Talk:Amnesty International/Archive 3

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Work in practice

This may be a silly question, but the article does little to explain what is that the organization does in practice. Surely some examples can be found? ~~ — Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.214.53.253 (talk) 06:08, 28 August 2014 (UTC)

Article is promotion for AI

Discussing the edit which requests a talk page: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Amnesty_International&diff=660588237&oldid=660580681

A lot of material is from a primary source (AI's website). That's good for important facts but entire chunks of text are directly taken from their website. Whether the content is controversial or not is not relevant, but whether it's notable enough to be in the article is. In particular, Artists For Amnesty doesn't appear notable at all and has never been covered by newspapers. Going with WP:PRIMARY, "be cautious about basing large passages on primary sources" and WP:NOTPROMOTION, "self-promotion requires notability". White Anunnaki (talk) 14:57, 3 May 2015 (UTC)

Clearly some of the material you deleted was notable, such as the list of sections. I'm not terribly fussed about Artists for Amnesty. AI's principles on violence are quite important and appear accurate to me, but should be referenced better. If you are too lazy to look for sources you could put a citation needed tag on it and then someone else will. Deleting them doesn't help. The objectives section is a bit of a mess but deleting large chunks of it doesn't help. -- haminoon (talk) 04:36, 4 May 2015 (UTC)

Lazy? We'll go very far if you insult me. You're not terribly fussed about Artists for Amnesty. Meaning? The list of sections appears twice. Here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Amnesty_International#Structure and https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Amnesty_International#National_sections. White Anunnaki (talk) 10:17, 4 May 2015 (UTC)

Re Artists for Amnesty:I don't mind if it stays in the article or not.

Re laziness:I wouldn't take it too personally - its me that pointed out the problems with the lack of references and hasn't fixed it yet.

Re "Article is promotion for AI": The article is very different and more informative than typical advertising from AI.

The list of sections and structures is there twice, but why delete the second one when the first one is out of date?

Does anyone mind if I delete the outdated and misleading table in the Country Focus section? I think the timeframe used makes it completely useless now. -- haminoon (talk) 11:33, 4 May 2015 (UTC)

I agree that the table in the Country Focus section can and should go. I can't tell what a simple count of press releases issued 15-30 years ago indicates. If it's an attempt to show which countries Amnesty focused on back then, it's very weak, making no distinction between (for example) press releases that responded to events and press releases accompanying Amnesty reports.

The "Artists for Amnesty" endorsements might be better as a category that could be applied to those films, if the endorsement was mentioned and sourced in the individual film's article - not all are. However the new tag on that section is an article tag, not a section one (it begins "The topic of this article may not meet Wikipedia's general notability guideline" !) so I'll remove it. NebY (talk) 19:54, 6 May 2015 (UTC)

Copyright problem removed

Prior content in this article duplicated one or more previously published sources. Copied or closely paraphrased material has been rewritten or removed and must not be restored, unless it is duly released under a compatible license. (For more information, please see "using copyrighted works from others" if you are not the copyright holder of this material, or "donating copyrighted materials" if you are.)

For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or published material; such additions will be deleted. Contributors may use copyrighted publications as a source of information, and, if allowed under fair use, may copy sentences and phrases, provided they are included in quotation marks and referenced properly. The material may also be rewritten, providing it does not infringe on the copyright of the original or plagiarize from that source. Therefore, such paraphrased portions must provide their source. Please see our guideline on non-free text for how to properly implement limited quotations of copyrighted text. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously, and persistent violators will be blocked from editing. While we appreciate contributions, we must require all contributors to understand and comply with these policies. Thank you. Diannaa (talk) 20:42, 24 August 2015 (UTC)

Omega Research Foundation

Judging by the statement "The flourishing trade, manufacture and export of tools of torture by Chinese companies is fuelling human rights violations across Africa and Asia, new research by Amnesty International and the Omega Research Foundation reveals" on this article https://www.amnesty.org/en/latest/news/2014/09/china-s-booming-torture-trade-revealed/ there are ties between the Omega Research Foundation and Amnesty.

