Talk:Amnesty International

Criticism by the left

This article is completely skewed towards the far far far far far far far right.

Amnesty International has many left-wing critics, including most of its own grassroots members, who contend that the organisation is run by people with a far-right ideological bent, in contrast to its mostly left-wing members.

For example, Amnesty International strongly supports the brutal occupation of Palestine, and strongly condemns anyone who fights against it.It also attacks any left wing countries for trying to support human rights.

And it has a very narrow interpretation of human rights, which doesn't include access to basic services.

Carl Kenner 07:02, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

Is there any link (preferable to AI web) proving that "AI supports occupation of Palestine"?

Viliam Bur 195.46.70.44 11:54, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

On the contrary.

From an Amnesty International report: "Some 3,700 Palestinians – most of them unarmed and including over 600 children – have been killed by the Israeli army and settlers, and almost 1,000 Israelis – most of them civilians and including more than 100 children – have been killed by Palestinians since the start of the current uprising (Intifada) in September 2000. In addition, Palestinians living under Israeli military occupation in The West Bank and Gaza Strip are subject to a wide range of human rights violations."

In my opinion, Amnesty International is remaining as neutral as possible—calling a human rights violation when it is, indeed, a human rights violation.

James 19:31, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

Carl Kenner's point are absolutely untrue: "As well as violating international humanitarian law per se, the implementation of Israel's settlement policy in the Occupied Territories violates fundamental human rights provisions, including the prohibition of discrimination. The seizure and appropriations of land for Israeli settlements, bypass roads and related infrastructure and discriminatory allocation of other vital resources, including water, have had a devastating impact on the fundamental rights of the local Palestinian population, including their rights to an adequate standard of living, housing, health, education, and work, and freedom of movement within the Occupied Territories." [1]

Donnachadelong 17:09, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

Criticism by the right

Top

...According to internal legends...

If the person who added this has some evidence that the organisation's own account of its founding is incorrect, please add it. Otherwise, I think should be removed. --Robert Merkel 11:06 Dec 13, 2002 (UTC)

Criticism of AI

I've deleted all of the critisism of AI part of this page, not because i feel Amnesty is beyond critisism, but because wikipedia is not a debating society. Look at the wikipedia Human Rights Watch page; half of it is not devoted to critisim, it's a short page that gives relavent facts. Amnesty International is a similar organization to Human Rights Watch and should therefore have a similar page. Sligahan

Before someone simply reverts to the old content, I would like to say I agree with Sligahan's arguments - wikipedia is not a debating society, although it sometimes has a tendency to become so for contentious topics. The amount of criticism here had gone totally out of proportion. Mentioning in a few sentences that certain regimes oppose AI is warranted, and maybe a few sentences should be put back, but all in all I applaude Sligahan's edits. (Barend 22:44, 9 February 2006 (UTC))

With the greatest respect to the reverter of the page; look at the Human Rights Watch page, is half of it about critisim of the organization? Enough of your point of view. Also Stephen Hopgood listed under 'Leading Critics' is an anthropologist, would he describe himself as a 'leading critic'? Anthropologists don't think in those terms; Jacques Lizot major critic of the Yanomami? If you feel the critism is that important you should start a seperate Wikipedia page for it. Sligahan

I'm sorry if there are those who don't think AI deserves criticism, while respecting their POV. Since we should strive for a NPOV article I think inclusion of critics of AI's viewpoint is warranted, provided that it isn't just another POV but is rather a presentation of factual information. Kaisershatner 22:13, 4 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Xed, even if I were a "sock puppet," which I am not, you still ought to make revisions based on NPOV facts, right? Allegations of "propaganda" are highly POV. I'd be happy to discuss our disagreement, but given some of the evidence I've seen about your style on Wikipedia, I'm not convinced this will go anywhere. Still, I remain open-minded that we can co-edit peaceably according to Wiki convention. Kaisershatner 15:21, 5 Nov 2004 (UTC)

As far as I can tell, Xed thinks you, me, two wildly different IP addresses, and possibly others, are all sock-puppets. I wouldn't take it seriously or personally. Jayjg 18:16, 8 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Despite the sober and neutral way that the criticisms of AI is delivered I would still consider this section to be highly POV because it contains only negative cricisms of AI without any refutation of the points - a criticism is not necesarily a negative analysis of something, merely an analysis. I think it would be a gesture of cooperation if the author(s) of this section went through and added equally neutral responses for AI and it's supporters so as to assure the neutral stance of this page. I think the length and breadth of the cricticisms is also somewhat prohibitive - do we note every single criticism made against AI in the popular press? That would make a very long and un-wieldy article. Surely it would be better to provide an example of each criticism (claims of pro-Palistinian bias, anti-American bias, etc) backed up with one or two examples followed by one or two examples of statements in defense. --Axon 17:15, 5 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Axon, as I stated on your User page, I think those are good criticisms and since I was responsible for listing all of those articles, I revised the main article by removing them and inserting a more abstract summary of types of criticism of AI, with fewer examples. I think this may be more effective. As a result I did not respond point-by-point to your criticisms of each example below, many of which raised good points. Kaisershatner 19:51, 8 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Kaisershatner, you edits are most welcome and go a long way to making this section more neutral and alleviating the edit war this page has been host to. You should be congratulated... erm... so I congratulate you ;)

I would still like to modify this section a bit more. For example, the argument in support of AI is still a little one-sided. I think an argument can be made that human rights abuses are more likely to come to light in a democracy with a free press (although I think that statement itself might be a little contentious depending upon your definition of free press). However, it ignores the fact that western countries might actually be guilty of more human rights abuses.

Also, some links to examples of pro- and anti- argument might also be useful and improve the depth of the article. --Axon 10:38, 9 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Detailed Analysis of Criticisms

Last focused on a March 26 press release by AI that castigated "coalition forces for "war crimes" on account of the U.S. effort to take Iraq's state-run television station off the air," while including only brief reference to the history of war crimes perpetrated by the Hussein regime

I'm not sure, but surely a report of American war crimes would naturally be quite brief with regard to the human rights abuses of others? Surely, a better point can be made by demonstrating that AI issues more reports about American war crimes rather than criticising individual reports (which would create a length article). Also, constantly referring to "war crimes" in inverted commas is highly NPOV... better to use the term alleged war crimes.

In another conservative American publication, frontpagemag.com, author Christopher Archangelli presented a timeline of AI press releases during the Iraq war in an effort to establish what he called "one-sided and transparently tilted condemnation of the United States, to the exclusion of the evils of Saddam Hussein."

Again, this seems like repeating itself. Perhaps we should merely establish that AI has been accused of anti-American bias.

In the same publication, author Steven Plaut praised AI's international work on behalf of human rights, and noted among other things AI's opposition to Iranian persecution of Jews [4] (http://www.frontpagemag.com/Articles/ReadArticle.asp?ID=8141). However, Plaut also observed that human rights violations are disproportionately identified and reported on in nations with a free press and with comparatively advanced rights protections, explaining "the AI reticence and almost total absence of denunciation of human rights abuses in places like North Korea and Cambodia. It also explains why AI apparently had no knowledge of the killing fields in southern Iraq until US and British troops uncovered them in the recent war.

Again, this is starting to read like we've copy-and-pasted text directly from a NGO Monitor publications and it seems be using language repeated from previous sections. A simple paragraph detailing allegations of anti-Isreali bias would be sufficient.

Plaut also noted that AI contends that "Palestinians have a “right”, not only to their own state in the West Bank and Gaza but also to migrate to and reclaim any property inside Israel they may wish to claim," without taking similar positions on the "right" of "Jews who were evicted from Moslem countries to reclaim their property."

Again, we seem to be repeating ourselves here. And we see those naughty, naughty inverted commas sneaking in. More detailed research for more sober quotes is perhaps required here. Or, as Plaut might say, more "detailed" "research" for more "sober" "quotes" is "required". ;) Does he talk like that all the time? Must get quite annoying at meal time: Can you "pass" the salt, please, "Mom"? Ahem...

n 2003, the Anti-Defamation League, an American Jewish organization with no political affiliation

I think describing the ADL as an organisation with "no political affiliation" (whoops, doing it myself now) is a bit misleading - it's like describing the British Conservative party as having "no political affiliation" with the American Republican party. Let's leave discussion of the existence or non-existence of ADL political affiliations on the ADL page.

The ADL has also complained that AI's reporting led to unsubstantiated accusations of a "massacre" perpetrated by the Israeli armed forces in the Jenin refugee camp.

I think there is a good deal more to this story than what is described above. As I recall, accusations were flying about all over the place.

The Plaut article also points out that AI has in the past "regarded the PLO itself as a reliable source about “abuses” committed by Israel. Addressing the media in Jerusalem in November 1989, Amnesty International spokesman Richard Reoch acknowledged that his organization regarded the PLO, which works with the PHRIC, as an objective information source. "Since the PLO is not a government body," he said, "we feel comfortable with Amnesty using them as a source."

I'm slightly more dubious about the above claim: a quick google for the phrase "Since the PLO is not a government body" only brings up four hits and all of those seem to a right-wing site, pro-Israeli site and this page. I can find no first-hand verification for this quote. I'm extremely dubious about the idea that AI really does regard the PLO as an objective source and this statement needs some more concrete citations otherwise it should be deleted. Even if (a big if) AI does source information from the PLO but that is not the same thing as regarding them as an objective source. Is there evidence that AI doesn't similarly source information from the Isreali government? Again, research is required here to achieve a neutral objective.

Writing in The Boston Globe on April 29, 2002, Charles Radin and Dan Ephron asserted that "Amnesty International’s charges against Israel were contradicted by Palestinian witnesses themselves. The group had falsely said that "Israel failed to provide safe passage from the camp to noncombatants."

