Talk:Amnesty Report 2006: disadvantaged pay price of war on terror

From Wikinews, the free news source you can write!
Latest comment: 18 years ago by Karen in topic AMAZING!
Jump to navigation Jump to search

Reason for the flag: Apparently there's been controversy over the article, and DragonFire1024 really insists on getting more peer review. He's been very angry lately, so let's help him with his article. —THIS IS MESSEDOCKER (TALK) 23:31, 26 May 2006 (UTC)Reply

Original Reporting Notes


Edited from Amnesty International Report 2006. From press release, transcripts and report. --elliot_k 17:55, 23 May 2006 (UTC)Reply

NPOV tag


Reasons for NPOV tag:


Human Rights organisation Amnesty International says 2005 was a year of contradictions with signs of hope for human rights undermined through deception and failed promises of arrogant governments.
Nowhere near neutral statement, not attributed if it was a quote, and no denoting of it being a quote.

At the launch of its 2006 International Report, Amnesty Secretary General Irene Khan said that powerful governments have "paralyzed international institutions and squandered public resources in pursuit of narrow security interests, sacrificed principles in the name of the 'war on terror' and turned a blind eye to massive human rights violations. As a result, the world has paid a heavy price, in terms of erosion of fundamental principles and in the enormous damage done to the lives and livelihoods of ordinary people," said Ms Khan.
No counter-balance to these lengthly and strong allegations/commentary, therefore not-neutral.

"Intermittent attention and feeble action by the United Nations and the African Union fell pathetically short of what was needed in Darfur," said Ms Khan, referring to the conflict that has claimed thousands of lives, displaced millions of people, and in which crimes against humanity continue to be committed by all sides.
No attribution of claims.

Amnesty say European governments have been "partners in crime with the United States," by defying the absolute ban on torture and ill-treatment and by outsourcing torture though the transfer of prisoners to known torture states such as Egypt, Jordan, Morocco, Saudi Arabia and Syria.
No attribution of claims outside of the quotes. All of the bolded is speculation until attributed. Again, lack of counterweight greatly outbalances this section as well as the rest of the article.

The United Kingdom pursued "diplomatic assurances" to deport people to countries where they face torture. "Just as we must condemn terrorist attacks on civilians in the strongest possible terms, we must resist claims by governments that terror can be fought with torture. Such claims are misleading, dangerous and wrong - you cannot extinguish a fire with petrol," said Ms Khan. "When the UK government remains muted on arbitrary detention and ill-treatment in Guantánamo, when the United States ignores the absolute prohibition on torture, when European governments are mute about their record on renditions, racism or refugees, they undermine their own moral authority."
No counter-weight of claims, just a re-write of Amnesty's PR... including their POV. This article has absolutely no balance to it, and as stated above, is little more than a rewrite of Amnesty's Press Release, which would violate WN:NPOV and WN:NOT, Sec. "What... articles are not", Point #1, "Wikinews articles are not press releases." Please rewrite this article from a neutral standpoint, and add counter-weight to the claims issued by AI. In addition, cite all your sources when you make the claims outside of the quotations. --MrMiscellanious (talk) – 00:53, 24 May 2006 (UTC)Reply

As the headline suggests, this is an article about Amnesty's annual report. One would expect AI to have a POV. As far as counter-claims to the litany of human rights abuses the AI cite, well, I have yet to read any. I'd be very interested in "counter-weights"... Nevertheless, I've clipped some of the longer quotes, attributed some stuff and untagged the article. --elliot_k 03:04, 24 May 2006 (UTC)Reply
  • The problem is, this is nothing but the Amnesty International's press release, and most of this content is just copied out of the press release. That transfers a lof of the POV that they try to make in the Press Releases, and when you copy, you transfer that POV. Unlike PR publishers, Wikinews must conform to a neutral point-of-view policy. In turn, we have an article that is mostly the AI's opinion on matters, mostly from the PR. That would not be news, according to WN:NOT. In addition, the article on Wikinews still does not attribute all the claims it makes. In order for this article to conform to the Wikinews policies, it must provide different opinions and attribute all claims back to a source, other than what is undisputably fact (ex: "The United States and Great Britain led most of the forces that took part in the 2003 Invasion of Iraq"). Statements like "A 2004 Lancet study estimates that 100,000 excess deaths have occured with roughly three times as many injured since the US-led invasion in 2003." is considered opinionated without details. "Roughly" can be misconstrued in great proportions. There needs to be more content that is separate from Amnesty, otherwise this article will be tagged for NPOV again. Wikinews simply does not allow articles that do not conform to the WN:NPOV policy. --MrMiscellanious (talk) – 03:33, 24 May 2006 (UTC)Reply
I'm was simply reporting on what AI have said in their report. As far as I can tell, there are NO counter-claims to their report. It was released TODAY! I don't have the time to argue your particular political POV, MrM. And its politically motivated actions like yours that drive people like me away from this webspace. --elliot_k 04:45, 24 May 2006 (UTC)Reply
I thought it was counter intuitive to begin with Iraq and end with Darfur, maybe I read that wrong. -Edbrown05 05:00, 24 May 2006 (UTC)Reply
Elliot does have a point. I checked Google News and the U.S. (or any of the governments singled out) appears to have absolutely no response to this...not yet anyway, no doubt due to the timeliness of the story. However, I'd imagine, with the influence that AI has, one of the targeted governments will fire a salvo back real soon, mark my words...most likely the U.S. can call us warmongers, but NEVER call our human rights record into question. :) I see no harm in holding the story a day or so to get at least a token counterbalancing statement from Condi Rice or whoever. Aloha, KeithH (talk) 08:20, 24 May 2006 (UTC)Reply