Would someone like to write an article about the Omega Research Foundation or perhaps information about the relationship between the 2 organisations could be included in the Amnesty article. Aaabbb11 (talk) 19:05, 11 September 2015 (UTC)

Amnesty International userbox

For those of us who are into userboxes, I have created one for Amnesty International: just add {{Template:User Amnesty International}} to your user page. Note that logos such as the imprisoned candle cannot be included as userbox icons due to licensing issues, so I just used the initials AI. If anybody has a better idea for the userbox icon, I would be glad to see it. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 17:53, 11 December 2015 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 7 external links on Amnesty International. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090318015725/http://www.mcgill.ca/files/rgchr/ISQsubmission.pdf to http://www.mcgill.ca/files/rgchr/ISQsubmission.pdf
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120113082445/http://www.amnesty.org/en/library/asset/ORG10/005/2003/en/497640ed-d6a4-11dd-ab95-a13b602c0642/org100052003en.html to https://www.amnesty.org/en/library/asset/ORG10/005/2003/en/497640ed-d6a4-11dd-ab95-a13b602c0642/org100052003en.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100211120857/http://www.spectator.co.uk:80/martinbright/5757557/amnesty-international-moazzam-begg-and-the-bravery-of-gita-sahgal.thtml to http://www.spectator.co.uk/martinbright/5757557/amnesty-international-moazzam-begg-and-the-bravery-of-gita-sahgal.thtml
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130921053805/http://www.amnesty.org.uk/news_details.asp?NewsID=20967 to http://www.amnesty.org.uk/news_details.asp?NewsID=20967
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120616201705/http://www.amnesty.org:80/en/library/asset/FIN40/007/2011/en/bda6d734-96ed-4474-a0a2-fae044f8caa1/fin400072011en.pdf to http://www.amnesty.org/en/library/asset/FIN40/007/2011/en/bda6d734-96ed-4474-a0a2-fae044f8caa1/fin400072011en.pdf
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://cosmos.ucc.ie/cs1064/jabowen/IPSC/articles/article0004573.html
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.amnesty.se/upload/files/2011/05/19/IEC%20letter%20to%20the%20movement%2025.2.11.pdf

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

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

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

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 21:19, 11 October 2016 (UTC)

CAGE Controversy subsection included

Properly referenced. I don't understand why its not here there are 3 other articles discussing it and Amnesty controversy.Asilah1981 (talk) 15:59, 21 January 2017 (UTC)

Orphaned references in Amnesty International

I check pages listed in Category:Pages with incorrect ref formatting to try to fix reference errors. One of the things I do is look for content for orphaned references in wikilinked articles. I have found content for some of Amnesty International's orphans, the problem is that I found more than one version. I can't determine which (if any) is correct for this article, so I am asking for a sentient editor to look it over and copy the correct ref content into this article.

Reference named "dd":

• From Digital object identifier: Davidson, Lloyd A.; Douglas, Kimberly (December 1998). "Digital Object Identifiers: Promise and problems for scholarly publishing". Journal of Electronic Publishing. 4 (2). doi:10.3998/3336451.0004.203.
• From Gita Sahgal: Guttenplan, D.D.; Margaronis, Maria. "Who Speaks for Human Rights?". The Nation. Retrieved 12 March 2016.

I apologize if any of the above are effectively identical; I am just a simple computer program, so I can't determine whether minor differences are significant or not. AnomieBOT⚡ 02:03, 27 January 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 5 external links on Amnesty International. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120616164118/http://www.amnesty.org.il/_Uploads/dbsAttachedFiles/For2009.pdf to http://www.amnesty.org.il/_Uploads/dbsAttachedFiles/For2009.pdf
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120616170758/http://www.amnesty.org.il/_Uploads/dbsAttachedFiles/foreign.pdf to http://www.amnesty.org.il/_Uploads/dbsAttachedFiles/foreign.pdf
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://cosmos.ucc.ie/cs1064/jabowen/IPSC/articles/article0004573.html
• Added {{dead link}} tag to http://www.hrvc.net/news8-03/23b-8-03.html
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.spectator.co.uk/martinbright/5759197/gita-sahgal-a-statement.thtml
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.amnesty.se/upload/files/2011/05/19/IEC%20letter%20to%20the%20movement%2025.2.11.pdf

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

Y An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

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

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 03:56, 4 July 2017 (UTC)

Harvey Weinstein image in 1980s

Perhaps less appropriate now given recent events? Remove? Minkus (talk) 14:17, 30 October 2017 (UTC)

how did it start?

