Talk:Criticism of Amnesty International

message: WP:RS: "Reliable sources are credible published materials with a reliable publication process; their authors are generally regarded as trustworthy or authoritative in relation to the subject at hand." NGO Monitor is a highly political website with an open agenda and does not independently meet the criteria for being a reliable source. If its material can be found in a reliable third-party publication then the material should be restored.--76.214.115.168 (talk) 23:38, 30 September 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: If such is the case, it should be obvious that Covert Action Quarterly is not a "reliable source".  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.141.154.97 (talk) 16:44, 27 February 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: just for the record, ngo monitor is NOT highly political (any more than the new york times, the bbc, etc.). but, yes, since they are mostly involved in original research, their material is best used if found in secondary sources. (but sometimes, you can quote them too) Soosim (talk) 16:48, 27 February 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[WP:RS]] 

message: This is a spinout and not a POV fork -- do not delete this gratuitously. The main article only has a summary and this article has more detailed accounts. This practice is accepted and a similar entry exists for "Criticism against Human Rights Watch"  If you find particular content POV, try to make them NPOV. FriendOfPanda (talk) 03:29, 31 July 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Deletion by user:Crotalus horridus 

message: i just did a major reorganisation. i hope i didn't accidentally remove any sections - if i did, then that was unintentional.
Amnesty International's international office, the International Secretariat, is physically located in London, and probably most of the IS's funding comes from a few rich Western countries - especially USA, UK and France. AI attempts to overcome the obvious biases that this can be naturally expected to create - e.g. individual researchers at the IS cannot work on their own countries, the present and previous Secretary-General are/were from non-Western countries. i'm not giving references here, since this is not material for the article (unless someone finds that someone notable (not me) said essentially the same thing in a WP:RS); i'm just saying this to give a common sense explanation of what seems to me to be a reasonably NPOV organisation of the article. There is one claim regarding 20% funding by AI USA, by Boyle, which is in the present version of the article.
The point is that claims of Amnesty being anti-non-Western vs Amnesty being anti-Western are qualitatively two big groups of criticisms. (i've put "anti-non-Western", because Amnesty by definition criticises all governments - it is not a develop-your-governmental-self-esteem NGO and criticising human rights violations in non-Western countries is not necessarily pro-Western.) So this seems to be a useful way to give some minimal structure to the various criticisms. 
Selection bias, abortion, and organisational continuity criticisms don't really seem to fit in to the main two groups of anti-non-Western and anti-Western criticism, IMHO. 
i didn't want to put any strong label on whether or not Israel is "Western", but IMHO saying that it is Western-supported should be reasonably uncontroversial. The USA annually pours billions of dollars into Israel AFAIK, and the United States, Marshall Islands, Palau and UK generally vote with Israel in the United Nations General Assembly against the rest of the world, sometimes with western European support. 
Please discuss an alternative structure if you have a better suggestion. Boud (talk) 13:00, 5 August 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  reorganisation 

message: i don't see why the Sri Lanka criticism should be non-notable. en.wikipedia is not the USA.wikipedia.org nor UK.wikipedia.org . If this was a big issue in Sri Lanka, a country of about 20 million people, which recently hit international news headlines because of the apparent ending of a several decade long civil war, then that's surely sufficient for notability. Notability doesn't require Western-newspaper notability - after all, this class of claim against Amnesty is that Amnesty is anti-non-Western biased, so we should judge using South Asian, and especially Sri Lankan sources. Look around and you should find them on the web. Boud (talk) 13:00, 5 August 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I removed the non-notable tag. This campaign received substantial media attention in Sri Lankan and worldwide online sources. Eg. , , , , , , ,  -FriendOfPanda (talk) 16:26, 7 August 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Why should Sri Lanka criticism be non-notable?