One cannot help ask what is the relevance of the above. We've already established (again and again) that some individuals consider AI to be biased. What purpose does this serve?

In summary, this section is POV and needs careful, sensitive and well researched notes on this talk page before it can be modified into an NPOV state without kick-starting an(other) edit war. Let's all take a deep breath and remember that Wikiedia is not a soap box and you can't use it to prove one argument or another. Controveries must be clearly detailed, rather than presenting one side as fact with Wikipedia: weasel words. And let's refrain from putting words in quotation marks unless they are actually quotations. ;) --Axon 17:42, 8 Nov 2004 (UTC)

NGO Monitor

I also think it's slightly dubious making references from NGO Monitor - isn't this site funded by the right-wing purely for the purpose of discrediting left-wing NGOs? I think for the sake of neutrality and balance we need to be more careful about the references we source from. I would prefer that we reference broadsheet newspaper articles and other, more reliable and balanced media sources (such as the Conservative-leaning Daily Telegraph and it's international equivalents). I'm sure there are (many) other sources of criticism for AI rather than sourcing such material from NGO monitor directly. --Axon 17:02, 8 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Is NGO Monitor "funded by the right-wing purely for the purpose of discrediting left-wing NGOs"? What makes you think so? Jayjg 18:13, 8 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Regardless of who does and does not fund the NGO Monitor, I'm sure there are better sources of criticisms of AI which was my main point. Quoting only sources from the NGO Monitor is not a good way of presenting the argument against AI apart from anything else. --Axon 18:32, 8 Nov 2004 (UTC)

How do you measure "better" when it comes to sources of criticism? Jayjg 18:39, 8 Nov 2004 (UTC)

The accusation is that AI is biased. However, by using a source of information that is itself accussed of bias you are not really helping your own argument. Also, using a single source of information is not really a neutral way of presenting your information (and most of the quotes seem to be filtered through NGO Monitor). Finally, you combative and abrasive tone are not really helping anyone reach compromise and neutrality on this issue. --Axon 09:55, 9 Nov 2004 (UTC)

NGO Monitor is published by Dore Gold. Draw your own conclusions about its potential bias. --Alberuni 18:25, 8 Nov 2004 (UTC)

NGO Monitor is published by the Jerusalem Center for Public Affairs, which has been around for over 30 years. Jayjg 18:39, 8 Nov 2004 (UTC)

I think Gold's biography, itself printed on the JCPA site, says a lot about the bias of the JCPA, Gold and, by association, NGO Monitor. They print papers entitled "Wartime Witch Hunt: Blaming Israel for the Iraq War" and Gold himself has written a book called "Hatred's Kingdom: How Saudi Arabia Supports the New Global Terrorism". Whether you agree with his sentiments on not, you would be hard pushed to describe him as impartial on the issues of Palestine, Israel and Islam. --Axon 10:30, 9 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Guys... Attacking NGO Monitor for having a political view point does not make its arguments any more or less valid. That is known as an Ad Hominem attack or a logical fallacy. -Anon

But it's a very good arguement not to use it as the sole source of evidence. The DNC website might or might not contain compelling arguements - but using it as the sole evidence is absurd.

Counting reports

It is clear that NGO Monitor is playing games with its relative counts of Amnesty reports for Israel/OT versus Sudan. If you go to [2], and select the place you want, you can see a complete list. According to AI's own interpretation of what a report is (click "Reports" in the blue heading), 2001-2004 saw 42 for Israel/OT and 50 for Sudan. (Always assuming Zero can count...) In both cases the number includes any "report" that mentions the specified place, even if it is a single paragraph in a long document, so there is further opportunity for cooking the comparison. Counting all the documents listed there (not just "reports") I get 261 for Israel/OT and 268 for Sudan. From all this I conclude that the claim by NGO Monitor is unsustainable and so we should not quote it. --Zero 15:02, 25 Mar 2005 (UTC)

The dates given were wrong. The correct timeframe is given now, and the correct report linked to. Jayjg ^(talk) 21:56, 25 Mar 2005 (UTC)

big vs. small letters?

referencing the ai-logo, shouldn't amnesty international be written using small letters? --Addicted 16:19, 25 Jan 2005 (UTC)

No, that's just the logo. The group refers to itself as Amnesty International or AI. --Viriditas | Talk 03:29, 27 Jan 2005 (UTC)

I see. Thanks. I was just wondering because the austrian AI group uses small letters itself. but. when in Rome ... :) --Addicted 16:49, 17 Feb 2005 (UTC)

52 vs. 54; 192 vs. 195

The article currently has slightly different counts than the NGO Monitor report; isn't this just about choosing slightly different timeframes, based on an ambiguity in the wording of the NGO Monitor report? Jayjg ^(talk) 01:57, 27 Mar 2005 (UTC)

The whole exercise of counting ill-defined objects is completely ridiculous. The article looks really stupid. Your personal counts amount to original research since you had to made judgement calls as to what to include. --Zero 01:19, 2 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Well, the numbers were Mustafaa's counts, and yes they were original research, which he justified on the grounds that "I counted, and so can anyone else".[3] I've had this debate with him before; his view of what constitues "original research" is much narrower than what is actually covered in the policy, though I note now that he is apparently also disputing the policy itself. So you think it should be deleted? Jayjg ^(talk) 03:01, 3 Apr 2005 (UTC)

The numbers were formerly mine, and while they - being verifiable - do not constitute original research, they certainly don't do anything for the readability. I have replaced it with an equally verifiable but much shorter parenthetical correction to the JCPA claim. - Mustafaa 10:29, 3 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Good re-write; less original research than before. Jayjg ^(talk) 17:47, 3 Apr 2005 (UTC)

"Gulag"

The current entry says that

"In a 2004 Human Rights report, the Secretary General refered to Guantanamo Bay prison as "the gulag of our times," comparing the United States' treatment of unlawful enemy combatants held in the camp with the massive prison system covertly run by the Soviet Union under Josef Stalin to "re-educate" over 20 Million "political dissidents" through torture, forced labor, and other tactics."

From what I have seen, and the searches I have done in the online report, there is no comparison to the gulags in the report. According to one news story (which I found a few days ago when looking into other things), Irene Khan used the words at the press conference in conjunction with the release, but it was not clear whether she took the words from the report or not. It would be good if someone could source the gulag comparison, i.e. whether it is in the report or not (online version or otherwise) and in that case where. --kissekatt 03:30, 2005 Jun 3 (UTC)

[4]: The detention facility at Guantánamo Bay has become the gulag of our times, entrenching the practice of arbitrary and indefinite detention in violation of international law. -- 09:32, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Looks like I was looking in the wrong place. Thank you. --kissekatt 16:22, 2005 Jun 5 (UTC)

terrorist organisation links - axon didn't see sources

user:Axon removed the following:

===Support for leaders of allegedly terrorist organisations===

On June 17, 2005, at a one-day conference at Warsaw University, Amnesty researcher Gerardo Ducos appeared alongside Omar Lopez Montenegro, executive director of the Cuban-American National Foundation (CANF), an allegedly terrorist organisation closely associated with the killing of 73 passengers via the bombing of Cubana Airlines 455 on October 7, 1976. The Polish section of Amnesty International gave publicity to the conference including this alleged terrorist leader on its website. [5] This appears to suggest that Amnesty International implicitly supports terrorist methods for improving the human rights situation in Cuba.

The source is for whe claim that Ducos and Montenegro appeared together in the conference is on Amnesty's own web site which was already included as a source - even without understanding much Polish, you can see their names and get the general idea: [6] The sourcing of the claims about CANF are in the CANF article. So i guess adding (see CANF article for more) should be what Axon wants? Boud 15:45, 19 Jun 2005 (UTC)

You are correct: I certainly didn't see any sources in the above and previous versions of this section. You have only suppplied partial sources for the above: you have not cited evidence of links between CANF and terrorists, that the conference actually took place, etc, or a link to a reputable publication that makes the link that AI supports leaders of a terrorist organisation.

In fact, the facts do not even back up the assertion you made above: that is CANF is not a "terrorist organisation" but has links to a terrorist organisation. The correct title would be (if you could provide a reference to back up the link at all) "Support for leaders of a group allegedly linked to terrorist organisations". Not quite so catchy and highly tenuous and POV.

For the lack of citations above I deleted this section and rightly so according to Wikipedia policy. Axon 10:36, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)

POV

The criticism section of this article is getting out of hand. I would like to place a dispute tag on this article and focus on adding more neutral comments and expunging obviously biased information. Axon 16:56, 19 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Axon, your arbitrary removal of factual, referenced information is highly POV. The sources are there for you to look at. i don't see anything in cite sources which says that wikipedia articles are invalid sources, though i'm still looking. However, since you want the sources, i can copy/paste them from the CANF article. i would have thought that that goes against modularity (best to have references closest to what they talk about), but since that's what you seem to want, so be it.

Associating with a terrorist organisation is an important fact. The sources are there in the CANF article and your claim that this is bad wikipedia style is a poor argument for simply removing the text. The sentence is written in NPOV with allegedly. Maybe the CIA/FBI lied in their documents, but the documents are publicly available. Boud 17:34, 19 Jun 2005 (UTC)

This absurd, and unbelievably POV. (a) A single researcher appearing alongside a representative of an organisation does not constitute an endorsement of that organisation. (duh)

When a human rights organisation representative appears next to a well-known terrorist organisation leader, and when that meeting is advertised on the human rights organisation's website, it is a form of endorsement. Boud 18:25, 19 Jun 2005 (UTC)

(b) CANF is a perfectly legal organisation in the US and elsewhere, and whilst undoubtedly dedicated to the overthrow of Castro, there is no evidence that as an organisation it endorses terrorist methods. There is little evidence even that any members do/did.