Amnesty started when Peter Benenson saw an article in a newspaper stating that two Portuguese students were arrested for toasting to freedom in May 1961.He then made his own article in the Observer newspaper called the forgotten prisoners .this is how the term prisoners of conscience was created. it means people who were imprisoned of tortured for expressing human rights.01:27, 21 December 2017 (UTC)69.156.67.156 (talk)

Publications section or page

Hi all, I am wondering why the article does not include a section listing the notable publications of the organization (primarily their annual reports). Has this been previously deliberated and the current article is the results of those discussions? Or they are not listed just because no one has yet done it? So I am seeking either some background on whether this has been discussed, or, if not, start the discussion now here on whether that should be added (either as a "publications" subsection in the article, or as a stand-alone list article). Thank you. (talk) user:Al83tito 20:50, 11 March 2018 (UTC)

By the way, here is a list of the annual reports:

"The Online Books Page presents serial archive listings for Amnesty International Annual Report". University of Pennsylvania. Retrieved February 2, 2018. {{cite web}}: |archive-date= requires |archive-url= (help); Unknown parameter |deadurl= ignored (|url-status= suggested) (help)

(talk) user:Al83tito 03:10, 14 March 2018 (UTC)

Background on the logo

It is better to light a candle than curse the darkness

• "Brand Hub". Amnesty International.
• "Amnesty International logo". logo design love.

This would make a great new section on the page. 65.196.107.197 (talk) 19:22, 20 March 2019 (UTC)

Why is "Criticism of Amnesty International"on a separate page

We have a page called Criticism of Amnesty International here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Criticism_of_Amnesty_International and yet we have a seemingly incomplete section called: "Criticism and controversies" on this page? Why not bring all the criticism onto the AI page. Why a separate page? We have many pages of orgs that have criticism on the same page. Why is criticism of AI removed and placed on separate page? It feels political to me. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jaytee1818 (talk • contribs) 21:04, 10 July 2019 (UTC)

To add to article

To add to this article: a list/history of Amnesty International's directors. 173.88.246.138 (talk) 06:15, 9 September 2020 (UTC)

Harry letters

Information on the Harry letters must be added to Amnesty controversies: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Harry_letters_affair 200.161.111.169 (talk) 20:17, 25 October 2020 (UTC)

Luis Kutner erroneously listed as founder?

Hello,

I wanted to bring this up for clarity, as I am not a frequent Wikipedia editor and do not wish to cross any conventions not known to me by making the edit myself - but I've been directed to a particular piece of info on this page so many times that I felt it was necessary to call attention to it.

Luis Kutner is listed as co-founder on the infobox. There is no citation for this, nor is he mentioned at any other point in the entire text. At least two of the central references used in the Luis Kutner page note that the only source for this - his obituaries, not even cited here - have exaggerated his claim. One of those references is a statement by Amnesty International themselves.

It seems like absent any reliable sources, no supporting information in the main body, and repudiation by the organization in question, Kutner shouldn't be listed as co-founder in this article. Astrosimi (talk) 15:38, 15 March 2021 (UTC)

It additionally seems like the addition of Luis Kutner was added by an unregistered IP, with that edit being its only contribution. Given that, I've going to go head and make the edit. Please revert the page if I've done something incorrect. Astrosimi (talk) 16:13, 15 March 2021 (UTC)

Chairman change

Could anyone edit the 'Secretary-General' section? Chairman has been changed at 29 march: https://www.amnesty.org/en/latest/news/2021/03/dr-agnes-callamard-appointed-as-secretary-general-of-amnesty-international/ I've done this edit few days ago, but it's been reversed. An XLinkBot didn't like a link to the Amnesty's official site (!) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 31.130.135.96 (talk • contribs)

Done. – Ammarpad (talk) 17:29, 4 April 2021 (UTC)

Navalny

The section on Alexei Navalny seems unduly long, giving a presentist slant to this article. The incident is currently not in the Navalny page, where it seems more due. Would it be a good idea to trim some of the material here out and use to expand the other article? BobFromBrockley (talk) 17:59, 1 March 2021 (UTC)