NOTE: I am pulling out of the Wikinews project. My reason is the political objectives of Mrmiscellanious. His blatant twisitng of Wikinews policy is entirely offensive. I've had enough. Wiknews is a good project. And I've enjoyed being part of it. But with people like Mrmiscellanious, whose political agenda is very clear from his user page, it is very difficult, extremely time consuming and mentally taxing to argue, edit and rehash a basic story to keep it published. It seems that any story that goes against his POV, will be turned into an edit war. I do not have the time to argue for days on end. I'd much prefer to create another article, than debate the merits of POV. I have been contributing to Wikinews, (some 120 articles since October 2005) and know full well what is expected of contributors. However, I feel that Mrmiscellanious abuses the policy to justify his own politcal agenda. Goodbye... --elliot_k 16:15, 24 May 2006 (UTC)Reply

  • I'd rather not have you here if you make comments like that, when a user was patient and detailed enough as to describe the issues of this article. This has nothing to do with my POV at all, but what you published is against the policies listed above. The refusal to acknowledge the violations itself, and in turn making the attacks above makes me wish you farewell on your journies elsewhere. --MrMiscellanious (talk) – 21:33, 24 May 2006 (UTC)Reply
You are povpushing here to. I will ask for you to be blocked if you continue. international 22:19, 24 May 2006 (UTC)Reply
  • Please do not engage in this type of behavior. There are actionable objections above, if you do not wish to acknowledge them, then please stop editing the article. Please do not continue to disrupt the website by performing this behavior. If you do not wish to engage in discussion here on the talk page, then I will have to ask you to stop reverting edits. --MrMiscellanious (talk) – 22:27, 24 May 2006 (UTC)Reply
There are objections MrM that you . Mainly, in this instance, what action have you taken on the article other than to object? That kind of interaction with working towards the delivery of a news story sux. It's not that long ago that you called elliot k "lazy", which then led to an unhappy exchange between the two of you which is now, yet again, being revisited in a new way.
Meanwhile MrM, you fail to respond to answerable objections that have been placed on your plate: why did you block Cowicide? under the topic on your talk page headed Cowicide has something to say, and MrM, why did you block Cowicide? under the water cooler topic heading Wikinews Censorship Aspect of Cowicide Ban, and Why are you blocked? on Cowicide's talk page.
Let me see if I can phrase this correctly --> Edit the article yourself to address your concerns. Outside of mainspace, please answer direct questions. <-- And quit wasting my time. -Edbrown05 05:41, 25 May 2006 (UTC)Reply



Sometimes there is a problem with OR in that it comes close to breaking NPOV. I think the article as it stands is fine for publication - Cartman02au (Talk)(AU Portal) 22:26, 24 May 2006 (UTC)Reply

At the same time perhaps to address MrM's concerns have a quick look around for comments made against the report. If there is no opposition at this time, note that here under the OR notes - Cartman02au (Talk)(AU Portal) 22:28, 24 May 2006 (UTC)Reply

