Talk:Amnesty International

Edit request

Please remove the last pragraph of the lead section bcoz it is an ad for Amnesty International. Jdn2004 (talk) 17:32, 15 July 2025 (UTC)

It describes in a factual manner what they do though, so I am not in favour or removing that paragraph. Lova Falk (talk) 18:11, 18 August 2025 (UTC)

PS It would be good with a secondary source though, do you have one? Lova Falk (talk) 18:13, 18 August 2025 (UTC)

I found a secondary source and copyedited the text. Lova Falk (talk) 18:18, 18 August 2025 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 25 November 2025

Please change "UKAIUK" (in this section, under "2022 report on systemic racism") to "AIUK"; seems to be a typo, as the abbreviation for Amnesty International UK is written as "AIUK" within the same paragraph. Boxwords (talk) 18:33, 25 November 2025 (UTC)

 Done GothicGolem29 (Talk) 00:29, 26 November 2025 (UTC)

Amnesty report on anti-trans lobbyist groups

Moved from User talk:Mattymmoo

 – Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 15:38, 14 July 2026 (UTC)

[Referring to earlier discussion

We're clearly at a standstill here, so I'm going to tag some of the other people that were involved in the edit dispute on the various pages where this content is being fought over, and hope that they join the discussion.

(Genspect)

@InfernoHues @User:HenrikHolen @User:Katzrockso

(FWS)

@WorthPoke2

(Beira's Place)

@User:Sirfurboy

I'll notify wikiproject LGBT and wikiproject Human Rights as well, since this is an LGBT and human rights related matter. Snokalok2 (talk) 13:42, 14 July 2026 (UTC)

For all just joining, this is the disputed text:

In 2026, Amnesty published a report detailing collaboration between anti-trans lobbyist groups and the British media to manufacture the contemporary anti-transgender movement. In July of that year, they also published a briefing that mapped what it described as 'anti-rights' groups in the UK, which included a number of gender-critical organisations including For Women Scotland, Sex Matters, and the LGB Alliance. Following immediate legal threats and allegations of defamation from these groups, with an offer from JK Rowling to financially back those who wished to sue, Amnesty temporarily withdrew the report from its website to undergo an internal review. A spokesperson from Amnesty UK shortly thereafter expressed regret that the report was published without proper review, stating "Its use of language does not reflect the position of Amnesty International UK which is why it was promptly removed". Snokalok2 (talk) 13:43, 14 July 2026 (UTC)

References

I think it could be shortened somewhat, but I think mention of it at some point is DUE. Katzrockso (talk) 14:07, 14 July 2026 (UTC)

I don't see any issue with the content as it is. That being said, it's a developing situation. Don't spend too much energy on live reporting. Let the events unfold and once amnesty's review is concluded the content can be revised. HenrikHolen (talk) 14:33, 14 July 2026 (UTC)

I agree. I don't have any issue with it on the Amnesty International page, and feel it is totally due, as what Katstockso stated, and the text as it currently stands there, at Amnesty International#2020s. I don't have an issue with the length either as it can be changed as more information is added. In solidarity - Historyday01 (talk) 15:07, 14 July 2026 (UTC)

Is Mattymmoo content to have this content discussion here? I would have thought this is better centralised on the relevant talk page. Are we talking about the coverage at Amnesty International? Or are you talking about adding it to lots of different pages? Strongly oppose the latter. The former is acceptable but sub-optimal, as I think this is reasonably likely to become notable, but like so much news reporting, I am unhappy about us leaping in on the strength of some news articles. I can't stop editors from following the news cycle, but I know it's a mistake. We are not volunteer journalists.

