Talk:Amnesty International

...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'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)

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 [1], 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".[2] 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)

[3]: 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)