  • I just did some calculations, and this article, by use of quoting the Amnesty International Press Release, constitutes 1779 bytes, out of a total 3335 bytes in total of article (excluding image caption and wiki-syntax), resulting in the Press Release quotations being more than 53% of the article itself. If this article provided a balance between the AI's position, and other opinions (recent archived articles can be sources for balance on many of AI's claims in this article), then I would have no problem with it. But the fact that it only highlights AI's position on this is what is the major issue here - many groups have opposed the group's opinions, but they aren't even acknowledged here. This constitutes in a large lack of counter-balance, which would not be allowed per WN:NPOV. Even though this is Original Reporting, it still must also conform to the other policies, and I don't think this article is neutral. --MrMiscellanious (talk) – 22:40, 24 May 2006 (UTC)Reply
Request for clarification: MrM, is this your remaining concern? --vonbergm 22:48, 24 May 2006 (UTC)Reply
MrM, you say "many groups have opposed the group's opinions". I must assume that you are talking about the opeinions on the subject of the article. KeithH did a search a while ago and came up with nothing significant. I just did a search and came only up with Iran and the UAE denouncing the report and nothing official from the US (except some satire reporting). If you have found any response, feel free to add it. --vonbergm 22:51, 24 May 2006 (UTC)Reply
Lack of counter-balance is only an issue if there is counter-balance. Your suggestion to use previous related news to "balance" this article is plainly silly. Neither repeating old news nor speaking for other people will help this story. For example, lately there has been considerable chatter amoung US officials about possibilities to close down Guantanamo (for example). Although I agree that it is quite possible that the US will denounce parts of the report, we cannot do this for them. I am removing the tag. --vonbergm 23:36, 24 May 2006 (UTC)Reply
  • This is 53% quoting the AI Press Release. You're going to sit here and tell me no one, absolutely no one, in the history of mankind, has ever voiced opinion that differs from AI's opinions on the issues? I find that extremely false, as all you have to do is search for the individual items AI states in their press release, and you'll have plethoras of opinions on the subject. Counter-balance doesn't mean direct responses to the actual event, it means balancing of opinions by multiple parties in order to obtain neutrality. This article does not provide any other opinions on the manner, other than Amnesty International's opinions. This is absolutely a violation of the NPOV policy. There are tons of specific quotes and events from individuals that can provide balance to this article. This still does not solve the NPOV issues; in fact, it was just another revert. I am finding it extremely difficult to actually hear a decent response from some users here. Keith provided a description that he actually tried to find balance, to which I have to thank him for. Above, I have stated what can be used as counter-balance (it is not limited to a direct response to the PR). However, the reverts need to stop; if you aren't going to engage in discussion here, please don't start a war. I have reverted this one last time, because this article absolutely needs some balance to it. An article that is over half of its content being direct quotes from a PR certainly isn't news. Let's find some balance here. --MrMiscellanious (talk) – 00:06, 25 May 2006 (UTC)Reply
  • For example, a quick Google search brought me to an article about Rumsfeld from 2002, when confronted with the issue of combatants in the War on Terror, where he denies any mistreatment, an obviously different opinion than Amnesty. Things like this can and should be used as material to balance this article. --MrMiscellanious (talk) – 00:17, 25 May 2006 (UTC)Reply
If I did not have this type of conversation with you before I would be sure you are kidding. What do you want the article to say? "Rumsfeld disagreed with allegations of mistreatment in 2002, it is unclear whether he diagrees on these current allegations." I hope you are aware that the article you gave has no reference to Amnesty International whatsoever. (There was an advertisement on the bottom of the page for AI though...) Unless I am really underestimating your sense of humor this is one of the worst justifications for a tag that I have seen. --vonbergm 02:15, 25 May 2006 (UTC)Reply
I find no humor in letting biased articles be published here, vonbergm. Note that I am absolutely serious when I bring up these issues. This article only shows Amnesty's opinion on issues - that is promotion of their opinion, especially if you have no differing opinions in the article itself. Please do not tell me you are OK with allowing a one-sided article. Wikinews deserves better than that, and the policies here prevent any article from being published that does not conform to the site's policies. This article is biased, over 50% of the text in this article is copied from Amnesty's Press Release. It may now become clear to you why in the past I did very little collaboration on talk pages - when users such as yourselves try to mock individuals who try to bring neutrality to articles. This is not neutral. Please don't waste others' time if you are not here to help this article be developed. --MrMiscellanious (talk) – 02:28, 25 May 2006 (UTC)Reply

Point-of-view of those criticised by report

  • Pentagon spokesman Lt. Col. Mark Ballesteros said, "Humane treatment of detainees in Department of Defense custody is, and always has been, the department standard. The standard of humane treatment applies to DOD personnel, as well as civilian contractors."
  • State Department spokesman Sean McCormack said, "When we do return people to their home countries, we always go through a very, very careful and detailed process. And they have to be able to assure American officials and policymakers that they believe that these individuals will not be maltreated, will not be tortured."
  • McCormack also said, "In the years of Saddam Hussein's rule, Amnesty International was at the forefront of bringing to light human rights abuses that were perpetrated by that regime - terrible, terrible things. They did great work in that regard. But when it came time to put Saddam Hussein on trial, which is happening right now, they're absent. They've done zero, zip, nothing, to assist in those efforts."
  • McCormack also said, "Nobody is being tortured at Guantanamo Bay."