My preference is to wait. Better sources will emerge in time (or else it never was notable). When the sources emerge, we'll know what to say. Note also that Amnesty International is an advocacy organisation. I'm a paid up member, but that doesn't mean I think we should be repeating what they say on Wikipedia, unless secondary sources write about what they are doing. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 14:44, 14 July 2026 (UTC)

thank you for your sensible comments, Sirfurboy, and thank you for asking, I did not invite this discussion onto my talk page, & would prefer that the discussion decamped to the more appropriate location Amnesty Talk. Mattymmoo (talk) 14:59, 14 July 2026 (UTC)

Personally, as I said above, there's no issue with it on the Amnesty International page. I would say there should be a discussion at Talk:Beira's Place as whether to add it to that page, as you removed the paragraph in question from there. Similarly, we could have a discussion at Talk:Amnesty International, but I also feel like the discussion here is basically about that page, so the most I'd do is link to this discussion there, as people may end up saying the same here as they would say there. I also hear what you are saying, but the discussion has already started here, so it will likely will continue here, as that is the link on various Wikiprojects. Of course, you are willing to disagree with me on that point, and free to start a discussion on Talk:Amnesty International if you wish. I'm personally not invested enough to start such a discussion. In solidarity - Historyday01 (talk) 15:12, 14 July 2026 (UTC)

I've moved the discussion. Mattymmoo is not required to host a content discussion they do not want on their user talk page. It will also get more eyes on it here. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 15:43, 14 July 2026 (UTC)

I think that some sort of mention would likely be appropropriate on the Amnesty International page, though I'm not wildly happy with several aspects of the text, and I agree that this is a rapidly developing situation. I don't think there are yet grounds for including versions of this text on other pages about specific groups, such as Beira's Place though that would change if one of them actually did sue. I also note that "gender-critical" is only one of the six categories discussed in the Amnesty report, which also lists organisations such as Catholic Bishops' Conference of England and Wales and the All-Party Parliamentary Group "Christians in Parliament". Jonathan A Jones (talk) 16:24, 14 July 2026 (UTC)

That's my thought as well. And now that it is in this talk page, I can say that I continue to support the continued inclusion of this text on this page. Whether we want to revise the text, we certainly can so so, revising the text in question that is already on the page. In solidarity - Historyday01 (talk) 19:20, 14 July 2026 (UTC)

(Note: Summoned from Wikipedia talk:WikiProject LGBTQ+ studies)

I think it is reasonable to mention this in those articles but I think that the disputed description is too long to be included in each article. I think that a relatively detailed description belongs in one place and that a single sentence referring to it could be added to articles for the various organisations. The sentence should mention that the report was removed. If the report is ever reissued, in an approved form, then will be easier to update our coverage if we have it in one place rather than duplicated across multiple articles. DanielRigal (talk) 16:02, 14 July 2026 (UTC)

Agreed. This is what I said over at Genspect as well. InfernoHues (talk) 16:16, 14 July 2026 (UTC)

Just quickly going in here, but as InfernoHues pointed out, there is a discussion about including this report on the Genspect page here: Talk:Genspect#Amnesty Report. No such sections discussions have been created on the talk page for Beira's Place, the talk page for Catholic Bishops' Conference of England and Wales, or other groups mentioned in the Amnesty Report (May 2026 version, with a technical explainer that lists all the groups, and the only out on the Amnesty site and the July 2026 version (an update of the May report). There's also a summary/overview here and here.

From what I can tell from a quick read, the report mentions/describes organizations like Alliance Defending Freedom, LGB Alliance, Sex Matters, FiLiA, Women’s Sports Union (no page on here), Christian Concern, CitizenGO, Sex Equality and Equity Network (no page on here), and others, while focusing on news coverage by The Guardian, The Daily Telegraph, The Sun, The Sunday Times, The Times, of individuals like Brianna Ghey, Isla Bryson, and J.K. Rowling. There's news coverage of all of this, mostly after Amnesty pulled down the report in...