message: I think the article should stress that this criticism by the Irish Independant was in an opinion column by the controversial journalist Kevin Myers. Is it wikipedia policy to attribute this comment to the paper?I'm also unsure if a comment by a (fairly prominent admittedly, but certainly not outside of Ireland) now-tabloid journalist is notable, particularly when it is not even the topic of the opinion column in question.  134.226.1.229 (talk) 22:03, 15 December 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Amazing how supporters of Amnesty seem to believe that the majority of criticisms directed at Amnesty International are not notable.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.141.154.97 (talk) 16:49, 27 February 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: Irish Independant - Kevin Myers

message: this got a bit of attention in the media, a lot of people didnt like it... it should be incorporated into the article  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.26.132.27 (talk) 14:05, 19 April 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: Defensive Jihad

message: This section needs reworking. The link is broken in any case, and the section doesn't make it clear if it's quoting AI or making a statement about their policies. 70.246.145.122 (talk) 14:59, 23 April 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Selection Bias? 

message: A recent report by AI member Donatella Rovera criticized her own organization for taking false testimonies of Palestinian witnesses. I'd like to know why this sourced information was removed. I'm waiting for a serious answer before restoring the content. Thanks in advance.--AmirSurfLera (talk) 08:29, 28 June 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: As Roland said when he deleted it, it is not "criticism of Amnesty International".  It is an account of the difficulties faced by human rights organisations in reporting from conflicts where every player is motivated to misrepresent the truth.  The summary is that Amnesty is aware of the problem and seeks the truth behind the allegations.  It is not criticism, more like praise. Zerotalk 15:07, 28 June 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Donatella Rovera: Palestinian testimonies 

message: Most of the prostitution section is written like a campaign poster and does not meet Wikipedia requirements of neutral reporting.  It is hard to know how it can be fixed apart from rewriting.  It starts with a sentence that says the opposite of the document it refers to, and it doesn't get better after that. Zerotalk 14:07, 31 August 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  NPOV tag on prostitution section 

message: The title of the section "Refusal to oppose anti-Semitism" seems a bit POV. They obviously do oppose anti-semitism so it seems a bit dodgy to put such a title. The issue is whether they wanted to vote specifically to pass such a statement: One could pass 1000 statements stating opposition to 1000 evil things but that seems a complete waste of effort. Many motions are presented each year and many are of a similar form. Just because amnesty didn't vote for motion "oppose X" doesn't mean they don't oppose X, if that makes sense.
Other issues with the section:
 - the "anti-Muslim prejudice in Britain" report cited is actually about Discrimination against Muslims in Europe.
 - the main reference was the JC which does seem to have a bit of a bias to bash Amnesty (maybe due to its criticism of Israel?)
 - Often amnesty gets criticised for raising an issue (in this case discrimination against Muslims) by some saying "Why are they not raising an issue about another group?".
Maybe someone less connected to Amnesty than myself could look at this with a NPOV and help out, thanks.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.148.66.38 (talk) 18:13, 18 October 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  anti-Semitism 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to  on Criticism of Amnesty International. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add  after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add  to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/20061202020951/http://www.amnestyusa.org/countries/kuwait/document.do?id=D45F2AF72CFB7A7E802569A600600E2C to http://www.amnestyusa.org/countries/kuwait/document.do?id=D45F2AF72CFB7A7E802569A600600E2C
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.
Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 18:17, 26 February 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified  on Criticism of Amnesty International. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20110927224604/http://www.cicweb.ca/scene/2009/02/american-jewish-congress-amnesty-internationals-criticism-of-israeli-action-in-gaza-distorts-the-law-of-war/ to http://www.cicweb.ca/scene/2009/02/american-jewish-congress-amnesty-internationals-criticism-of-israeli-action-in-gaza-distorts-the-law-of-war/
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080718120253/http://web.amnesty.org/library/Index/ENGPOL100142005 to http://web.amnesty.org/library/Index/ENGPOL100142005
*Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.amnesty.org.uk/news_details.asp?NewsID=18567
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 12:41, 21 July 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified  on Criticism of Amnesty International. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.namibian.com.na/Netstories/2000/January/Africa/aggression.html
*Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.hrw.org/press/2003/01/wr2003.htm
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070710201508/http://web.amnesty.org/actforwomen/sexual_and_reproductive_rights-eng to http://web.amnesty.org/actforwomen/sexual_and_reproductive_rights-eng
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 14:39, 2 December 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: This source says nothing about Amnesty being discriminatory against "Western countries". It barely even mentions Amnesty.VR talk 03:53, 11 May 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Original research 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 4 external links on Criticism of Amnesty International. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20071219085543/http://www.hrvc.net/news8-03/23b-8-03.html to http://www.hrvc.net/news8-03/23b-8-03.html
*Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.hrw.org/press/2003/01/wr2003.htm
*Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.amnesty.org.uk/news_details.asp?NewsID=18567
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20150916001122/http://www.awid.org/news-and-analysis/1100-organizations-and-individuals-ask-amnesty-international-support to http://www.awid.org/news-and-analysis/1100-organizations-and-individuals-ask-amnesty-international-support
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 16:39, 14 August 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Currently, this section has one sentence and one source, "In 2007, Amnesty stated that it reports disproportionately on relatively more democratic and open countries.Amnesty International "Amnesty International response to Andrés Ballesteros et al.", AMR 23/006/2007, 21 February 2007. Retrieved 23 April 2010." The reference is to an Amnesty webpage which is a brief summary of and link to a three-page report. The summary and the report make no reference to Amnesty reporting differently on different types of countries and do not use the terms "disproportionately" or "relatively more democratic and open" or any equivalent terms or phrases. I therefore removed the citation and replaced it with the citation-needed tag. The citation has been restored with the edit summary "per source", an edit summary which explains nothing and is appropriate to replacing article text, not a source. Can any editor justify the presence of this citation and explain how it supports the article text? 92.19.24.9 (talk) 12:17, 12 November 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Selection bias 