- Borofkin 03:08, 25 May 2006 (UTC)Reply

Do the contributors to this article agree that these points-of-view should be included? Please comment here, hopefully we can come to some sort of agreement and then have the article unprotected. - Borofkin 03:25, 25 May 2006 (UTC)Reply
Borofkin, thanks for trying to help out, but the quotes you got are irrelevant for the article. The article makes no mention of treatment of detainees in US custody, rendering points 1 and 4 irrelevant. Point 2 does not address the claim that torture happenes under rendition, but only states that there are "assurances" that maltreatment will not happen. Point 3 shows fundamental misunderstanding of the mandate of AI.
The goal cannot be to just include quotes from people with a different point of view. The quotes also have to be relevant to the article. Also, we cannot extrapolate from previous comments of people to what they think now. As mentioned above, the US administration seems to be a lot more amenable to closing down Guantanamo than they were a year ago. I agree that statements reflecting an opposing point of view addressing the article should be included. (The statements from Iran and the UAE I mentioned above are also irrelevant for the article.) --vonbergm 03:36, 25 May 2006 (UTC)Reply
Fair enough. How about this: in the section titled "Torture", we include a paragraph such as "The US government has previously defeneded it's practises, saying that it doesn't send prisoners overseas to be tortured". There's nothing wrong with saying that a government has previously denied previous accusations. - Borofkin 04:08, 25 May 2006 (UTC)Reply
Sounds fine. I will go look for a quote. --vonbergm 04:15, 25 May 2006 (UTC)Reply
Hmm. Not so easy after all. Here a statement from Gonzales that again does not deny that torture happened: "We understand that our legal obligation with respect to all renditions is that we will not transfer someone to another country where it is more likely than not that they will be tortured ... the United States strives to meet that obligation in every case."
Previous wikinews does not seem to have any quotes, although I found this "While refusing to admit that the rendition policy even exists, the Bush administration claimed that they do not hand over people to be tortured in other countries, to get around US laws which prohibit such practices." I guess by now the US admits that they have a rendition policy (e.g. Gonzales' statement), but this also does not deny that people were tortured, but simply states that torture is not the (primary) purpose. `I will look a little more. Anyone who has a quote, post it here. --vonbergm 04:30, 25 May 2006 (UTC)Reply
Found a quote by Bush, this is probably as good as it gets: "We operate within the law, and we send people to countries where they say they're not going to torture the people..." Again, not denying that they were tortured, but just that the countries (e.g. Syria, Jordan, Egypt, Uzbekistan) said that they will not torture. Giving up the search, google was not very helpful this time. --vonbergm 04:41, 25 May 2006 (UTC)Reply
As long as we make it very clear that we are reporting on the report and not the actual events in the report, and make extra sure all claims are attributed properly, I do not think we need to include any quotes from other parties, unless they have quotes about the report itself. --Cspurrier 19:25, 25 May 2006 (UTC)Reply
Cspurrier, I fully agree. (I was merely trying to follow up on Borofkin's initiative to find some "compromize".) To move beyond a purely philosophical discussion, do you believe that this article makes it "very clear that we are reporting on the report and not the actual events in the report" or that it needs modifications beyond the ones Elliot put in right after MrM first complained? --vonbergm 19:42, 25 May 2006 (UTC)Reply
I am not sure I want to move beyond a philosophical discussion :). The version on that MrM posted his list higher up on this page, needed fixing. It appears to be in about the right shape to be published, however it does push the limits a tad bit. A little bit more about the report it self, may help make the destinction between the report and the actual events clearer. Such as how often it is published, how things are decide to be included and maybe a little more about Amnesty International.--Cspurrier 00:25, 27 May 2006 (UTC)Reply
Although already implicit in the formulations of the article, I added a sentence to to make the nature of the report more explicit. I am not sure how much more background on AI, beyond what is there and the wikilink, is needed here. I guess one could mention the Nobel Prize, but really, that's what the wikilinks are for. --vonbergm 00:50, 27 May 2006 (UTC)Reply

Hint: try wikipedia background


A bit of searching the wikipedia should find that most of Amnesty's claims are already the subject of extensive, NPOV, wikipedia articles.

What is news is the fact that Amnesty claims that these are important as part of Amnesty's summary of human rights violations during 2005.

NPOVing the wikinews article could be done by replacing some of the text which is quoting Amnesty by a link to the wikipedia background page and text which is the wikipedia article NPOV summary. In some cases the wikipedia article summary will be very close to Amnesty's POV, in some cases it will be somewhat different.

Possible responses to the report would be best from other organisations which are reasonably international and have some reputation for neutrality - e.g. if the Red Cross or the w:World Health Organisation criticises Amnesty's report, then that would be a useful alternative POV to add. There can also be comments by various alleged human-rights-violators around the world (political leaders in Saudi Arabia, US, China, Iran, Poland, ...).

Boud 03:11, 25 May 2006 (UTC)Reply

Why protected with a tag?


Please explain? Neutralizer 05:28, 25 May 2006 (UTC)Reply

Read the tag. It appears, reading the conversation above, that things may have calmed a bit and unprotection would probably be appropriate soon. --Chiacomo (talk) 05:36, 25 May 2006 (UTC)Reply
Actually, why protect at all? As you noticed, after the 6RR block there is no edit-warring party left. I guess one could protect the article until the block expires so that the sole objecting party stands a fair chance of keeping this from being published for longer than a couple of minutes. --vonbergm 16:45, 25 May 2006 (UTC)Reply

The content on this page exemplifies my points


This kind of bullshit is exactly the reason I am considering leaving. Its nonsense. Arguing for the sake of it. Wasting everyones time. MrM is offensive beyond belief here. I cannot work with this sort of behaviour. --elliot_k 08:48, 25 May 2006 (UTC)Reply

I'm with Elliot K here, Amnesty has a well known POV, reporting them expressing their POV need not be intepreted as an endorsement of that POV. The article could do with some background on Amnesty to highlight why their position makes the statements less surprising but reporting on the statements of an NGO is NPOV, provided you give enough information or links for someone to come to a conclusion about the bias of the source. Consequently I am going to unprotect this article and ask someone to do an "according to Wikipedia" bit of background on AI. --Brian McNeil / talk 19:19, 25 May 2006 (UTC)Reply