• LGBTQ Nation
• Bureau of Investigative Journalism
• Pink News
• BBC News
• Newsweek
• Star Observer
• The Times (behind a paywall)
• Scotsman
• Unherd (behind paywall)
• Scene Magazine
• The Independent

In any case, it should continue to have a paragraph in this article. There is more than enough media coverage to justify it. In solidarity - Historyday01 (talk) 20:10, 14 July 2026 (UTC)

I support having a short(er) paragraph on the Amnesty page plus pointers to this discussion on relevant Talk pages Mattymmoo (talk) 22:49, 14 July 2026 (UTC)

It's clearly due. I think the para at the top of the thread is probably sufficient for now. Simonm223 (talk) 16:00, 15 July 2026 (UTC)

I would agree that there is no rush to add this text to any page - the situation will probably continue to develop a bit and if, for example, Amnesty issues a formal apology as requested, then we'll just be left having to re-edit everything. I vote to leave this for a few days at leastStupidLookingKid (talk) 16:42, 15 July 2026 (UTC)

I really don't think we'd need to re-edit everything if Amnesty apologized. We'd have to add a line saying "Amnesty subsequently issued a formal apology". Snokalok2 (talk) 16:48, 15 July 2026 (UTC)

Exactly. StupidLookingKid is completely wrong here. There will be no need to "re-edit everything." I agree with Simonm223 here as well. In solidarity - Historyday01 (talk) 16:06, 17 July 2026 (UTC)

Tribunal Tweets have made produced a comprehensive resource which may be useful here, it includes the Report itself; interview with its author; all the letters in repsonse; and press reports

• https://tribunaltweets.substack.com/p/amnesty-international-uk-letters

Mattymmoo (talk) 14:16, 16 July 2026 (UTC)

Substack is a self-published blogging platform. It is NOT a reliable source here. In solidarity - Historyday01 (talk) 15:22, 17 July 2026 (UTC)

A couple suggestions for clarifying the content. It refers to both a report and a subsequent briefing, and then says the report was withdrawn. But it seems to be the briefing that was withdrawn. It should clarify which document the latter sentences are referring to. It also says the withdrawal was temporary, but that does not seem to be the case.

For discussion of the rescinded report in the other articles, I think due weight would fall somewhere between no mention and a brief sentence.--Trystan (talk) 14:18, 16 July 2026 (UTC)

While it has been referred to as a briefing here, it is a report "A Growing Threat: The Anti-Rights Movement in the UK", which was withdrawn "temporarily" & seems unlikely to be hosted by AI again, however its archive has been circulated widely & seems unlikely to disapear. Mattymmoo (talk) 15:09, 16 July 2026 (UTC)

I would indeed be surprised if Amnesty republishes the July report given the letters they have received, most notably the one from Beira's Place. Has the May report received significant secondary coverage? I'm not sure that the first sentence of the proposed text is appropriate given that the sourcing is solely to Amnesty itself: in particular I don't think we can state its conclusions in Wiki voice without much better sourcing. Jonathan A Jones (talk) 15:47, 16 July 2026 (UTC)

Seems pretty consistent with other sourcing throughout the article. See:

On 5 December 2018, Amnesty International strongly condemned the execution of the leaders of the "black realtors" gang Ihar Hershankou and Siamion Berazhnoy in Belarus.

On 2 November 2020, Amnesty International reported that 54 people – mostly Amhara women and children and elderly people – were killed by the OLF in the village of Gawa Qanqa, Ethiopia.

In December 2024, Amnesty concluded that Israel was committing genocide in Gaza in its war against Palestinian militants in the territory.

Regardless, to address your concerns I have added two secondary sources - one from as recently as ten minutes ago. I encourage you to read the pinknews source in particular. Snokalok2 (talk) 19:15, 16 July 2026 (UTC)

These are primary sources. They are reporting an ongoing situation. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 20:48, 16 July 2026 (UTC)

The entire history section is almost exclusively cited to news stories from the time of occurrence, and Amnesty reports. Why is this section then the only one you’re arguing to exclude? Surely by your logic, we need to blank all of it. Snokalok2 (talk) 20:55, 16 July 2026 (UTC)

I'm not arguing to exclude it. I'm saying those aren't secondary sources. I specifically said inclusion here was acceptable but sub-optimal. And yes, there is a lot wrong with this article. All the WP:PROSELINE should be completely rewritten based on secondary sources. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 21:05, 16 July 2026 (UTC)