message: I renamed the section, which previously cited pro-Assad media and a conspiracist news website, but it should go in its entirety. Most governments whose abuses are reported on by researchers and advocacy groups deny all charges and accuse organizations of bias and baseless smears. Nothing noteworthy about that. Ignostic199 (talk) 00:42, 7 December 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Syrian government's denial 

message: I have added this section because Amnesty chose to visit a camp where gross human rights abuses allegedly take place to conduct its research into events in Iran that happened in 1988. A British TV station, Channel4, made this allegation in a documentary. The visit was criticised by a NGO representing families who believe members are held against their will there. Zero0000 has censored this account supposedly for "violations of Wikipedia's rules" because he asserts that the Channel4 documentary did not mention Amnesty by name. However, it did mention the camp that Amnesty visited, and the NGO directly criticised Amnesty for its decision to visit the camp.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rastjoo (talk • contribs) 16:27, 1 January 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: If Channel4 documentary did not criticize Amnesty, then we don't use this as a source to criticize Amnesty. The NGO's criticism of Amnesty is not sufficient to support this inclusion. Please stop edit warring over this. User Zero0000 has provided you clear reasoning as to why this inclusion does not meet Wikipedia guidelines.  Barca (talk) 17:15, 13 January 2019 (UTC)

text: Please read WP:SYNTH and WP:RS, which user Zero0000 already pointed out to you. Barca (talk) 23:12, 13 January 2019 (UTC)

text: WP:SYNTH deprecates attempts to justify a statement in one of our articles by presenting sources which don't directly support that argument, but which provide information which an editor believes indirectly support the argument when taken together.  Your statement "Readers can see for themselves that Channel4 made no direct criticism of Amnesty but they did, in fact, highlight alleged abuses at the camp which the NGO complained to Amnesty about."relies on the reader synthesizing support for a statement in our article by "seeing for themselves" a fact that is still not directly supported by the articles cited. That's just inviting our readers to violate WP:SYNTH, and it's not encyclopedic. loupgarous (talk) 21:15, 3 December 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Amnesty's visit to the PMOI camp in Albania 