• @Bobfrombrockley: "The incident is currently not in the Navalny page ..." - what do you mean? It is on the Navalny page.--Renat 05:53, 2 March 2021 (UTC)

Yes, you're right. There is now one sentence (apologies if it was there yesterday and I missed it), far less detailed than the discussion on this page even though more relevant on that page. BobFromBrockley (talk) 09:35, 2 March 2021 (UTC)

• Hello, I created this section initially, and agree that it had got too long (I've just removed an irrelevant and poorly sourced paragraph someone added on a prank call to Amnesty). I agree there needs to be at least some reference to this on Navalny's page, which is currently out of date (it still references Amnesty's initial PoC designation in January 2021 with nothing about subsequent developments), so I'll add something about it there and a link to this article's section. However (especially with the statement a couple of days ago that Amnesty are, as a result of this incident, reviewing their use of the term PoC), I don't think this section should be on Navalny's page because it's not just about him, but about the term in general. Perhaps, depending on what happens with that review, it should eventually be moved to the prisoner of conscience page (I've already added a bit about it and a link to the section here). Hyuhanon (talk) 16:09, 9 May 2021 (UTC)

I agree with your edit on Navalny's article.[1]--Mhorg (talk) 16:40, 9 May 2021 (UTC)

• I do not think this story is notable enough to be included anywhere beyond noticing the simple fact that Navalny is currently recognized by the Amnesty as a prisoner of conscience (on the page about Navalny). My very best wishes (talk) 01:04, 10 May 2021 (UTC)

On this page, the relevance is that Amnesty was played by Russia over Navalny's status and that this caused some controversy, but in the bigger history of Amnesty it's a minor chapter so only needs a couple of sentences. It feels to me worth going into more detail on the Navalny page, but it currently doesn't feature at all. BobFromBrockley (talk) 15:31, 10 May 2021 (UTC)

"but in the bigger history of Amnesty it's a minor chapter so only needs a couple of sentences" - I agree with that. My very best wishes (talk) 17:04, 10 May 2021 (UTC)

EDIT REQUEST: Re-add section detailing difference of Amnesty report to other apartheid reports

Hi,

Yesterday I added a section in Amnesty International#2020s detailing the report dubbing Israel as Apartheid; I see that the passage has been updated with additional info, but the updated passage also removed a key passage that explained why the Amnesty report stands out when compared to B'tselem and HRW:

As opposed to similar documents by other organizations, such as HRW and B'tselem, Amnesty International's report claims all of Israel to be an apartheid regime, regardless of whether in the occupied territories or in Israel proper.

I believe this line should be re-added to the passage, as the context is vital to understanding the Israeli response, which is present in the same paragraph.

Furthermore, in the new and updated, passage, I believe this could be copy-edited for clarity:

Israel rejected the accusations as peddling should be changed to Israel rejected Amnesty International's accusations as peddling. This is because the words "the accusations" may grammatically refer to all three allegations (both HRW, B'tselem and amnesty), whilst the quoted response refers solely to Amnesty's report, as appears in the cited BBC article.

---

So, to summarize, my edit request is as such:

A- add sentence describing why Amnesty's report stands out to HRW and B'tselem (which have claimed apartheid only in the West Bank and Gaza, unlike Amnesty which claim it is present in all of Israel). See example sentence I've typed above (which was present prior, but has since been removed without reason)

B- replace "the" with "Amnesty's" for clarification. --Xland44 (talk) 14:04, 3 February 2022 (UTC)

Need a secondary source on this, and iirc HRW made similar points. Eg here they discuss Israeli policies in the Negev and other areas within Israel as potentially constituting violations of the prohibition on apartheid. nableezy - 17:03, 3 February 2022 (UTC)

Undue tag

Hi there, SS. I'm surprised that a single sentence describing a joint statement by all Jewish Democrats in the House - a very rare thing, given that this includes people whose views on the topic at hand are as diverse as Ted Deutch and Andy Levin - strikes as you as undue. What do you propose? As usual, looking forward to a rational and well-reasoned discussion.Publius In The 21st Century (talk) 16:02, 16 April 2022 (UTC)