The legality of CANF does not change the fact that it's a terrorist organisation. It claims to want to overthrow the Castro regime - and the links with terrorist methods seem rather uncontroversial to the CIA/FBI. Try reading the references, keywords Canosa - who was head of CANF from its founding in 1981 to his death in 1997 - and Posada

• http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/NSAEBB/NSAEBB153/
• http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/NSAEBB/NSAEBB157/
• http://ourworld.compuserve.com/homepages/JBFranklins/granma.htm

(c) How can it possibly be AI's job to vet every minor action by every one of its members to a tougher standard than the US government?!! Critics seem to demand that AI is whiter than white, and so perfectly balanced, so much pleasing everyone, that no organisation could even hypothetically meet those standards. Then those critics conclude that just because AI doesn't meet some impossible ideal it's all a waste of time. This is the counsel of despair. AI does as much good as could reasonably be expected, which especially for individual prisoners of conscience is a lot; it isn't there to fix the world. Rd232 17:56, 19 Jun 2005 (UTC)

i certainly agree that AI does a lot of very good stuff and i am not suggesting a counsel of despair. But this isn't about vetting every minor action. It's about associating with a terrorist organisation. Imagine if an Amnesty international researcher was present at a conference with a leader of al-Qaeda. Wouldn't this be rather embarrassing? This incident is an embarrassing fact - which Amnesty can live with and correct just as it continues to live on after the mistake about the test-tube babies in Kuwait. A human rights organisation should be able to admit (and then correct if possible) its mistakes, not deny them. Boud 18:25, 19 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Hmmm, i agree that this sentence This appears to suggest that Amnesty International implicitly supports terrorist methods for improving the human rights situation in Cuba. can be interpreted as claiming that this is general Amnesty International policy. i'll try rewriting it... Boud 18:42, 19 Jun 2005 (UTC)

It's still unjustified for an encyclopedia article. It's just not significant enough. It wasn't even a conference organised by Amnesty, and Montenegro appeared under a different name than the CANF. To demand the AI researcher to pull out of this conference - which included MEPs, Polish senators and others who (in full knowledge of Montenegro's background or not) shared a platform with Montenegro - is totally unreasonable. Sharing a platform with someone does not constitute an endorsement, even if the event in questioned is advertised on the AI website! There is no way that this non-event is significant enough for inclusion in an encyclopedia! I am removing it. Rd232 22:49, 19 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Would sharing a platform for a conference with a leader of al-Qaeda be a non-event unjustified for an encyclopedia article? Sharing a platform with a leader of al-Qaeda would constitute an endorsement by Amnesty, especially if it were advertised on an Amnesty website. The presence of MEPs and Polish senators is a sign of social acceptance of terrorism against official enemies - it does not change the significance of the fact.Boud 11:41, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)

No it wouldn't constitute an endorsement. In the UK, we have TV programme called Question Time, on which politicians of all stripes share a platform. They are not endorsing each other, any more than in Northern Ireland the parties endorsed terrorism by signing the Good Friday agreement that brought peace. How on earth is debate supposed to work if you can't share a platform with someone, at a conference organised by someone else (you make far far too much of a little advertising of a conference, which is standard), without being accused of endorsing everything all participants have ever said or done??? Rd232 13:28, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Question Time claims to have people from opposing points of view. At this conference, the advertisement - http://www.amnesty.org.pl/index.php/ai/content/view/full/2905 - makes no pretence of being two-sided or including people with significantly opposed points of view. E.g. noone from the National Committee to free the Cuban Five http://www.freethefive.org/ was invited. Boud 00:54, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)

In any case, without any significant people making a fuss about it, it qualifies as original research. Even if there was a fuss, the connection is so tenuous that it would be very difficult to justify inclusion unless it made major headlines in mainstream media. Rd232 22:49, 19 Jun 2005 (UTC)

It is not original research. The terrorist nature of CANF is documented by many, including the CIA/FBI. The sources are there. The event which happened in Warsaw is documented on the Amnesty International Poland website. NPOV does not mean just reflecting the opinions of the mainstream press. It means documenting things which either are uncontroversially accepted are which are clearly documented from third party , reasonably reliable sources. The fact of the conference is documented on Amnesty International Poland's own web site. This is not original research. You cannot remove a highly significant NPOV fact just because you haven't heard about it on CNN. Boud 11:41, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)

The fact that Montenegro appeared under the name of a different organisation is only marginally relevant: Suppose that Amnesty advertised a conference in which Ossama bin Laden, North-West Pakistani Human Rights Association appeared alongside an Amnesty researcher. This would be still be a highly significant fact even though Ossama would appear, in principle, in a role independent of his terrorist activities. Boud 11:53, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)

For someone who claims to "agree that AI does a lot of very good stuff", you give a very good impression of someone who hates them with a fiery passion.

You make the error of assuming that because i have brought up a previously documented error by AI i am opposed to it. That is simply wrong. i strongly support Amnesty. :) Boud 00:54, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)

To address your points (a) it is original research - IT being the allegation that this non-event has any significance, not that CANF has alleged terrorist links. Original research is not the same as "fiction" - I appreciate that you have made the effort to find original sources (AI website etc). However it is not reported in any media, mainstream or otherwise; there's not even any organisation of any kind, however tiny and pointlessly biased, that has complained. It is clearly original research.

Now you're grasping at straws to avoid a fact that you don't seem to want to accept. The significance of associating with a terrorist organisation is not something that requires research. Common sense says that associating with a terrorist organisation is a surprising fact for a human rights organisation. Incidentally, i see nothing in Wikipedia:No original research about the significance of a fact having to be previously documented. Boud 00:54, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)

(b) This non-event has no significance. You don't even know what was said at the conference! For all you know, that AI researcher opened his comments by saying, "Of course, neither AI nor myself could ever endorse terrorist methods which this person has been linked with, by this is not a reason for my walking out of this conference today."

Now you are speculating. It would be easier if we just stick to documented facts from reliable sources rather than speculate. Boud 00:54, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)

(c) Even if we accept the terrorist allegation and full knowledge on the part of the parties (but assume non-endorsement, as we must without further evidence), it is well demonstrated that only be engaging with violently hostile parties can progress be made. Look at the Northern Ireland peace process. Even if you don't accept this, CANF's views on why they take whatever actions they take (however reprehensible those methods may or may not be) are still valid views and not automatically to be excluded from polite conversation.

In that case, why do you want to exclude this significant fact? Boud 00:54, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)

(d) your Bin Laden example is absurd. You might as well say "But if AI demanded that we all hop on one leg whilst reciting the Kama Sutra backwards, that would be newsworthy." This is irrelevant - they haven't, and aren't likely to. It's also a false analogy, as Bin Laden is one of the world's most wanted men. Who in Poland has heard of CANF? Rd232 13:28, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)

i don't understand why you claim that the analogy is absurd. The fact that Ossama bin Laden is one of the world's most wanted men does not change the nature of CANF as being an (allegedly) terrorist organisation.Boud 00:54, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)

To Boud: Removal of uncited content from an article is perfectly legitimate edit according to Wikipedia policy. If you don't like it I would ask that you carfully cite all controversial edits rather than just adding them and expecting people to take you at your word and you may find your edits get reverted less.

i think you mean unsourced content. The material is sourced.Boud 00:54, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)

But it was clearly not when you first posted it and I reverted it. Axon 09:10, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)

What is more, I agree with Rd232 this section seems tantamount to original research (see WP:NOR). It may be true AI was at the conference and it may be true CANF has been linked by allegations to terrorist groups (which is vastly differrent) but has any reputable source made this link or are you making this link between them? If not then this is original research.

Was AI aware the CANF was "linked" to a terrorist organistion (FBI and CIA evidence exists for this but does this evidence stand up in a court of law? As we have seen by recent events, sometimes military intelligence can be trusted) or that they would be appearing at a conference? Conflating all of these facts into some tenuous accusation that AI therefore endorses terrorism seems not to be supported by the facts you have presented here. Axon 13:25, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)

i agree that the final sentence in the initial version that i wrote was badly written - in the most recent revert i removed it. i agree that it is possible to play the devil's advocate and assume that AI was ignorant of the facts, but speculating on the reasons for what happened is speculation, not reporting of sourced facts.Boud 00:54, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Please address the rest of my points above: has any reputable source made the link you make in this section or have you simply added tghe two facts together to make original research?

i have collected and organised the facts from primary and secondary sources. This discussion goes below in the discussion about what is original research. Boud 13:08, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)

As for playing devil's advocate, the whole section seems like speculation to me. The points I raise above are simply the unanswered questions as warnings that can come from original research. As we can see from the above questions a little knowledge is a dangerous thing: that is, one or two carefully selected facts can be used, by themselves, to create a novel interpretation of events. In this case to somehow arrive at the conclusion that AI is somehow associating with terrorists. Of course, your evidence demonstrates no such thesis. Using your logic, one could equally argue that judges are complicit in the crimes they try: after all, the are "associating" with the criminals at the trial which is all very suspicous, but only if you only consider a minority of the facts. Axon 09:10, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)

There is no novel interpretation of events here. It is only collecting together of sourced facts, which, given the stated goals of Amnesty International, are significant as a surprising (though possibly isolated) event. The analogy with a judge judging an alleged criminal is a poor analogy: the theme of the conference was not the terrorist events with which Omar Lopez Montenegro is allegedly associated, he was assumed to be one of many promoting human rights, his association with terrorism was not the theme of the conference.Boud 13:08, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)

"bunch of kooks with an agenda" - a POV statement that does nothing to prove either way an ideological bias of Amnesty. Many people have made statements about Amnesty, and this one is neither notable nor meaningful in its criticism Mostlyharmless 00:07, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

No Original Research

Wikipedia:No original research:

However, research that consists of collecting and organizing information from existing primary and secondary sources is strongly encouraged. In fact, all articles on Wikipedia should be based on information collected from primary and secondary sources. This is called source-based research, and it is fundamental to writing an encyclopedia.