message: * To expedite your request, it would help if you could provide the following information:
# The exact location where proposed text is to be placed should be given. 
# Exact, verbatim descriptions of any text and/or references to be removed, and their locations within the article, should also be given. 
# If the reasons for changes are to be found within the provided proposed references (as they should be) then the specific portions of text which contain those reasons should be highlighted or otherwise brought attention-to within the request.
* In the section of text below titled Sample edit request, these items are shown in an example request: 
 Please remove the third sentence from the second paragraph of the Sun section:
:"The Sun's diameter is estimated to be approximately 25 miles in length."
----
 Please add the following claim as the third sentence of the second paragraph of the Sun section:
:"The Sun's diameter is estimated to be approximately 864,337 miles in length."
----
 Using as the reference:
:
----
 Reason for change being made:
:"The previously given diameter was incorrect. The Harinath source states on page 1 that the diameter is 864,337 miles."
*Kindly open a new edit request at your earliest convenience when ready to proceed with the missing items from your request. Thank you!
Regards,  Spintendo  21:46, 11 February 2020 (UTC)
thread_title: Reply 11-FEB-2020

message: 1. Referring to the third paragraph of the section "2019 Report on workplace bullying within Amnesty International", please delete this text:
"After none of the managers responsible of bullying at Amnesty were held accountable a group of workers petitioned for Amnesty's chief to resign. On 5 December 2019 Naidoo resigned from his post of Amnesty's Secretary General citing ill health [76] and appointing Julie Verhaar as an interim Secretary General. In their petition, workers demanded her immediate resignation as well."
2. Please add the following text:
"On December 5 2019 Naidoo resigned from Amnesty International citing ill health. Naidoo said, "Now more than ever, the organisation needs a secretary general who is fighting fit and can see through its mandate with vitality that this role, this institution, and the mission of universal human rights deserve."
3. Using as the reference: https://www.civilsociety.co.uk/news/amnesty-international-s-secretary-general-kumi-naidoo-steps-down-for-health-reasons.html)
3. Reason for change: The current text is misleading and implies that Kumi Naidoo resigned as a result of a petition. Kumi’s resignation was completely unrelated to both the petition and to the issues raised in the Konterra and Laddie reports. Kumi stated publicly that he resigned for health reasons. There is no citation to show that the petition was started by a group of Amnesty workers. --165.225.80.110 (talk) 11:42, 12 February 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  2019 Report on workplace bullying within Amnesty International 

message: * As stated above, I have altered this statement to only reflect the referenced information, that Naidoo resigned and Verhaar was the replacement. 
* The claim regarding the second petition to Verhaar was researched and no references could be found, so it was removed. 
* I have retained the Naidoo statement regarding their resignation owing to ill health, mainly because that was an aspect of the story that many of the references discussing the resignation reported on — although it may be that WP:MANDY should apply there.
* The Naidoo quote was not added, as it adds nothing of substance to the article.
Regards,  Spintendo  00:59, 19 February 2020 (UTC)
thread_title: Reply 18-FEB-2020

message: 1. Referring to the first paragraph in the section "2019 Report on workplace bullying within Amnesty International", please delete the following text: 
"and that staff described the senior leadership team as out-of-touch, incompetent and callous."
2. Reason for change: The current sentence omits important context. The Konterra report found that “there is a tendency for many staff to villainize the SLT as privileged, out of touch, incompetent, and callous" (https://www.amnesty.org/download/Documents/ORG6097632019ENGLISH.PDF p. 27)
1. Referring to the second paragraph of the section "2019 Report on workplace bullying within Amnesty International", please delete the second clause of the penultimate sentence: 
"including to Mootoo's senior director Anna Neistat directly implicated in the report on Mootoo's death."
2. Reason for change: 
Anna Neistat was not “directly implicated” by the Laddie report. No individual was directly implicated. 
--165.225.80.110 (talk) 11:39, 24 February 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  2019 Report on workplace bullying within Amnesty International 

message: * In suggesting that the current phrase omits important context, the COI editor has failed to propose replacement text which does add this context. Please advise on the exact, verbatim text to be used as the replacement for this passage.
* The COI editor has not stated the difference between direct implication and non-direct implication. Please advise. 
Regards,  Spintendo  12:20, 25 February 2020 (UTC)
thread_title: Reply 25-FEB-2020