The comment by O'Brien and reactions from US politicians to the comment may be relevant to Amnesty International USA and O'Brien's page (if he had one). Burrobert (talk) 17:51, 16 April 2022 (UTC)

Excellent point - when I'm able, I will add a bit on Amnesty International USA, too. Thanks! Publius In The 21st Century (talk) 18:13, 16 April 2022 (UTC)

SS, since we are now engaging directly with each other on other pages, I thought this might be an opportune moment to follow up here. It has now been more than two weeks, and I've yet to hear back from you. I fully understand that people can be away from Wikipedia for a while (this happens to me with some frequency), and I'd have no qualms about waiting for you in that case. But it appears that you have been very active indeed in the interim. With respect, throwing in a tag on what seems to me very thin grounds, then refusing to engage in a discussion about how to resolve the issue, seems a notably unhelpful way to proceed. I refuse to imagine a scenario where the tag was thrown in simply to cast doubts on the section and without any real intention to work constructively to find a solution, so perhaps you will work with me - and any other concerned editors - in a respectfully timely fashion to resolve any concerns you have? --Publius In The 21st Century (talk) 22:16, 1 May 2022 (UTC)

@Publius In The 21st Century: You haven't even pinged @Selfstudier. You can't assume editors are watching talk pages of articles they edited. Iskandar323 (talk) 22:35, 1 May 2022 (UTC)

Thanks for the ping, I am following the page. Selfstudier (talk) 22:39, 1 May 2022 (UTC)

Hi Isk, delighted that you liked me so much you followed me here. Greetings! Always a pleasure to make a new friend.

Though I am of course grateful for your intervention, with respect, I must kindly ask you to do a bit more research into the history of this conversation. Perhaps I can help summarize matters. On March 12, SS and I worked together to gain consensus on this section following my edits on February 23 and SS's objections. (I invite you to consider that exchange in the section above this one.) I then made a further addition on April 16 as events developed further. Within minutes, and without any further discussion, SS introduced an UNDUE tag. Because I think it is important to respect the spirit and the letter of the rules, I then invited SS, who was - as he seems to have said, and as his behavior suggested - following the page and monitoring developments quite carefully, to engage with me, in the same fashion as I had done on March 12. No reply (though another editor suggested I might also add the material to other pages, which I duly did). Then, most unusually, without replying to my message (or indeed providing any further explanation here) SS proceeded to delete all the text, including that which we had worked together to hammer out. Because that is obviously inappropriate, I have reverted that edit, and invited SS to engage further. And here we are, my dear Alexander. So, SS, looking forward to the conversation we ought to have had before the inexplicable deletion of April 28.

Now, I have no doubt that you and SS are both smart, thoughtful people who are capable of making serious arguments and behaving in a respectful fashion, and it is on that basis that I am looking forward to future exchanges with you. Publius In The 21st Century (talk) 19:53, 2 May 2022 (UTC)

Regardless of your innocent tone, I would appreciate it if you refrained from casting aspersions. I didn't need to follow you anywhere. I was already following Amnesty - just as I follow a lot of pages involving human rights ... and Amnesty itself is more than a little topical right now. As for the content, it is clearly undue. It currently as much space on the page as the international coverage of the Apartheid report. This being an off-hand comment at a random political club by a regional representative versus a milestone human rights report by Amnesty International. Which brings us back to @Selfstudier's pertinent point that this would be more due, if anywhere, on an Amnesty USA page or section. Separately, it is unclear if this episode has been covered by any news outlets outside of Israel, drawing yet further questions over the depth and the significance of the coverage. Iskandar323 (talk) 21:15, 2 May 2022 (UTC)

I cast absolutely no aspersions - I simply note the sequence of our exchanges, which began elsewhere and have lead us here. Incidentally, having had a closer look at your block history and various discussions concerning you on the noticeboards, Iskandar, I am determined to continue to behave respectfully and appropriately with you - and I trust that, lessons perhaps having been learned, you will manage to do the same in return. I also trust that your claim that, despite my having cited three US-based publications (Jewish Insider, the Jewish Journal, and the Jewish Telegraphic Agency) which covered the events in question, the event was not covered outside of Israel is not an act of antisemitism, as if all Jewish things had to somehow be Israeli things; I would never accuse someone of that on these grounds, and can only imagine that the comment came from ignorance rather than malice. On the plus side, I'm glad to have been able to demonstrate just how international Mr. O'Brien's ill-fated remarks were - as you suggest, he can certainly feel he has done justice to the name of his organization, at least on those grounds. With best wishes Publius In The 21st Century (talk) 22:40, 2 May 2022 (UTC)