Brian, please explain why you removed specific information from the article, like "powerful governments" and "a recent British Parliamentary Report". As you are aware, your edits part from the sources and do distort AI's statements. (Since you are editing the article I must assume that you read the sources, right?) Also, your "grandma" change does not make any sense to me. (Maybe because English is my second language?) --vonbergm 20:28, 25 May 2006 (UTC)Reply

My edits were to address the concerns that caused this article to be disputed, the prior version took the emotive statements of AI as fact and carried over their effort to force readers to a specific conclusion. The edit comment about my "grandma" was a reference to correcting grammar that I'd mucked up with earlier changes. --Brian McNeil / talk 20:33, 25 May 2006 (UTC)Reply
Yap, got the grandma edit, I just wasn't looking carefully... Also, I am fine with the extra attributions you added, although I they seem redundand to me (but might aid the careless reader). I don't see how the previous version "took the emotive statements of AI as fact", it merely reported them. Your version however misreports the statements of AI. I guess one could argue that "powerful" is "emotive" (although a little far fetched), but how is "a recent British Parliamentary Report" emotive? --vonbergm 20:38, 25 May 2006 (UTC)Reply
The British Parliamentary Report isn't provided as a source, so any mention is second hand and would become awkward to word (eg, "AI cites a report from <blah> stating <foo>".
I do not see how I am misreporting the statements of AI, I didn't touch the quotes and primarily worked on making their citation flow in a more readable manner.
"Powerful" wasn't removed as emotive, although you do have a point there. It is a judgement on the governments that AI is criticising. I'll bet that Myanmar comes in for some damning criticism in their report, but I wouldn't characterise them as "powerful". Mentioning that, the balance the article is needing is some of the non-western parts of the world the AI criticises being covered in the article. Problem is, I ain't going to buy the report to find out the details they don't want to promote to grab headlines. --Brian McNeil / talk 20:50, 25 May 2006 (UTC)Reply
You have a point with the British report. About the "powerful", are you suggesting that Mynamar had anything to do with "paralyzing international institutions"? This article can defninitely be expanded to give more detailed report regarding individual countries. This is only an overview, and AI has a well-known (and arguably justified) bias in putting a higher emphasis on criticizing so-called "free and democratic" countries. I think reporting in more detail on individual countries would be great. The individual country reports are freely available online, so please feel free to write more articles based on this. --vonbergm 21:02, 25 May 2006 (UTC)Reply
Let's approach this from a different angle, I've gone back and re-read the section of the article that used to refer to "powerful nations", it still implies "US and allies", but the current wording is slightly more circumspect. What I mean by that is that it essentially conveys the same information but does less to lead you to a predetermined conclusion. --Brian McNeil / talk 21:32, 25 May 2006 (UTC)Reply
As this is an article about the AI report, I would prefer to go with the language of the report instead of trying to interpret it. But I will not insist on this if this is what is keeping the article from being published. --vonbergm 04:04, 26 May 2006 (UTC)Reply
Going with the language of the report is accepting it at face value and effectively promoting/advertising the material for AI. Just because it seems neutral to you does not mean it is. You have to in some way give background on the organisation that has collated this information before you can present it as the truth. If an element of the various statements they've given to the press about this report they are trying to sell is an attack on several Western countries then you don't make it generically ominous by using terms like "powerful", you cite specific criticisms.
This leads into the primary problem with a news event of this nature and the reporting of it. To be reported fairly the entire AI report would have to be available to all Wikinews contributors. It isn't, we're reliant on mainstream media quoting of the report, and the material that makes headlines for them is not representative. --Brian McNeil / talk 18:38, 26 May 2006 (UTC)Reply
just to point out, that the entire report is available to all wikinews contributors, and is listed as a source. Doldrums 18:46, 26 May 2006 (UTC)Reply
Are you hinting that people editing the article and engaging in discussions should actually read the sources? --vonbergm 18:51, 26 May 2006 (UTC)Reply
Who? me? :) Doldrums 18:54, 26 May 2006 (UTC)Reply
The report is available under the Buy This Report option, and you're making snarky comments about sources? We don't use paid for sources, check policy if you don't believe me. --Brian McNeil / talk 19:07, 26 May 2006 (UTC)Reply
from what i can make out, the report is available online via the country listing, regional overviews and key issues headings. Doldrums 19:12, 26 May 2006 (UTC)Reply
Sorry, it wasn't immediately apparent to me that the report was segmented out there. Problem is, that makes selective reporting an issue of POV, you'd have to take the worst offenders from each continent or something like that to balance the aspects of the report that are covered. What I have attempted to do with the opening of the article we have is make it clear the information comes from a source that has a specific POV. The current Wikinews article highlights those who you would expect be held to the highest standards, that is biased when the report also details who are the worst offenders. --Brian McNeil / talk 19:25, 26 May 2006 (UTC)Reply
no sweat. this is a tough article to create and get the pov right. agree that selective reporting of it (which is unavoidable, i think, given the length (and breadth) of the report) raises pov concerns. perhaps we can hande it the way i believe other news sources do - mention its findings regarding "big powers", worst offenders, and anything AI itself highlights as important. balance to be added by making a "good-fath" effort to find responses from governments (does not mean we wait indefnitely for the myanmar govt. to reply). anyway, that's my 2cents. Doldrums 19:34, 26 May 2006 (UTC)Reply