message: In the section titled "Israel", within the "Allegations of anti-Western bias" section:
1. Please add the following text directly beneath the heading "Israel":
Amnesty International has been heavily criticized by NGO Monitor, a non-governmental organization which has been characterized as being pro-Israel (https://www.jta.org/2007/08/31/default/haaretz-columnist-dropped-by-british-zionists) (https://www.economist.com/international/2007/09/13/new-pariah-on-the-block) and as right-wing (http://www.france24.com/en/20130617-biased-wikipedia-israel-political-meddling-arnie-draiman-monitor-ngo)
--165.225.80.110 (talk) 11:02, 13 February 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  NGO Monitor not an impartial source  

message: # The references provided with the proposed text have not been formatted according to the citation style currently used in the article. All references added to an article need to use the same citation style which is already in use with the article.
# Two of the three references provided with the request are to other articles in Wikipedia.
Regards,  Spintendo  12:20, 25 February 2020 (UTC)
thread_title: Reply 25-FEB-2020

message: "In December 2019, a 200-page report on Amnesty International arguing the NGO is strongly biased against the Jewish state." -- AnonMoos (talk) 05:28, 30 October 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  This sentence no verb. 

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

text: Sigh, read WP:V and WP:ONUS.Selfstudier (talk) 00:20, 11 December 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  2nd iteration 

message: Let's start with WP:V. 
* Jerusalem Post:  In 2019, David Collier was commissioned to research Amnesty International. His 200-page report alleges an institutional anti-Israel bias; “Targets are not chosen for their actions, but rather for their identity.”
* Times of Israel: The report also documented 40 Amnesty staff members, including volunteers and employees, sharing allegedly antisemitic content online.  
* Times of Israel: Amnesty replied "David Collier is an individual with a very clear agenda. He did not approach us for comment or give us right of reply before publishing any of these allegations. Amnesty International is an independent and impartial organization that adheres to the highest research standards in all its work."
What exactly in here do you believe is not verifiable? -- Bob drobbs (talk) 00:59, 11 December 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: You have been reverted a couple of times and asked not to edit war (even slowly) and if you put it in again, I might also revert it. That's your explanation right there.Selfstudier (talk) 01:07, 11 December 2021 (UTC)

text: An example of what is not verifiable is "The report also documented 40 Amnesty staff members, including volunteers and employees, sharing allegedly antisemitic content online." It is true that TofI wrote that, but it is not true that the report contains that. Even the most unreliable sources are reliable for what they contain. I invite you to read Collier's own description of the report here. The word "antisemitic" does not appear even once. Why should we post a stronger claim about the report than Collier himself claims? Turning to the report itself, it does contain accusations of antisemitism but not against 40 people. A likely origin of the false claim is this sentence: "The research quantified the participation in the group of those who share antisemitic posts and found that the levels were all above 60%." However "group" in that sentence is not Amnesty International but Palestine Live and "report" is not this report but an earlier Collier report on Palestine Live. Zerotalk 01:27, 11 December 2021 (UTC)
replies: text:  Zero0000, I pulled up the actual report and did not read the whole thing. I couldn't immediately verify it, but also am not going to immediately reject it.  Let me give you the benefit of the doubt.  Is there anything else that fails verifiability? -- Bob drobbs (talk) 03:11, 11 December 2021 (UTC)

text: Not to mention that ONUS is a part of V so "Let's start with" V tells me that no attention was paid to what I wrote or else it was just ignored? Selfstudier (talk) 01:39, 11 December 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[WP:V]] 

message: Note that the above user User:Soosim (who was ultimately blocked for socking), outed himself, (back when he started, in 2008),  as "Arnie Draiman".
An "Arnie Draiman" worked  up until 2020  with "Online Communications" for NGO Monitor 
The WP:COI was noted: WP:COI:Gerald Steinberg, NGO Monitor, User Soosim and others.
Unfortunately, Wikipedia has never been "cleaned up" after all the undisclosed WP:PAID editing for NGO Monitor, sigh...Huldra (talk) 23:37, 9 December 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Paid editing? 

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

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

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

text: Saying that, I think your new version is actually OK. My very best wishes (talk) 14:50, 23 February 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  Whitewash of Navalyn