Great. More aspersions. And way to not see the wood for the trees. The fact that all of the US examples above are community-specific information projects does not dispel the notion that the coverage of these events is fairly narrow. If this was serious news, one might expect a major international news agency to at least spin a stub at some point. But this is all besides the point, because Wikipedia is WP:NOTNEWS and this was only ever a tangent from the broader issues about due weight. Iskandar323 (talk) 05:22, 3 May 2022 (UTC)

Excellent point - when I'm able, I will add a bit on Amnesty International USA - never happened, not that I can readily see what difference adding such would make. So after some time had passed, I reverted and I have just reverted again. The edit has no consensus, three editors agree it is undue.Selfstudier (talk) 21:29, 2 May 2022 (UTC)

1. Happened quite literally the same day: [2]

2. You and I had attained consensus on the first round of edits on March 12. If you had a grievance with the additional edits beyond that, fine - we can discuss, but there is absolutely no grounds to remove what you and I had worked to attain by consensus. I am putting that back in, and if you wish to remove it, please seek consensus here first. There is absolutely no grounds to remove this as things stand, and, with respect, I will consider any removal without further discussion to be vandalistic behavior and will take appropriate measures.

3. The conversation includes no such record of a consensus. Burrobert suggested I add it elsewhere, which I did - s/he makes no remarks about removing it. And your colleague Alex has only just arrived, so whatever his/her opinion may now be, that cannot retrospectively be adduced in support of an unwarranted edit. In fact the sequence of events was 1) we attained consensus on March 12, 2) I added more on April 16 to reflect new events, 3) on April 16 you added a tag without any discussion at all 4) on April 16 I invited you to discuss; 5) on April 28, having ignored the invitation, you summarily inappropriately deleted a portion of the page; 6) on April 29, after debates on other pages, Alex appears out of the blue for the first time. I must say, SS, that this behavior is an unfortunate regression - I felt we had attained a real breakthrough in our co-editing. Please let's do maintain a civil, grown-up, and well-reasoned set of interactions that operates respectfully and within the spirit and letter of Wikipedia - I'm sure we can manage. Publius In The 21st Century (talk) 22:26, 2 May 2022 (UTC)

Edit warring against consensus. Consider this a warning.Selfstudier (talk) 22:28, 2 May 2022 (UTC)

Ah, SS, what a disappointment. I don't have the time to go through this at the moment, and I had hoped for and more constructive attitude. Let the record show that on March 12 SS and I achieved a clear consensus on the portion in question, and that absolutely no one, including SS, has expressed on this page any objection to the portion in question. I'm really and truly sorry SS that you refuse to engage in a constructive way; I propose a cooling off period of a few days, at which point I'd love to work with you in a constructive way. Hopefully we can manage then Publius In The 21st Century (talk) 22:48, 2 May 2022 (UTC)

You are the one edit warring, not I.Selfstudier (talk) 22:49, 2 May 2022 (UTC)

Comments by Amnesty USA Director

Unfortunately, there seems to be some confusion regarding Paul O'Brien's comments. It is quite clearly recorded in the sources (see paragraph 2 of the articles cited) that O'Brien himself states:

1. "We are opposed to the idea — and this, I think, is an existential part of the debate — that Israel should be preserved as a state for the Jewish people". The "we" is a statement of Amnesty's position, not that of American Jews (NB: O'Brien is not Jewish and therefore would not use the first-person; he IS the Director of Amnesty US, and was speaking in that capacity). Now of course it could be that he made a factual error in making this claim, and someone even more high-ranking - e.g. Amnesty's SG herself - will come out and correct the remarks made by one of the organization's top officials; in that case, were RS to report this, we could add that, too, of course.