This whole article is POV IMO. Where are quotes from those who do not believe the report or whatever? Who is this group as it IMO is not "well known" as I never heard of them. This artice focuses soley on this report which seems IMO to be a report against governments. Is anyone going to call all the governments this report mentions for their view? I also don't see the news here, unless its to show how much some governments are hated, especially by this group. Jason Safoutin 19:23, 26 May 2006 (UTC)Reply

To answer your question "Who is this group", try clicking on the appropiate wikilink. --vonbergm 19:30, 26 May 2006 (UTC)Reply
I point is you cannot call something "weell known" when not everyone knows what they are. Jason Safoutin 19:33, 26 May 2006 (UTC)Reply
By that criterion nothing is "well known". But there is no point to argue as long as Brian, who inserted this phrase (to address NPOV concerns???), does not mind it being removed. --vonbergm 19:46, 26 May 2006 (UTC)Reply

Dragon, if this is your concern, which I in a glimps good faith interpret as philosofical, you must explain your argumentation much better to give it some merit. Untill that I sugest article should be published. Is there any 'actionable' concerns by other uses left that should be adressed before? international 19:50, 26 May 2006 (UTC)Reply

My concerns are valid. This report in itself does nothing but bash the governments it names calling them "arrogant". Unless you plan on calling the President and or PM of all these governments, then its all POV. You cannot bash them and call it NPOV without getting both sides of the situation. Jason Safoutin 19:58, 26 May 2006 (UTC)Reply
the US state department has responded to this report[1]. Doldrums 20:07, 26 May 2006 (UTC)Reply
You can report on Amnesty "bashing" various governments within their report and remain within the NPOV guidelines. --Brian McNeil / talk 20:09, 26 May 2006 (UTC)Reply
You sure can. but its not within the guidelines. You simply cannot bash a government withou a defense. Jason Safoutin 20:20, 26 May 2006 (UTC)Reply
You are incorrectly reading my comment, "you can report on Amnesty bashing a goverment. You can't engage in any bashing yourself. --Brian McNeil / talk 20:22, 26 May 2006 (UTC)Reply
Yes you sure can, but for WN standards, its not a NPOV without their responses. Also where is this report? Is it all avaliable online? Jason Safoutin 20:26, 26 May 2006 (UTC)Reply
Jason, please read the previous discussions before commenting. --vonbergm 20:28, 26 May 2006 (UTC)Reply
Good find Doldrums, we should have picked this up earlier. Only problem is, the response does not address issues raised in the wikinews article. The only specific response to the AI report is that "Nobody is being tortured at Guantanamo Bay." Only problem: There are no direct charges in the AI report that the USA tortures at Guantanamo, only references of torture w.r.t. Guantanamo are indirect: "Evidence continued to emerge of the torture and ill-treatment of detainees in Guantánamo," with some a little more direct accusations of torture (although vague and not specifically directed toward Guantanamo) "The final report of Naval Inspector General Vice-Admiral Church into Department of Defense interrogation operations worldwide, a summary of which was published in March, found “no link between approved interrogation techniques and detainee abuse”. This was despite the fact that many such techniques violate international standards that prohibit torture and ill-treatment."
I guess we could expand the "torture" section of the article so that the State Department's repsonse becomes somewhat relevant, so that we can include it. --vonbergm 20:28, 26 May 2006 (UTC)Reply
You cannot mention that a report, to which is not available fully, without paying, based on previous posts, calls any nation country or government "arrogant" and not back up a single defense to that accusation. Jason Safoutin 20:31, 26 May 2006 (UTC)Reply
Jason, please read the previous discussions before commenting. --vonbergm 20:28, 26 May 2006 (UTC)Reply
I'm afraid you can, and I was mistaken - the vast majority of the report is available online by selecting the country you're interested in. What I am concerned about is what is in the report, but not available on the web.
I do find the demand for an official response prior to publication unreasonable. If the government does not have PR shock-troops working on this then it should not be a reason to delay the article until they can be bothered to issue a response. If we publish with no response, a well-done response can have its own article. --Brian McNeil / talk 20:42, 26 May 2006 (UTC)Reply
I disagree. Thats not NPOV. I read the previous comments. The quotes by officials prior to this report have no real basis in the article. They are not responding to this report or anything to do with it. If anyone plans on calling anyone "arrogant", I would want a defense as wellpovSelective reporting is not NPOV thats bias IMO. Jason Safoutin 20:46, 26 May 2006 (UTC)Reply
Some Wikinewsies not only disagrea with you DF, they also seems to have another interpretation of npov/pov than you. Discussion goes in circels. This should be a concensus thing. Do we have to arrange a vote? international 20:52, 26 May 2006 (UTC)Reply
No. This is about following policy and guidelines. I have noted my concerns, which are valid. If you choose to ignore them, then you have problems with NPOV. If anything bashes any governmewnt, then I expect a response as such. This so called report does nothing but bash governments. They may not want to be NPOV, but Wikinews is. Jason Safoutin 20:56, 26 May 2006 (UTC)Reply
I think I'm wasting my time here. My edits to the article were intended to provide guidance on addressing the concerns that had been raised - it was written as if we were Amnesty's press office. However, tt must be clear that this is a report from a NGO and their POV is whatever it is. Our article is now being opposed because material within the report has not been countered by the parties under scrutiny. I think this is wholly unreasonable, if we wait around for governments to respond to things like this we'll delete 90% of our material because they ignore it. Items like this Amnesty report should be covered as they are issued, if you have a problem with it expand it to cover other countries that are criticised, watch out for the government response and turn it into a story, etc. For those opposed, I'm sure if it was the Great Firewall aspect of Chinese IT policy that was being covered you'd not want to delay publication until they issued a response.
On the whole, I think many of the people writing on this talk page need slapped with a wet fish, there is very little effort into the article and a great deal into posturing over the validity of it. --Brian McNeil / talk 21:04, 26 May 2006 (UTC)Reply