I'm also still not seeing any independent sources for the May report. What am I missing? Jonathan A Jones (talk) 08:01, 17 July 2026 (UTC)

There are independent sources. Editors have missed, entirely, all the sources I mentioned in my comment on July 14th, which is odd, and shows a lack of care about this topic. The Bureau of Investigative Journalism had an article about that report in mid-June. In solidarity - Historyday01 (talk) 15:29, 17 July 2026 (UTC) Update: Unherd (behind paywall) also focuses on the May report as does Scene Magazine. Also, there are many other sources, I mentioned there about the report, all about the July update, in LGBTQ Nation, Pink News, BBC News, Newsweek, Star Observer, The Times (behind a paywall), Scotsman, and The Independent.In solidarity - Historyday01 (talk) 15:32, 17 July 2026 (UTC)

Boldly added in all the sources in my previous comment with this edit. It really wasn't that hard to find independent sources, not sure why you couldn't find them. In solidarity - Historyday01 (talk) 16:04, 17 July 2026 (UTC)

Apologies, I had interpreted your comment as being sources for the July events, not May. Jonathan A Jones (talk) 16:24, 17 July 2026 (UTC)

Oh well, most of the sources I listed were for the July events, but a few were before. There was a LOT of coverage of the July events, but less about what happened in May. In solidarity - Historyday01 (talk) 17:08, 17 July 2026 (UTC)

apart from Beira's place none of the organisations mention in the para are sourced properly. ~2026-40944-25 (talk) 14:35, 23 July 2026 (UTC)

That is inaccurate. They are. In solidarity - Historyday01 (talk) 23:45, 26 July 2026 (UTC)

Just for reference, Amnesty has now reported itself to the Charity Commission, submitting a serious incident report . ~2026-40125-09 (talk) 18:49, 16 July 2026 (UTC)

Good catch Snokalok2 (talk) 19:36, 16 July 2026 (UTC)

22nd July - Charity Commission have opened a regulatory compliance case against Amnesty (see Third Sector and Civil Society articles). Can I propose editting the text again, here and everywhere else its been inserted, to say "On 22 July, the Charity Commission confirmed it had opened a regulatory compliance case against Amnesty over the incident", which is more consequential than self referral. StupidLookingKid (talk) 08:16, 23 July 2026 (UTC)

Could I suggest “And the Charity Commission opened a regulatory compliance case against Amnesty” after the self referral? Snokalok2 (talk) 10:36, 23 July 2026 (UTC)

I would prefer replacing "On July 16th, Amnesty subsequently submitted a serious incident report about itself to the Charity Commission for England and Wales" with my proposed text, otherwise the paragraph will just keep growing. Now a case has been opened, the referral for a case isn't very notable. StupidLookingKid (talk) 13:09, 23 July 2026 (UTC)

Hmm. Honestly, I don't see an issue with the paragraph growing, as that entire paragraph could be moved to the "Criticism and controversies" section, entitled something like "Anti-trans lobbyist groups report", as other sub-sections there have between 1-7 paragraphs. Just a thought. That way, we could keep that Amnesty submitted the incident report and that the Charity Commission opened a regulatory compliance case. That's just my thoughts on it. In solidarity - Historyday01 (talk) 13:30, 23 July 2026 (UTC)

Agree it should be in Criticism and Controversies. I'd argue "'The Anti-Rights Movement in the UK' Report" is a better title.