So collecting and organising information from existing primary sources is strongly encouraged. In the section Association with a leader of an allegedly terrorist organisation of this version (see above discussion): http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Amnesty_International&oldid=15494084 IMHO there is only collecting and organising the information from primary sources and secondary sources.

Primary sources present information or data, such as archeological artifacts; photographs; historical documents such as a diary, census, transcript of a public hearing, trial, or interview; tabulated results of surveys or questionnaires, records of laboratory assays or observations; records of field observations.

There is no primary source in the section i added. It is collecting and organising information from existing primary and secondary sources and it is strongly encouraged.Boud 00:54, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)

There are no secondary sources. And the "no original research" issue is one of two issues sufficient to exclude the paragraph - the other that the facts you have collated cannot support any conclusions and are therefore meaningless. Rd232 08:39, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I've been through this numerous times before with others: you are misinterpreting the original research policy. The purpose of a encyclopedia is the collection and summation of primary and secondary sources - this is allowed. However, this is not what you are doing: you are providing an original thesis by combining sources in an original way. The starting paragraph clearly prohibits this:

"The phrase "original research" in this context refers to untested theories; data, statements, concepts and ideas that have not been published in a reputable publication; or any new interpretation, analysis, or synthesis of published data, statements, concepts or ideas that, in the words of Wikipedia's founder Jimbo Wales, would amount to a "novel narrative or historical interpretation"."

Clearly, without a reference from a reputable source making the link between CANF and AI and terrorism you are performing original research through a "synthesis of published data" for the purposes of discrediting AI. You are clearly not merely "organizing information from existing primary and secondary sources", as per the section of WP:NOR you are citing, but are going beyond this allowance to publishing "untested theories".

Here you are adding interpretation which goes beyond organising and collecting facts. The event does not do major discredit to AI - the fact of all the good work done by AI remains true independently of this event - it only shows an example of an event where AI made a mistake. It does not attempt to generalise further. So it is not an "untested theory".Boud 13:14, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)

An insignificant event from which one cannot generalise further. Sounds like encyclopedia material to me! Rd232 17:36, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I'm not sure what intepretation you mean: this is a talk page so all sorts of conjecture is possible. My intepretation of the no original research policy is itself far from original.

You are clearly taking the fact the A) a CANF spokesperson attended a panal with AI and B) CANF has been linked to terrorism to come up with the original conclusion C) AI supports or associates with terrorists. Without evidence for C from a reputable publication, you are performing original research and C and B do not belong in this article. It really is irrelavent if this section does or does not discredit AI.

I don't really know what else to say about this: you cannot include original research in an article and you have not provided any evidence that your assertion is not original research. Ergo. Axon 13:30, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)

If you really feel the need you could note that AI was at a conference in which CANF was also in attendance (and noting other attendees for balance) but I think such an insignificant factoid (we cannot note the presence of AI at every single conference in the world) would be quickly deleted as irrelevant. Axon 09:20, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Hmmm, maybe we're getting somewhere :). Boud 13:14, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Organisation

It's far from true that AI only pays a small core of directors. There is a 200+ strong staff at the International Secretariat in Clerkenwell, London which pays staff at all levels through directors, campaigners, lawyers and administrators. In addition, many of the sections (national offices) have paid staff. The contribution of volunteers is nevertheless crucial to the work of AI, particularly at the local level.  ::are you happy with me ammending this? Hx

yes. Rd232 17:17, 14 July 2005 (UTC)

yes, i'll do it, since noone else has. Boud 23:13, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

Article is badly skewed towards recent years

A common fault of Wikipedia, this article covers AI's activities and controversies in recent years heavily, but says little to nothing about AI's more significant presence in the 1970s and 1980s. What about all the political "prisoners of conscience" held by the Soviet Union that AI campaigned in behalf of? Nada. Wasted Time R 13:47, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

Agreed. Perhaps you can help? Mostlyharmless 06:17, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

I've added some text, with a couple of examples to illustrate. Hopefully others will contribute as well. Wasted Time R 13:46, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

"Articles critical of AI"

There is a long sections of links to articles critical of AI at the end of the article. Surely, for the sake of neutrality, it would be appropriate to add a list of links to some of the innumerable articles that exist praising AI? I find this long list another subtle way of making the article negative towards AI. (Barend 17:54, 14 January 2006 (UTC))

67.189.172.2 12:06, 24 January 2006 (UTC) I think it's also important for folks to understand that the origin of some of these criticisms of AI lie in the nature of AI as an organization dedicated to opposing the human rights abuses of governments, not terrorist organizations. For many years, AI was accused of bias in its coverage of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict because it reported on Israeli abuses and not on Palestinian acts of violence; however, at the time, the PLO was not in any way a governmental organization, and so the many acts of violence perpetrated by the PLO were outside AI's purview. A good artilce (not a Wikipedia article, but a journal article) is to be found in discussing the implications and consequences of this (in effect, AI often finds itself being used as a source of propaganda by terrorist groups it in no way supports, and then is blamed by association; on the other hand, it also means that AI sometimes has a blind spot for more transactional kinds of violence, in which governmental abuses are responsive to conditions created by a violent opposition group).

The fact that the current US administration, many of whose personnel used AI reports for years as sources for their critiques of US opponents, is now engaging in a group of policies that directly confront AI's mission has led to a great deal of partisan criticism of the organization. The fact is that concealed rendition has always been a target of AI, long before the current US administration decided to engage in the practice; the use of cruel and abusive interrogation techniques was always a target of AI, long before Abu Ghraib and Guantanamo; and the use of warrantless searches and surveillance against government opponents was always a target of AI (leading me to suspect that we may see some words on this subject in next year's AI report). Because the approach of the current US administration comprises a direct challenge to AI's mission, not only on an operational but on an ideological level, and because policies taken by the US are often reflected in the behavior of other countries ("if the US does it and isn't criticized, who has the right to criticize us?"), AI's critiques of current trends in the US are important to its mission, regardless of the overall human rights picture in the US as compared to other states. It rightly holds the US to a higher standard.

I agree with Barend. I commend the inclusion of critical material; but feel we need to redress the balance by including more details of AI's many successes, recognition as one of the most frequently referenced authorities on contemporary human rights abuses, and its "grass-roots" popular support across a vast range of groups and countries. Tranzid 16:32, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

Sligahan removed the critical material entirely [7]. I haven't reverted it because I suspect it might be better to start from scratch with the criticism; there is/was far too much detail on isolated cases (and where people have vested interests anyway). There needs to be more on the successes, and the criticism needs to be boiled down to a summary of the substance of it. Some of what was Criticism could be redone as History or something, which would entail a change of approach that would probably look less like an attempt by the article to take sides. Rd232 ^talk 00:25, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

I too have to agree with Barend. We cannot present solely a positive look on Amnesty International. Criticism exists, and we have to acknowledge that. However, we should still present material supporting them. -Serapindal

Limits to freedom of expression

It should be noted that AI does not take freedom of expression as an absolute: For example, on the Jyllands Posten cartoons, Freedom of speech carries responsibilities for all:

However, the right to freedom of expression is not absolute -- neither for the creators of material nor their critics. It carries responsibilities and it may, therefore, be subject to restrictions in the name of safeguarding the rights of others. In particular, any advocacy of national, racial or religious hatred that constitutes incitement to discrimination, hostility or violence cannot be considered legitimate exercise of freedom of expression. Under international standards, such "hate speech" should be prohibited by law.

And AFAIK AI does not defend the freedom of expression of say non-violent holocaust deniers. If somebody can find a explicit statement from AI on the limits that they recognize to freedom of speech, it would enlighten the article.

Does anyone here know what their position was regarding "Piss Christ"? Did they support the censorship of this work as they have the Muslim comics? -- Gerkinstock 04:35, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

Will AI certify David Irving as a prisoner of conscience? FWBOarticle

I feel that this section be moved to "Criticism" section as a subsection. The currently, the section is a bit of orphan. FWBOarticle

This piece is deeply unfair, focussing on one statement where (in fact) Amnesty's position is echoed by many other organisations (including journalists' unions), and excluding the serious work AI has done to campaign against state repression of journalists and in favour of greater press freedom. Examples: [8], [9], [10]. donnachadelong

Did this section ever criticise AI for trying to protect journalist? However, it is a matter of fact that AI has never criticised jailing of likes of David Irving which are pretty much universally condemed in U.S. and other coutries where restriction on hate speech is seen as a covert attack on the freedome of expression. So AI's position is popular in Europe and Middle East. Does it make AI's position right by default? I don't think so. The previous version merely spelt out what AI's position is in term of hate speech without making judgement as to whether it is wrong or right. Now you are inserting your defence of AI's position, which looks like an original research. It is not sourced to AI's documentation and it appear to be your personal interpretation of an international treaty. I inserted counter argument to make it NPOV, however, I do believe both advocacy and critics of AI's position should be deleted. Vapour

Guantanimo Bay

This sentence:

The Government of the United States has offered many investigators access to Guantanamo Bay, but as of this date none have taken the offer.

is surely not true? In which case it should be deleted. Perhaps someone better informed than me should do so. 217.155.116.125 13:52, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

I intend to remove it on the basis that its motive is suspect, and therefore the author should be expected to cite a source. I am not an expert on this topic, but it seems unlikely to me that AI would have made the claim if they had been offered a legitimate visit rather than a "guided" tour. I call on the author of this sentence to either support the statement or hold his peace. In the meantime, I would probably consider amending it, but since I don't have enough knowledge about what exact reports or events the author may be referring to, I think it really needs to just come out for the moment. Perhaps the redadction will spur the author to consider alternative wording. Fowler Pierre 14:06, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