I will publish it now as I see a consensus for it and that DF:s argumentation to keep it unpublished isnt strong enough international 21:15, 26 May 2006 (UTC)Reply

Unless the NPOV issues can be fixed, then do not publish. You are not the only one on this Wiki international. Jason Safoutin 21:19, 26 May 2006 (UTC)Reply
Fix the issues and see what other users think about it. Users dont understand your hardline point here. Els we are stuck. international 21:24, 26 May 2006 (UTC)Reply
Jason, alternatively
I have stated my concerns. I am sick pof repeating them. If you choose to ignore them then thats your problem. Jason Safoutin 21:27, 26 May 2006 (UTC)Reply
Take your chanse below DF or I will ignore your concerns as meritless disruption. international 21:31, 26 May 2006 (UTC)Reply
Ignore? Isn't that what you are already doing? Jason Safoutin 21:36, 26 May 2006 (UTC)Reply
I wait 5 min for a confirmation that you accept to contribute in an constructive way either by clearly comunicating your conserns below or telling us that you will start to edit the article. If not I will ignore your conserns as meritless and publish. If you then put article to develop without contributing or comunicating your conserns it is a clear act of disruption international 21:44, 26 May 2006 (UTC)Reply
Are you threatening me now? I stated my copncerns. This article is over quoted and all it does is bash counriries. It in no way whatsoever states ANY defense from those countries in relation to this report. Not a single one. I could care less what some guys said back whenever. He did not respond to this report. If you want to balance the POV of this article then you will find responses. Do not threraten me. If you do not want to pay attention to the concerns of others then what are you doing here? This is a community whether you like it or not. Jason Safoutin 21:50, 26 May 2006 (UTC)Reply

Clearly itemize your remaining concerns here


Jason, the reason I asked you to state your concerns here is that it is extremely tedious to figure out what concerns you have left, as about half the concerns you raised were based on your inability or unwillingness to read the aticle, its sources and the existing discussion. So here comes the list of concerns and questions from your edits:

1. "Where are quotes from those who do not believe the report or whatever?"

This was discussed extensively above.

2. "Who is this group as it IMO is not "well known" as I never heard of them."

Just click on the wikilink to find out.

3. "This artice focuses soley on this report which seems IMO to be a report against governments."

Read the AI report if you don't know what it is about. Comments that are based on what things "seem IYO" are not helpful, read the sources so that you know what they are about.

4. "Is anyone going to call all the governments this report mentions for their view?"

You are certainly welcome to call any government you want. Wikinews does not have the capacity nor prestige to directly obtain responses from governments. The AI report has been widely reported in news media all over the world and we have to rely on responses from governments to these reports.

5. "I also don't see the news here."

AI issues annual reports of human rights records, especially concening prisoners, for each country every year. These reports have historically had a big impact on the public opinion and put public pressure on countries to improve human rights conditions -- sometimes with great success. This is why AI has received the Nobel peace price for its work.

6. "You cannot bash them and call it NPOV without getting both sides of the situation."

This has been clearly addressed by Brian.

7. "Also where is this report? Is it all avaliable online?"

This has been discussed extensively before. Commenting on a discussion without making the effort to first read previous discussions or the sources is unproductive and disruptive.

8. "You cannot mention that a report, to which is not available fully, without paying, based on previous posts, calls any nation country or government "arrogant" and not back up a single defense to that accusation."

Again, commenting on a discussion without making the effort to first read previous discussions or the sources is unproductive and disruptive. As was discussed under the same heading as your post, the full report is available for free online.

9. "The quotes by officials prior to this report have no real basis in the article. They are not responding to this report or anything to do with it."

That's exactly why these quotes are not in the article. Not reading the article before commenting on the talk page is unproductive and disruptive.

10. "If anyone plans on calling anyone "arrogant", I would want a defense as wellpovSelective reporting is not NPOV thats bias IMO."

Again Brian addressed this well. If a response is available but is ignored in the article, I fully agree with you, but we cannot let governments decide for us what news we can report, depending on what they dignify with a response.