Additionally, elsewhere in the articles O'Brien is also directly quoted as sating:

2. "Amnesty takes no political views on any question, including the right of the State of Israel to survive".

3. "My gut tells me that what Jewish people in this country want is to know that there’s a sanctuary that is a safe and sustainable place that the Jews, the Jewish people can call home."

1 and 3 should note be conflated and it is perplexing that anyone who has read the sources would attempt to do so ; that is plainly not what the sources say. (I did not include 3, because I wanted to preserve DUE, and the "gut feeling" of a non-Jewish, Irish individual regarding the views of American Jews did not seem to be the most important part of the story, though it is certainly a shocking claim within the norms of contemporary American identity discourse; rather the head of the second-largest Amnesty franchise speaking about the policy views of Amnesty IS major news. If editors feel point 3 belongs in addition to point 1, that is fine with me; I think it is also fair to include point 2 for balance, and readers can attempt to make sense of the relationship between 1 and 2. Finally, I don't think the audience is really so important and just clogs up the passage, but I am happy to leave it as a gesture of good will to the previous editor.

Unless you can provide other RS that contradict the many sources cited, please do not make further changes without discussing them first here;I'm sure we can proceed in a calm, rational, and proper way.Publius In The 21st Century (talk) 14:37, 12 March 2022 (UTC)

The edit originally read "In March 2022, Paul O'Brien, the Amnesty International USA Director, stated that "Israel should not exist as a Jewish state" (overcited with 4 sources) which was thoroughly misleading. Now it reads OK so no need for any discussion. Selfstudier (talk) 14:48, 12 March 2022 (UTC)

Splendid. As to the first point, I'm afraid you'll have to take that up with the sources; note that the headline of one of the sources is quite literally: "Israel ‘shouldn’t exist as a Jewish state,’ Amnesty USA director tells Democratic group". Also very glad we are both clear on the fact that point 1 is correct, pace comments in the revision history. Many thanks for your constructive approach in this instance - it is excellent to avoid a messy debate, and I'm glad we could work together to achieve consensus. Publius In The 21st Century (talk) 17:43, 12 March 2022 (UTC)

WP:HEADLINES are not a reliable source. Perhaps that is the explanation for your misleading edit. Selfstudier (talk) 17:49, 12 March 2022 (UTC)

With respect, SS, in the future, I would politely request that you read more carefully the sources that have been cited; this will save all involved a considerable amount of time. Any reader of the sources cited will observe the following phrases in the body of their texts:

"Israel 'shouldn’t exist as a Jewish state,' O’Brien told some 20 in-person and 30 virtual attendees at the Wednesday lunch event'"

"An Amnesty International official said that the organization is opposed to Israel continuing to exist as a Jewish state."

"Amnesty International USA Executive Director Paul O’Brien is currently under fire for saying during a March 9 event that Israel 'shouldn’t exist as a Jewish state.'"

It was on this basis that I originally wrote "On March 2022, Paul O'Brien, the Amnesty International USA Director, stated that 'Israel should not exist as a Jewish state.'" As will be plain from the evidence cited here, this is an accurate summary of the sources cited; I therefore reiterate that if it is felt this language is misleading, one must take that up with the sources, not with an accurate summary of what they say.

I am glad that we are all happy with how the text on the main page now reads, and for this reason, I trust that there will be no further need for a back-and-forth here; I emphasize that I have written up this summary to provide a clear overview to any neutral observers who may wish to understand the nature of the exchange and draw their own conclusions about who has or has not been misleading, mistaken, or confused.Publius In The 21st Century (talk) 15:14, 13 March 2022 (UTC)

Your original edit was very misleading, it's very simple, not confusing at all. It's fixed so nothing more to discuss. Selfstudier (talk) 15:39, 13 March 2022 (UTC)

References

Problems with criticism section

There is a clear error in the section about criticism of Amnesty International: it states that Benenson wrote to Colonial Office Minister Lord Lansdowne. However, in 1963, the Colonial Office Minister was Lord Duncan Sandys. Henry Petty-Fitzmaurice, 5th Marquess of Lansdowne died in 1927 and was not a Minister for the Colonial Office.--Karma1998 (talk) 19:15, 9 August 2022 (UTC)