AI was told that they weren't able to interview the prisoners. Acording to Scott McClellan, it is because the detainees are trained to give misleading information. Blue Leopard 04:32, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

Yes. Access to Guantanamo is not the same as access to the prisoners. There were offers made, at least to UN officials, to come see Guantanamo. But to my knowledge no one but the Red Cross has been allowed or offered access to the prisoners. And the Red Cross is allowed under the condition that it does not make any of its findings public. Anything they find can only be reported to the American military authorities. -- noosphere 06:26, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

There is recent controversy over whether Amnesty International will adopt a pro-choice stance. I feel it would be nice to have this as part of the article. --PaladinWriter 14:22, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

I agree, although the section would have to reflect the fact that considerable controversy exists within the organisation over the issue, and will be ongoing at least until the next international meeting where sections get together in 2007. Already there is significant misconstrual of positions and debates by external media and organisations with vested interests (on both sides), and the section would have to be worded carefully to avoid the bias that inevitably follows this particular issue. There are a range of proposals, which further complicates the issue. I might have a go at it next week when I'm not so busy Mostlyharmless 07:16, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

Errors in reporting: The First Gulf War

In the section dealing with criticisms of AI over reporting errors, the article currently states:

Reporting errors: Gulf War incubator babies

In the run up to the Gulf War, in a report on human rights violations in occupied Kuwait, Amnesty International stated that "over 300 premature babies were reported to have died after Iraqi soldiers removed them from incubators, which were then looted". The report lent credibility to the story which was reported widely in the media. In the US Senate, several senators specifically cited the allegation in their speeches supporting the resolution to give President George Bush authorization to use American forces in Kuwait. However, the information was unverified and later some of it proved to be false. Amnesty International retracted its report, saying it had become clear that the allegations were baseless, drawing widespread criticism as it did so.

This only tells half the story. Yes, the allegations were in fact fabricated -- but they were fabricated by a PR firm hired by the Bush Administration, which then used Amnesty's report to help justify war against Iraq. (This sounds like a wild conspiracy theory as I read over that sentence, but the whole affair is in fact well documented.) Doesn't anyone else here think that this information is crucial?

Furthermore, this is the only instance of reporting errors cited in the article. Does that qualify it as "[s]ome of the most persistent criticism levelled at Amnesty International"? --Todeswalzer | Talk 18:24, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

Suggested Compromise to the 'Criticism Debate'

I tend to agree with the above poster (Sligahan) that, whether AI deserves or does not deserve criticism, Wikipedia is not "a debating society" and therefore a focus on "criticisms" doesn't seem appropriate to this article. Nevertheless, I would like to propose a compromise that might resolve the conflict between the two camps here. Rather than listing criticisms and countercriticisms, I would suggest developing a topographical overview of the tensions that have surfaced within the human rights movement generally and Amnesty International specifically. Such an overview may have a place in this article given that Amnesty International has been an instrumental driving force behind the entire human rights movement.

For example, rather than criticising Amnesty for its stance on free-speech/hate-speech and starting up a whole debate on where the line should be drawn, the focus should be shifted to the tensions the movement necessarily has had to face over what to do ABOUT the issue of hate speech. What have previous human rights leaders and/or political thinkers said about the matter? How have those views impacted Amnesty? In short, I think this section should deal more with WHERE Amnesty's positions have come from and, perhaps to a lesser extent, the differing views that got the organization to where it is today.

I believe this compromise has the potential to settle this debate once and for all: it allows a place for those who believe that "criticisms" of AI should be reported here, but it also allows that debate to be brought to the surface in an academic and impartial manner. That is, it allows valid points to be voiced without degenerating into street-talk politics.

Please, some feedback on this suggestion. --Todeswalzer 19:57, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

Your suggestion of compromiss seems to be a thinly disguised attempt at moderating criticism of AI. It's NPOV as long as criticism/advocacy is properly spelt out as such. This site never pretend to present absolute truth. What's required is accurate description and attribution of opinions. BTW, I'm fwbo. Vapour

The current section on AI's position on Sudan is ridiculous. The Darfur conflict is the TOP priority fopr the movement internationally at the moment, and has been for at least the last year. I'm putting a POV tag on that section until it's sorted out. 219.89.69.93 02:39, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

That section is completely factual. The fact that AI is NOW getting involved in Darfur (as of 2004) does not explain their relative quiessence in the previuous twenty years. -- Avi 03:06, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

It's worth pointing out how I have seen "Criticisms" section develop in other articles, in a way which preserves NPOV. The crucial thing is that the section is not a place to develop your own ideas of criticisms, and NOT a place to develop rebuttals. It doesn't matter whether the article is about an organsation that is "good" or "bad" and whether the criticisms are "true" or "false". It is a place to report the fact of specific and well sourced criticisms that have happened. The fact is the existence of the criticism. If there are well sourced rebuttals (e.g. specific press comments or reports from those criticised), they might belong there, but this should not develop into a game of one-upmanship of sources, and never editorial rebuttal of sources. Changing a section that reports criticisms into one that reports internal tensions is not at all the same thing (though both are good, if they can be sourced). Notinasnaid 07:47, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

Far too much of this section is connected to Israel and the pro-Israeli point of view. Where's the coverage of Jamaica's criticism of AI's work on homosexuality? Of so many governments rejections of AI's research? The Counterpunch article giving the left-wing perspective [[11]]? It's highly selective, which explodes the "completely factual" argument. Donnacha 23:20, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

Go ahead and bring that if you find suitable sources. In my opinion, it is rather telling that there is so much reliably sourced information about AI's Israeli stance. -- Avi 23:55, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

Moving information to other articles

While I do not disagree with the concept of another article, per se, the information about each NGO must remain in that NGO's article, otherwise that defeats the purpose and the new article becomes nothing more than a POV fork to whitewash the NGO, in my opinion. -- Avi 00:44, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

Not sure I see how creating an entire article criticizing the NGOs can be called a "whitewash". In any case, this article originally had nearly a third of its contents devoted to the controversy over AI's Israel/Guantanamo coverage. This gives readers the impression that AI is an organization devoted to criticizing Israel and the US, when in fact it covers dozens of countries. Furthermore, I didn't "remove" the material from the main page, I left a summary of the criticisms (which you were welcome to expand) and a link to the complete text. Tyronen 13:55, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

I still believe the natural place for each is the parent article, and if it gets too large, a sub-article of the parent article like "Perceived bias of AI" or something like that. I believe it mitigates the effect of the facts about each NGO were the criticisms lumped into one article predominantly. But that is only my opinion. Also, I think we should centralize this discussion somewhere. For the time being, talk:Human rights groups and the Middle East can serve, whether or not that becomes the main article, a secondary article, or should be put up for AfD. -- Avi 14:14, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

The Dershowitz link

I read the Dershowitz blog post, and then hunted for the original Amnesty report it was based on. The latter can be found here: [12]. The problem is that Dershowitz is very clearly twisting the contents of the AI report. If you read the report, it merely lists the problems Palestinian women face: the Israeli occupation, and patriarchalism within Palestinian society. It does not rank one above the other. It never blames the latter on the former, as Dershowitz claims. Given the fundamental intellectual dishonesty of his argument, it does not belong in a Wikipedia article. Tyronen 21:35, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

Read the section "2006 Israel-Lebanon Conflict" on Dershowitz' own page and his political bias in favour of Israel over human rights and international law is clear. He's arguing for collective punishment - Article 33 of the fourth Geneva Convention specifically forbids collective punishment. Donnacha 13:35, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

NGO Monitor

I'm having doubt about this one too. The NGO Monitor and Don Habibi articles cited are from 2004 and describes the AI web site as it was then, which can no longer be verified. Today, the Sudan section has 398 articles, going back to Jan. 5, 2003 [13]. The Israel/OT section has 480 articles [14] but these go to Sept. 21, 2001. That's about 110 articles per year for the Sudan and less than 100 for Israel and the Palestinian Authority combined, which doesn't show the bias NGO Monitor writes of. Tyronen 21:35, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

The article should make clear that it is the historic position that is being criticised. I reckon it should be rewritten and go in History. Tell me to get back to work! 22:00, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

The argument is spurious anyway. The selectivity of AI's work is explained, it's not a "bias". The piece implies that AI is biased against Israel, a key argument of pro-Israeli groups, rather than the reality that Israel is in breach of international law on many points, Israel is a relatively open, accessible, democratic country where campaign work can have effect and where research is relatively easy to carry out. If anyone can come up with an allegation of "selection bias" that appears to favour two similar countries, then there might be a point. Israel and Sudan are not comparable in terms of the ability of AI to do work (Sudan regularly denies visas, for example), thus are not evidence of bias. The Darfur crisis made it easier to research and work on because so many refugees ended up in Chad, where they were easier to contact. Donnacha 13:46, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

Is there anywhere where AI outlines the position you've just stated? Tell me to get back to work! 23:57, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

Sorry, forgot about this. Not really, NGO monitor isn't a credible organisation. My views above are my personal analysis and do not represent an official view of the organisation. Donnacha 20:21, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

Info box

Am I wrong, but the info box used in the article seems to be inappropriate and further is full of wrong information. For example although AI is a NGO, in terms of business the organization resembles a company limited by guarantee. Also AI has not 1.8 million employees, human rights are by no means an industry and certainly AI has no revenue and lobbying, conducting research and providing consultancy can't be regarded as products. Therefore I removed it. Attraho 20:13, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

Where is the symbol of amnesty?

And the reason to why there isn't a proper picture of Amensty Internationals symbol (the burning candle surrounded by barbwire) is.............