Re length, this is already a long article. There's no need to make it longer if we don't need to. I think guidance on length is that we are meant to be finding ways to trim it where we can. StupidLookingKid (talk) 14:43, 23 July 2026 (UTC)

Well, that is a better section title. And in terms of the article being long, we could always split some of the content somewhere, perhaps to the Criticism of Amnesty International page, or maybe somewhere else. In solidarity - Historyday01 (talk) 14:58, 23 July 2026 (UTC)

Could I ask you to make the changes, @Historyday01 or @Snokalok2? Partly because I am utterly inept at editing and don't trust myself not to accidently deleted the whole of Wikipedia, and partly because any changes should also be mirrored in the TERF article where I don't have editing rights. StupidLookingKid (talk) 15:14, 23 July 2026 (UTC)

Moved it, but I do believe it's most due on this page Snokalok2 (talk) 15:51, 23 July 2026 (UTC)

I agree. Thanks for doing that. Added in the text to that page with this edit. It's in this section: Trans-exclusionary radical feminism#United Kingdom. I also referred to this discussion, just to be completely transparent. In solidarity - Historyday01 (talk) 17:43, 23 July 2026 (UTC)

"Alliance Defending Freedom, and FiLiA"

These two are not mentioned in the sources and need to be sourced or removed ~2026-40944-25 (talk) 04:49, 24 July 2026 (UTC)

I've removed it from that page. It is off topic there. The story is about Amnesty. The report has been permanently withdrawn. There must surely be some secondary sources about the situation in the UK that can be used to write that section, but they will not be focusing on this report. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 08:29, 24 July 2026 (UTC)

I’ve restored it. Amnesty being forced under duress to retract a report and throw itself on the government’s mercy makes it more notable, not less. We have far more editors in favor of its inclusion on the TERF page, both here and in the local discussion. And if I’m being completely honest, I don’t think you’re repeated demand for everything to not be PROSELINE is helping the discussion. Something should not have to have a book written about it years after the fact to finally be allowed on the wiki article Snokalok2 (talk) 11:04, 24 July 2026 (UTC)

So to be clear, you restored into a section that carries a clear banner that this section "should include a summary of Trans-exclusionary radical feminism by country." a news report about Amnesty International withdrawing a report. The same section also randomly mentions JK Rowling, but actually does not describe a summary of the article subject in the country at all. You are happy with that? Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 11:17, 24 July 2026 (UTC)

The section doesn’t “randomly” mention JK Rowling, it opens by highlighting her as a leading figure for TERFism within the UK (which I see you removed as well)

And I restored to the UK section of the TERF page a paragraph about Amnesty publishing a report on TERF groups in the UK, until a coalition of TERF groups with legal funding from JK Rowling threatened to sue unless the report was withdrawn, and Amnesty withdrew it. Reducing that to "a news report about Amnesty International withdrawing a report" is so incredibly reductive.

You removed all of this to replace it with one (1) scholar's analysis, despite consensus for inclusion on the TERF page being shared by the overwhelming majority discussing it both on the TERF page and here. I count, specifically.

TERF page:

For:

@WorthPoke2

@InfernoHues

Myself

Against:

@StupidLookingKid (later changed to support)

Here:

For:

@Historyday01

@StupidLookingKid

Against:

You.

So if you could kindly stop blanking, that would be great. It's not helping. Snokalok2 (talk) 12:09, 24 July 2026 (UTC)

I agree. It is notable enough to have on this page and on the Amnesty page. The edits by Sirfurboy are unhelpful and disruptive. In solidarity - Historyday01 (talk) 12:12, 24 July 2026 (UTC)

Belatedly entirely seconding. WorthPoke2 (talk) 11:57, 3 August 2026 (UTC)

The Trans-exclusionary radical feminism page has since been locked due to edit-warring, so I proposed a change to that section here. In solidarity - Historyday01 (talk) 12:34, 24 July 2026 (UTC)

Bit confused with the to and fro here. For both pages, my view was and is that we have rushed into adding this prematurely, leading to ongoing edits and unnecessary effort. But appreciate I was out voted on that. A version of it is due on the Amnesty page (but I am concerned that adding every update, to every issue relating to Amnesty is just making the page longer and longer).