--vonbergm 21:57, 26 May 2006 (UTC)Reply

All of these conserns are either a result of misinformation or have been extensively addressed. So please,

No they have not. You may want to bash nations but WEN does not. There are serious POV issues here. If you choose to ignore them then fine. Do so. I refuse to sit here and repeat myself. If you do not want to even attempt a defense response then this will stay as NPOV tag. I could care less if this is annual or not. If you bash something, you get a response. Thats why we have WN:NPOV. BALANCED reporting. Not my problem if you do not like it. Jason Safoutin 22:01, 26 May 2006 (UTC)Reply
you refuse to take any help from vonbergm:s effort. I publish as you cant present any actionable objections. international 22:11, 26 May 2006 (UTC)Reply
Jason, after all the work I have done, please at least specify which of the above points have not been addressed. I numbered them to make it easier for you, so you just need to say 1, 2 and 5, for example. Or you could say "all", or "none", or list an extra concern that I overlooked (some of your statements seemed repetative, so I did not list all things you said). All I am asking for is a little bit of good will to help out an editor (that would be me) that has problems getting it. --vonbergm 22:14, 26 May 2006 (UTC)Reply
Nope. I give up. Repetitive because you are ignoring me and my concerns. At this poiunt I am also choosing to ignore you two. You refuse to aknowledge my concerns, then I refuse to aknowledge you. Jason Safoutin 22:15, 26 May 2006 (UTC)Reply
Not sure if I am meant as one of the "you two", but I don't think you can say that I ignored your concerns, after I went through the effort of itemizing them and summarizing the responses from the talk page. Either way, I don't think that listing some numbers is too much to ask for. --vonbergm 22:19, 26 May 2006 (UTC)Reply

List your concerns here!


I'm concerned that Jason Safoutin will keep supporting non-actionable objections, then when asked for valid reasons will, in defense, "give up". This action perpetuates him as a victim and potentially gathers support for a misguided cause. Until rational reasons appear here for delaying this article, my opinion, which gives little weight to his, stands. The story is well written and sourced, except for a few wordy sentences masquerading as paragraphs. Karen 23:07, 26 May 2006 (UTC)Reply

Actually you are wrong. I think you are violating NPOV but hey, you don't care. No one does. Well written? I think not. Jason Safoutin 23:20, 26 May 2006 (UTC)Reply

Jason Safoutin, my edit was to correct the lack of doubling of the final consonant in "occur" when prefixing "ed" or "ing". Perhaps that's an American English point-of-view. My resource is , which usually mentions British variations. I'm fairly certain I'm right, but will review any valid contrary evidence. The extent of my involvement in the NPOV discussion here is simply to support my side to bring consensus, bringing no other evidence to bear - exactly what you're doing for your side, your buddy MrMiscellanious. Your puckering claims that the grapes are sour each time you "give up" (but still go on objecting). If I didn't care about Wikinews story neutrality, I wouldn't bother with a note to say "Watch this one, he's constantly supporting non-actionable objections when an NPOV discussion takes place."

Since you're giving up here on the NPOV discussion, see if you can actually prove me wrong with other reasons the story isn't well written (i.e. support your claims) or research the spelling variations on "occurred, occurring". Like mine, your contribution might be small, but could better the story by being a positive contributor - working with others. Karen 23:42, 26 May 2006 (UTC)Reply

As it stands this article is being published with nothing but POV. And IMO i am being forced to accept that POV. At least I know who the POV pushers are now. Jason Safoutin 23:27, 26 May 2006 (UTC)Reply

Yes, the point of view of the story is that it's stating what the Amnesty Report 2006 is saying - so we don't have to read the whole thing ourselves. File another story that disputes the report; that'd be contributory, indeed. I'm at least glad you haven't really given up, but I'm annoyed that you keep claiming you are. Karen 23:42, 26 May 2006 (UTC)Reply

No. Thats not how it works. If you want this published then you need to support BOTH sides. If you do not want to follow policy then walk through the door. As an administrator you should know policy and follow it. Jason Safoutin 23:58, 26 May 2006 (UTC)Reply
Jason, this reminds me of the quite recent news of the person calling in to the police complaining that everyone else driving on the highway was going in the wrong direction... --vonbergm 00:36, 27 May 2006 (UTC)Reply
I support publish; articel is ok now. Yrtsihpos 02:51, 27 May 2006 (UTC)Reply



Phew... Reading the article now, and after all this "discussion", it seems little has changed since my last edit. DragonFire1024|Jason Safoutin seems unwilling to put a convincing case forward. It could be worthwhile to summarise the misinterpretation of the NPOV policy over this issue. So this kind of ludicrous nonsense can be sorted out. Perhaps the policy itself needs to be re-examined. --elliot_k 09:53, 28 May 2006 (UTC)Reply

agree-need new NPOV-less chains for articels. Yrtsihpos 12:12, 28 May 2006 (UTC)Reply
Obviously if consensus defies policy, then policy should be re-written, at least to clarify it so the majority can understand it. I don't see a problem with policy with this story - just how it's interpreted. Consensus usually is for adherence to policy, hence my continued opinion to publish. Karen 22:47, 29 May 2006 (UTC)Reply