Control Arms campaign

The piece just added, which I've removed, was ridiculously inaccurate. The campaign relates to the arms trade and absolutely NOT to individual ownership. Anyone wishing to write an accurate piece on this should actually check the facts and not inaccurate NRA propaganda. Try the Small arms proliferation article for starters. Donnacha 21:50, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

First, please try to speak civilly and not assume that I'm a 'redneck' that bases info on NRA articles. Second, that was a sourced statement from the Amnesty International website. Third, it's clear that when the arms trade is controlled, it is controlled for everybody, and they are asking governments to regulate the transfers of weapons. It doesn't take a genius to see who's going to be disarmed..it won't be the governments or their militaries.

Fourth, the article you just referred me to says this in it's first sentence: Small arms proliferation is a term of art used by organizations advocating the restriction of small arms sales to private citizens in conflict zones. These organizations argue that restricting the number of small arms in a conflict zone will reduce the number of deaths. So you just showed yourself wrong and me right. Fifth, you by your own admission, are a member of this organization and should not be editing it. But here you are keeping fact out of it!

My statement was accurate and it was sourced. Show how it is unfactual or it stays. Whiskey Rebellion 00:17, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

In any case, the gun control issue does not belong in the intro as it is not a core part of Amnesty's identity. It should be in the "Criticism and response" section. Secondly, the phrase "thereby disarming the populace from the very oppression they claim to defend them against" is not found in the Amnesty site. It is an inference which is unsourced. Inferences are considered original research and should not be in articles. Tyronen 05:34, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

I've already sought a correction to the small arms proliferation article. The campaign is for a UN arms control treaty that would regulate the sale of small arms to every party in conflict zones. The quote you used did not support the contention you made. The obligation is on you to prove the piece is factual, not on me to prove it isn't. Donnacha 08:57, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

This section needs to NPOVed immediately. Only in some parts of the world is gun control regarded as oppression - it's a POV. That aside, the campaign does not seek to regulate the legal ownership of guns, but, rather, the unregulated trade in arms. There's a huge difference. Even the gun lobby argues that there is a problem with illegal weapons - the campaign seeks to tighten the rules around the international trade to prevent the major importation of arms for unlawful use, particularly in conflict zones, where civilians rarely have anything like the access to guns militias and government has. Donnacha 17:10, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

You are %100 correct. There are parts of the world, like Cuba, where gun control is not considered oppressive. And then there is those silly freedom loving Americans with there odd ideas of gun ownership. Wait a minute... Cuba->gun control, America->gun freedom.... Is there some connection here? hmmm, I wonder.... Dullfig 17:20, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

It's considered oppressive in any parts of the world where people need to defend themselves and then find they cannot because the military and other criminals are armed and they are not. How hard is this to understand? It's one of those things you would think speaks for itself. I used to like and support AI until I read an article about a year or so ago concerning this at the Common Dreams site. Im not pushing pov I'm pushing fact. And again, you, Donnacha, should specifically not be editing this article, as you, yourself, say on your page. Whiskey Rebellion 17:41, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

AI is very much interested in gun control. Here's one of their goals: "Community level: Civil society and local government agencies to take effective action to improve safety at community level, by reducing the local availability and demand for arms." [15]

There's nothing there about allowing regulated gun ownership. It's also worth noting that their partners in that campaign, Oxfam and IANSA, are advocates for gun control. AI has changed.

--Randy2063 23:52, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

Whether or not you (inaccurately) see the Control Arms Campaign as gun control, opposition to gun control is a POV, as is support of it. The piece argues that gun control is repression, a major POV and should be changed immediately. Donnacha 16:46, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

We see the Control Arms Campaign as gun control inaccurately? Wow. Exactly what is the Control Arms Campaign if not gun control? Of course, it is gun control. The Piece has already been moved to the Criticisms section, which is fine and appropriate. Are you saying this shouldn't even be in the criticism section? What are you saying? Whiskey Rebellion 17:48, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

Yes, you see the campaign to get a UN treaty to regulate the Arms trade inaccurately as a campaign to control ownership of guns, which it isn't. The piece is in the Criticisms section, but is itself a criticism rather than a statement of the fact that AI is part of the Control Arms campaign and a verifiable citation of criticism from the NRA (who have criticised it) or any even-handed attempt to seek out any refutation from AI. It's POV, this site is supposed to be NPOV. Donnacha 22:58, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

With all due respect to the very intelligent debaters here: The question is not whether we wikipedians believe that AI's campaign to regulate the arms trade is a threat to the individual right to bear arms. The question is whether some significant figure or group has claimed that AI's campaign to regulate the arms trade is a threat to the individual right to bear arms. If there is no such significant critic, then the criticism of AI (for hypocrisy, for supporting some individual rights and not others) is original research, and the gun control section should be removed. If there is a significant critic, then the gun control section needs to be backed up with a reference to a quote or press release from that critic. (In the interest of full disclosure, I am 152.3.246.169, who reinstated the material on gun control by Whiskey Rebellion as NPOV'ed by Tyronen, as I was unaware that this discussion was going on. My apologies.)Pan Dan 18:37, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

I've had a go at NPOVing it. Straight-forward facts rather than opinion. Donnacha 11:10, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

Looks good. (The Fact Template: the great compromise-maker! :) ) Pan Dan 14:27, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

You really need to stop editing this article as you work for Amnesty International. Concerning crticism of AI's arms control campaign, AI is mentioned 2X -- the facts are there. I referenced them. You are nit-picking and trying to say a warthog is not a warthog cause it's not specifically stated that this warthog is a warthog which negates the warthogginess of all warthogs after the year 2005, which is technically the year of the Warthog. Whiskey Rebellion 17:53, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

AI is quoted, not criticised in that piece. In fact, the two AI mentions are used by the author to back up his argument. Find actual criticism of AI or the Control Arms Campaign, not criticism of gun control activists that you wrongly categorise the Control Arms Camapaign to be. This is an article about AI, not about the UN and its allies. If you can't find direct criticism of AI or the campaign, then this shouldn't be in the Criticism of AI section. It's quite simple, you're creating a strawman. Donnacha 18:16, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

The AI mentions:

"While the blacks there are forbidden to possess arms, the Arabs are given arms by the government--five or six guns per person, according to Amnesty International." "The Sudanese victims are generally unarmed. Amnesty International reported the testimony of a villager who complained: “None of us had arms and we were not able to resist the attack.” One under-armed villager lamented: “I tried to take my spear to protect my family, but they threatened me with a gun, so I stopped. The six Arabs then raped my daughter in front of me, my wife and my other children.”" [NRA article]. They do not constitute criticism, quite the contrary, in fact. This is a case of the NRA using AI research to support their argument. Donnacha 18:19, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

So what's your point? The blacks are unarmed and will remain so if the arms trade is cut off. Now with the proposed legislation, they will never have a chance at self defense. Whiskey Rebellion 18:28, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

That article doesn't criticise AI or the Control Arms Campaign, do you have a problem with English? It backs up your POV, but this site is supposed to be NPOV. Find actual direct criticism of AI or the Control Arms Campaign and then it's fine. This isn't it. Donnacha 18:43, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

Do I have a problem with English? No. Do you have a problem with keeping your own word concerning editing this article? Clearly yes. The only POV pushing that is happening here is yours and your inabiity for the inclusion of cited sources. I'll rewrite it, then, and take it out of the critcisms section and include it in another section. I'm sure you'll have a problem with this also. Fact is fact, Amnesty International person. Whiskey Rebellion 22:22, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

My only POV is that this site should be balanced and NPOV. As pointed out on the anarchism thread, you are clearly here to cause trouble. I'll have a problem with everything you write that has a POV and is not purely factual. Donnacha 13:06, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

This might piss off some "American gun nuts", Donnacha -- Domestic Sales -- Improve domestic laws or regulations on the sale of military-style weapons within the United States. It might even piss off some Americans who believe they have the right to defend themselves with a 2nd amendment to the constitution.

So find DIRECT criticism of AI from legitimate sources. Clearly you're having a problem doing so. Donnacha 13:06, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

No. Clearly I'm having a problem with your POV pushing and lack of sincerity in editing this artilce. I'll admit that the way I wrote my origninal edit did have a POV in it. I'll rewrite or do whatever I have to do. You are too closely involved with Amnesty to be editng this article and you know it. I found a criticism source but you had problems with it for no good reason. No matter what I edit here you have problems with the edit and resort to calling me names like "American gun nut". And this is after I explained that I used to support Amnesty. You're not supposed to make ad hominen attacks, in any case and personal attackss are out here. And you're clearly reaching for straws with your arguments and getting desparate. I imagine that's why you changed what you said on your page concerning editing this article. Whiskey Rebellion 21:12, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

You linked to an article that had NO criticism of AI in it. You claim the Control Arms Campaign, which has clear aims, is about something it isn't. You are currently being condemned on the Anarchism talk page as a glove puppet of a banned user and have shown an inability to adhere to the rules of this site. You now, finally, admit you wrote a POV piece, yet you continue to claim that personal knowledge of an organisation and its campaigns makes me inappropriate for fixing misrepresentations and POV. You clearly have no understanding of how this site works or the principles of NPOV, which I do. I have no problem with there being an accurate representation of criticism of AI - I have challenged you, over and over again, to find appropriate DIRECT criticism of AI or the Control Arms Campaign, which you have failed to do - instead you attack me. Donnacha 22:04, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

Donnacha has been completely honest about his position, Whisky hasn't, and so far hasn't actually found evidence to back up his edits (i.e. opinion first, find facts/evidence to support it later, if possible) It's Whisky's kind of POV pushing that that drives away legitimate editors who care about getting accurate and truthful articles... Tell me to get back to work! 22:11, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

