text is problematic in a few ways. First, it said something that was not in the article, and didn't summarize what was actually in the article. It also identified him as a terrorist, in the voice of Wikipedia (rather than attribution to the source.) Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 16:35, 30 April 2024 (UTC)


 * This remains a news cycle blip and it lacks weight to include. Feel free to start an RFC to see if others agree with you, but there’s clearly no consensus for inclusion in this section.  nableezy  - 06:44, 1 May 2024 (UTC)


 * I was just trying to help and am not trying for any outcome and won't be starting an RFC. As noted, I would not recommend inclusion of the text as proposed.  If there is an AI write-up which several news organization have published a critique of (and I don't know whether or not this is the case), I'd recommend some type of inclusion. <b style="color: #0000cc;">North8000</b> (talk) 12:50, 1 May 2024 (UTC)
 * I agree with North8000, Selfstudier and Nableezy. This lacks due weight and the proposed text is problematic. The only critic reported by the Jerusalem Post or Jewish Chronicle is Israel in a Twitter post, and the other sources are not reliable. BobFromBrockley (talk) 17:03, 1 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Just clarifying, my problems with the proposed text are only in how it was written. Sincerely, <b style="color: #0000cc;">North8000</b> (talk) 17:20, 1 May 2024 (UTC)
 * In that case, what would you propose? Assuming there is plausible reason to rewrite it, how would you rewrite it? --Omer Toledano (talk) 08:18, 2 May 2024 (UTC)
 * As a preface, at this point, I only have my first impression from a medium-depth read through the most pertinent links. And my preliminary thought would be to include a maybe 3-5 sentence summary summary of the critiques.    So my first step would be to take a deeper dive to see if my first impression is correct. If so, then I would prepare that summary.  If folks from both sides of the debate like that idea at least in a preliminary way, knowing that it most likely go as I described, somebody please ping me. I'd be happy to work on it. But if not, I don't have enough Wiki-minutes to jump in that deep.  Sincerely, <b style="color: #0000cc;">North8000</b> (talk) 12:17, 2 May 2024 (UTC)
 * I don’t think this merits a single sentence, countries always respond petulantly when human rights groups criticize them. This specific instance lacks any importance, or weight in wikispeak, at all. That also seems to be the majority view of responding editors.  nableezy  - 13:34, 2 May 2024 (UTC)