I have been completely honest about my edits. When I said there was some POV in my original edit I was being honest and I was referring to one statement that I wrote "Thereby disarming,etc." I just wrote a factual, non-biased edit that comes straight from the horse's mouth, the Amnesty website and Donnachade reverts it with no explanation whatsoever. And btw, Donnachade, that was 4 reverts in one day. What POV can I be pushing that only states the facts and nothing else. The reader can draw his or her own conclusions. You, on the other hand, keep trying to remove this fact as if it were an embarassment or worse to you and to Amnesty. Please see 3RR, NPOV and NPA. Whiskey Rebellion 23:08, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

Your POV is clear to anyone who reads your edits and what you write - you are a pro-gun person (also an oxymoron, sorry, anarcho-capitalist as is clear elsewhere). My POV is clear to everyone else as well - I want clear factual NPOV information in the acticle, in a balanced manner, that represents things fairly. Below this is a call for someone to write up a critic of AI's position more clearly. I've sought a cite for the NRA criticism. You maintained a factual error in the History part - AI doesn't lead the campaign. You're also trying to highlight the campaign more than any other, due to your POV. Everyone can see it and it's clear that, just as in the Anarchism article, you have no interest in facts, just pushing your own POV. It's also very clear that there is no way you're someone who just signed up a month ago. Donnacha 23:17, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

Israel: Paul de Rooij

Someone really needs to do some work to balance the article and the Paul de Rooij articles linked at the bottom provide a strong counter-point to the pro-Israeli stuff. I'm not going to write it myself, for obvious reasons, but someone really should. Donnacha 14:53, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

Control Arms II

There is now an article about the Campaign for those who want to go into detail about it.

This article -- let's just stick to it

I have now rearranged the wording of the first sentence in my edit. If you still find something wrong with this edit then your hidden agenda is showing and it's showing even worse than ever. Stop attacking me and address the edit. It is factual. It is neutral. It is straight from the Amnesty International website. And it is sourced. You have to have a better reason than "You have to be kidding." which was the edit summary in your last revert. Stop trying to keep fact out of this article. And also, like Humus sapiens said, "I didn't realize this article has an owner" Only, you do not own this article, Donnachadelong. Whiskey Rebellion 04:03, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

You reverted me MOVING the Dershowitz link to the correct part, thus having it there twice. It shouldn't be in the External Links section. You insist on adding excessive information about the Control Arms Campaign because of your POV. I've reverted again and, if you don't stop, I'm going to report you for your POV. This article should have clear, factual and BALANCED information. Your arms control obsession puts in you in the same category as the Zionists and their pro-Israeli nonsense. Donnacha 08:57, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

First I'm "an American gun nut" now I'm a "Zionist". Oh yes, and let's not forget "oxy-moron anarcho-capitalist". You rudely insult almost everyone you talk to and attack, not on their edits, but them personally. You go right ahead and report me for POV, if that's what you call straight fact. Most importantly, though, you have been told by an admin that you aren't allowed to edit this article anymore. Continue on, Donnacha in the direction you're going. Fine by me. Whiskey Rebellion 09:51, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

I didn't call you a Zionist, and the Dershowitz link is still there twice. Donnacha 13:47, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

Okay. Sorry about that. I didn't realize you had moved it. I thought you had just deleted it. Which link do you want removed? The one in external links? Whiskey Rebellion 13:58, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

Yes, it should be alongside the other articles in the Bibliography, not in the permanent external links piece. I'm a bit dubious about most of those pieces in the Bibliography - some people are being lazy - as they represent a load of criticism that should be written up properly rather than just stuck in as links at the bottom. The Paul de Rooij stuff, in particular, should be one paragraph (it's a counter-point to the pro-Israeli stuff). Donnacha 14:03, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

Okay. I'll move it. To be totally honest with you, I'm not sure why, though. I mean why is it better suited in the biblography section than the external links section? I'm not trying to be rude. I'm just trying to understand. That's all. Whiskey Rebellion 14:27, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

If I could answer that, if the article was used to help put the page together (leading to one of the other sources, providing insight into how something should be worded, etc., or serves as a source for information in the article), then it's appropriate for the Bibliography section. If it merely further illustrates something in the article, then it belongs in External Links. Captainktainer * Talk 14:43, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

Actually, it's neither (which is also the case with the Paul de Rooij links), it's a link to the latest Dershowitz rant about AI and the war between Israel and Hizbollah in Lebanon. It seems to be the case that links to criticism not covered in the article are just lumped together here. As I said above, it would be far better if someone took the time to actually write up these criticism properly if they're important enough to be part of the article. Donnacha 14:55, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

Dershowitz is still there twice. Donnacha 10:03, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

Calm down and let's look at this again

Came over from AN/I. I'd rather keep this off the admin radar, so let's try a few things. First of all, as I pointed out on AN/I, this is a free encyclopedia. It is not a battleground; it is not a place where screaming matches and namecalling should happen. So... chill. Drop the namecalling, forget that the namecalling ever happened. Drop the grudges. I guarantee that your life will be a lot better. Second, why is the arms control bit in Criticisms? Looking through the history, I'm not seeing anything in particular that suggests that anything related to arms control is something that notable commentators have focused on. Unless it's a notable criticism, it doesn't belong in the "Criticism" section. The fact that something can be criticized does not mean that it belongs with criticisms of the org. Bear in mind that I'm not suggesting that a mention of the arms control situation shouldn't be in the article... just that it's inappropriately located and contextualized. There's already a mention near the start of the article. Finally, with regard to "conflict of interest, editors with a personal stake in an article are not prohibited from editing; however, they should be careful to remember that all edits must be sourced, that they must conform to a neutral point of view, and that it is always important to be civil with those with a different point of view on the subject. Captainktainer * Talk 11:26, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

Thanks, Captainktainer. A cooling down time is a good idea. Whiskey Rebellion 13:07, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

It's a long story where my edits went from the main text to the criticisms section and then back to the main section because Donnacha kept objecting to them. Anyhow, I took them out of the criticisms section as now they are back in the main history section.

Campaigns

A compromise suggestion related to the History section. My problem with it currently is that there is an excess of information about the Control Arms Campaign (could someone please reinstate the link?) in contrast with other campaigns. A solution to this is to separate out the Campaigns into their own section and provide the same amount of detail about Stop Violence Against Women, Stop Torture and Ill-treatment in the War on Terror, Irrepressible.info, Crisis in Sudan, etc. Donnacha 15:00, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

Israel-Lebanon conflict

Wakey, wakey people. A very clumsy update has just been added under Selection Bias linking to a reasonable article. Instead, there should be a section under criticism, utilising the Dershowitz piece, linking to the AI press release (http://news.amnesty.org/index/ENGMDE020182006) and then maybe utilising some of the linked article. Donnacha 18:43, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

Critical Viewpoints

Good idea, but most of the Bibliography should be moved there. I don't think any of it relates to material in the article. Donnacha 11:11, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

Very true; it's more a 'list of criticisms of Amnesty' at the moment. The Land 17:30, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

2006 Israeli-Palestinian conflict

The BBC News reports here that AI has criticized Hezbollah, too, of war crimes; not just Israel (per the section "Alleged selection bias.") That should be updated... Mkilly 01:33, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

Specific cases

I'm about to delete the recent additions about some specific investigations AI has done. They're poorly written and there's no indication as to why they're notable among the many thousands of human rights abuses AI has investigated, and don't seem to tell us anything about the organisation itself. If anyone can tell me why they deserve inclusion I'd be happy to listen. There probably are some notable cases not included that do deserve specific attention though. Tell me to get back to work! 01:31, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

Changes by Jbd107

I don't think "movement" is a better description for AI than "NGO." Could I ask you for some clarification as to the reasoning behind this change and your others? Thanks.

Septegram 22:32, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

The Introduction

I think we should have a frank and honest discussion over the introduction to this article. The current introduction is as follows:

Amnesty International (commonly known as Amnesty or AI) is described as a non-governmental organization, and as a worldwide movement of people, which campaigns for internationally recognized human rights. It compares actual practices of human rights, in countries, with internationally accepted standards and demands compliance where these have not been respected. To these ends it undertakes research and campaigning to mobilize public opinion in the belief that it is this which has the power to exert pressure on governments.

Amnesty International states that it is independent of economic, political and religious interests. It does not support or oppose any particular government or group, nor does it support or oppose the views of the victims whose rights it seeks to uphold. It is concerned solely with the impartial protection of human rights.

Amnesty International is unpopular with some and is often criticized, but its principles and efforts are well respected by many. It is a Nobel peace prize laureate and its information is sought both by news agencies and governments alike.

Its official symbol, a candle surrounded by barbed wire, was inspired by the Chinese proverb: "It is better to light a candle than curse the darkness".

I see a number of problems with this, which include both content and style.

Content

• Amnesty isn't "described" as a non-governmental organization. It is one.
• While it's true that Amnesty campaigns for internationally-recognized human rights, the organization tends to focus on certain rights, such as freedom of expression, assembly, right to fair trial, etc. All of this was included in the introduction before, and I don't know why it was removed.
• "Unpopular with some and often criticised"? This certainly creates the wrong impression: Amnesty is probably the most highly respected human rights organization in the world, and while this does not place it beyond criticism, the vast majority of those criticisms have been levelled at it by governments for purely political -- and not factual -- reasons. Its portrayal in any mainstream newspaper is significantly different from how it is portrayed, for example, in a government press release responding to Amnesty's human rights concerns.
• Related to my previous point, the introduction says nothing about how the organization is received by the public as a whole. The organization has a well-developed reputation and this is not reflected in the article's introduction at all, I suspect because of the ongoing debate over criticisms of AI. (Which, for some reason, is highly polarized here.)

Style

• The language and sentence structure is choppy and inconsistent throughout. The first two sentences need particular attention in this regard.

This is the introduction from about four months ago:

Amnesty International (commonly known as Amnesty or AI) is an international non-governmental organization with the stated purpose of promoting all the human rights enshrined in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and other international standards. In particular, Amnesty International campaigns to free all prisoners of conscience; to ensure fair and prompt trials for political prisoners; to abolish the death penalty, torture, and other treatment of prisoners held by international law to be cruel or inhumane; to end political killings and forced disappearances; and to oppose all human rights abuses, whether committed by governments or by other groups.

Amnesty International has a long history of pursuing neutrality within the context of its campaigning for the protection of human rights. The organization officially describes itself as "independent of any government, political ideology, economic interest or religion. It does not support or oppose any government or political system, nor does it support or oppose the views of the victims whose rights it seeks to protect. It is concerned solely with the impartial protection of human rights."[1] As a result, Amnesty International is among the most widely respected human rights organizations in the world.

It was awared the Nobel Peace Prize in 1977.

This one isn't perfect either, but it makes some of the most important points, makes them succinctly, and does it in fewer paragraphs than the present one. This intro also has the advantage of pointing out AI's particular focuses (on torture, political killings, and disappearances, etc.) without neglecting the broader international human rights standards. Furthermore, it quotes Amnesty's madate directly, which I believe to be important because those three simple sentences sum up perfectly what Amnesty International is as an organization. This also allows the organization itself to be presented before its criticisms.

Like I said, neither of these intros is perfect, but, obviously, I prefer the latter (for the reasons already explained). With perhaps a few changes to reflect the recent developments of this article, and of course input from everyone else in this discussion, I would like to replace the current intro with the older one. --Todeswalzer | Talk 18:57, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

Criticisms by Governments

Amnesty International has been criticised by a very large number of governments, who feel that the criticisms made are unwarranted, overly harsh, are particularly one sided, or ignore mitigating factors. While these may or may not be true, if we include the response of every government affected, and counter responses by Amnesty and its defenders, the article will be very very very long. Lets keep it reasonable, and decide which criticisms are strictly necessary, and which aren't. 130.195.86.37 22:21, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

Govt of India criticism is necessary as

1. It bolsters the claim that AA screws around with democracies (India is the world's largest)
2. Indian government represents 1/6th of the world's population
3. IT shows that AA ignores Muslim terrorists.

Hkelkar 22:23, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

Hkelkar, thank-you for making your political bias painfully clear to the editors on this page. Furthermore, you may want to get the name of the organization right before you criticize it. --Todeswalzer | Talk 17:25, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

The A stood for amnesty. The other A stood for a word that I shall refrain from expanding out of politeness. Yes I happen to agree with Nobel Laureate David Trimble when he said 'One of the great curses of this world is the human rights industry. They justify terrorist acts and end up being complicit in the murder of innocent victims.' However, my edits are well-sourced and I have established it's relevance so you can't delete them. Why is it that the libertarian fanatics on wikipedia always respond to issues with argumentum ad-hominem I wonder.Hkelkar 17:39, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

I'm curious: where/when precisely has AI "justified terrorist acts?"

Septegram 21:08, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

Read the ref.These are said by the Government spokesperson.Oh,and before the usual leftist torrent of Indophobia begins,let me assert that India is NOT some banana republic whose democratically elected government can be dismissed blithely. It, at least, bears mentioning.Hkelkar 21:33, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

First of all, I made no ad-hominem attacks upon you. I've merely stated the facts: your obvious political bias as well as your deprecation of Amnesty as an organization. As such, I think my concerns about your editorial impartiality are justified; those concerns are fundamentally different from baseless personal attacks. Moreover, your assumptions about my own political leanings are quite misguided, not to mention highly irrelevant.

Perhaps more to the point, Amnesty International has never justified the use of violence for any ends whatsoever. If you had bothered to check your facts you would have realized that Amnesty has a record of consistently condemning the use of terrorist tactics, particularly with regard to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. More than that I don't think I need to say; you've already discredited yourself in this forum. --Todeswalzer | Talk 20:41, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

But AI scoffs at the ethnic cleansing of the Kashmiri Pandits by terrorists, tacitly condoning the atrocity (which, I'm sure, helps a lot with their Saudi funding).Hkelkar 21:33, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

Firstly, the references in the section you added do not support the claims you've made. The Govt of India spokesperson imputes motives to AI that it really doesn't have. There is no secret Kashmir agenda. Amnesty takes no money from governments, and never has. And to repeat the above, Amnesty does not 'scoff at' or 'condone' the violence of any group, and explicitly condemns such actions. The paragraph needs a rewrite; I think it should be pulled out and put here until NPOV problems can be sorted out. Mostlyharmless 01:42, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

The Disputed Paragraph
In line with the previous recommendation, I've removed the NPOV-disputed paragraph and included it below so that it can be reworked and (hopefully) later put back into the article with a more neutral stance. --Todeswalzer | Talk 01:51, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

In a similar vein, the Government of India, the world's largest democracy, has also accused Amnesty International of biased coverage regarding communal problems and Terrorism in India. The bias is alleged to be along the same lines as the "selection bias" above, with disproportionate focus on communal riots against the Muslim minority in the country, and minimizing (and often justifying) actions by Islamic Fundamentalists, such as Terrorism in Kashmir and atrocities committed against Hindus, including the ethnic cleansing of the Kashmiri Pandits by the Islamist militants, the Wandhama Massacre and others. In a strongly-worded rebuke, Navdeep Suri, a spokesperson for the Indian High Commission alleges that Amnesty's hollow condemnatory statements on recent massacres of Kashmiri Pandits "further eroded its credibility- by trying to establish some bizarre form of moral equivalence between the actions of terrorists, the plight of victims and the responsibilities of government authorities".He also said that Amnesty international was confirming "a pattern of reporting that can only be interpreted as a deliberate attempt to project events in a manner that suits Amnesty’s own version of reality"[16][17].

How can you establish that Ai doesn;t have those motives? A statement like that reeks of WP:NPOV.Let's analyse the paragraphs shall we?

In a similar vein, the Government of India, the world's largest democracy, has also accused Amnesty International of biased coverage regarding communal problems and Terrorism in India. The bias is alleged to be along the same lines as the "selection bias" above, with disproportionate focus on communal riots against the Muslim minority in the country, and minimizing (and often justifying) actions by Islamic Fundamentalists, such as Terrorism in Kashmir and atrocities committed against Hindus, including the ethnic cleansing of the Kashmiri Pandits by the Islamist militants, the Wandhama Massacre and others. In a strongly-worded rebuke, Navdeep Suri, a spokesperson for the Indian High Commission alleges that Amnesty's hollow condemnatory statements on recent massacres of Kashmiri Pandits "further eroded its credibility- by trying to establish some bizarre form of moral equivalence between the actions of terrorists, the plight of victims and the responsibilities of government authorities".He also said that Amnesty international was confirming "a pattern of reporting that can only be interpreted as a deliberate attempt to project events in a manner that suits Amnesty’s own version of reality

The first sentence is fine. The fact that it is a selection bias is based on India being a democracy (see AI's ridiculous exxagerations and perorations about India)

The toi article states the allegation as a:

mystifying reluctance to condemn (terrorism) in black and white" and a curious attempt to obfuscate the real issues involved in Sunday’s tragic murder of 24 civilians in Jammu and Kashmir.

This is, of course, just one in a long line of massacres of Hindus in Kashmir, the most famous ones being the Wandhama massacre and the Kaluchak Massacre, which I cited as examples, but one can be more specific if you want and remove the two specific massacres that I had put there. AI, of course, responds with it;s usual dismissive attitude and tried to placate the spokesperson with hollow platitudes, and you can put that in the paragraph below as a "rebuttal" or whatever and that's fine I guess.

The "Disproportionate focus on communal riots etc" is self evident from theiir farce of a website, but is not quite what the govt said so can be reworded to be more specific to the incident at hand. I will, of course, find more criticisms about their atrocious attitudes that are more general in nature, although the main culprits in the arena is the terrorist front Human Rights Watch, but I will get on that article later.Hkelkar 01:53, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

Oh, and here is another article by Francois Gautier alleging bias regarding AI:

http://in.rediff.com/news/2004/jul/30franc.htm

It's an op/ed, of course, but it can be used as a primary source while qualifying Gautier as the critic.

Hkelkar 01:56, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

Amnesty International is being denied by the Indian Government the right to investigate these massacres [18].

As is Human Rights Watch. India's continued to restriction of access, makes verfication of such claims impossible. Sometimes they get it wrong, but blaming them for not releasing reports on things they're not allowed to investigate is just ridiculous. And calling HRW a terrorist organisation isn't exactly neutral. Mostlyharmless 08:02, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

Er, countercurrents is an extreme left wing site which publishes propaganda for many terrorist cells and organizations. They have routinely published op/eds glorifying terrorist groups like Hamas, Fatah, Hezbollah and even Osama bin Laden and al-Qaeda. they have made various anti-Israel and anti-semitic charges and have recently spilled over to anti-Hindu dialectic.

They are reliable only when they archive from other sources. a native countercurrents source does not satisfy WP:RS and their claims are usually either outright falsehoods or illegitimate exaggerations. Besides, Kashmir is a war zone and so some restrictions are natural. That is just an excuse being used by HRW and AI and bears no weight unless you can substantiate them with more reliable sources.

And yes, HRW is a terrorist front.My opinions are my own and I certainly won't enter them into the article(s) unless I can source them in a neutral narrative, but HRW is definitely a cabal of terrorists who should be hanged from lampposts.Hkelkar 08:13, 24 October 2006 (UTC)