Can we keep TERF discussion on the TERF page? StupidLookingKid (talk) 16:00, 24 July 2026 (UTC)

I mean, it is confusing, and I'm sorry about that. I think there should be discussions on each page BUT the text does not need to be the same on each page, if that makes sense. In solidarity - Historyday01 (talk) 23:44, 26 July 2026 (UTC)

Amnesty have now issued their public apology. So, let's revise the text again. Given that we now have a conclusion to the kerfuffle, there is no need to explain the story proseline to readers. I propose we shorten to:

"On July 10, 2026, the organization published a briefing that mapped what it described as 'anti-rights' groups in the UK, which included a number of organizations including For Women Scotland, Sex Matters, Beira's Place, the LGB Alliance, Alliance Defending Freedom, and FiLiA. Following legal threats Amnesty withdrew the report and issued an apology, stating that "We apologise to Beira's Place and other groups, which we categorised as gender critical organisations, which we should not have collectively labelled as anti-rights. [...] This document should never have been published, and full responsibility for this error rests with Amnesty International UK."

This is shorter than the current text (which is better), explains all the salient facts, and we only really need one reference - this new BBC article covers it all. StupidLookingKid (talk) 17:25, 2 August 2026 (UTC)

Not bad but we should make clear these were backed by Rowling - not out of any animus towards the lady herself, but because billionaire money makes a difference to an org whose global reserves total to a couple hundred mil at the most. Snokalok2 (talk) 18:44, 2 August 2026 (UTC)

Good idea. Here's my proposed text, although without anything about Rowling. If there are sources she backs organizations (I believe there are on her page, specifically at J. K. Rowling#Transgender people), we can certainly add that in somewhere in this paragraph as well, which uses the text StupidLookingKid wrote, plus an addition of a new line:

On July 10, 2026, the organization published a briefing that mapped what it described as 'anti-rights' groups in the UK, which included a number of organizations including For Women Scotland, Sex Matters, Beira's Place, the LGB Alliance, Alliance Defending Freedom, and FiLiA. Following legal threats, Amnesty withdrew the report and issued an apology, stating that "We apologise to Beira's Place and other groups, which we categorised as gender critical organisations, which we should not have collectively labelled as anti-rights. [...] This document should never have been published, and full responsibility for this error rests with Amnesty International UK." The organization also withdrew an earlier report which detailed collaboration between anti-trans lobbyist groups and the British media to manufacture the contemporary anti-transgender movement.

Most of the articles I found are pretty slanted toward the organizations Amnesty described. Even so, I don't know if articles like this in The Telegraph would be helpful to cite or not. In solidarity - Historyday01 (talk) 18:49, 2 August 2026 (UTC)

https://www.theguardian.com/society/2026/jul/16/amnesty-uk-self-reports-to-watchdog-calling-women-centre-anti-rights

https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/cp8r8l84p8yo

Here are two sources mentioning Rowling's org threatening to sue, as well as Rowling herself offering to bankroll the others. Snokalok2 (talk) 19:12, 2 August 2026 (UTC)

I have no objection to this text. As revised by Historyday01 looks good, except why do we need three sources where one will do? WP:OVERCITE is worth considering. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 19:35, 2 August 2026 (UTC)

Honestly, I don't think there's that many sources there, as some of those sources I took from the existing ones I added for the original text. Only six in total. And some are needed for the second report which was withdrawn. I would add in some criticism of Amnesty's decision, by transgender people, but the only thing I've seen so far has been a newsletter on Substack by Erin Reed which would fall under self-published sources guidelines. In solidarity - Historyday01 (talk) 00:12, 3 August 2026 (UTC)

I'm also good with this text. InfernoHues (talk) 20:51, 2 August 2026 (UTC)

I think I'm with Snokalok that I'd prefer either Following legal threats from JK Rowling, or Following legal threats from JK Rowling and the organizations affected depending on the sourcing. Rowling was a fairly major player in this saga and I don't think it makes sense to just not mention her at all. Loki (talk) 23:37, 2 August 2026 (UTC)

I totally agree with that. In solidarity - Historyday01 (talk) 00:09, 3 August 2026 (UTC)

Having read some of the legal threats, I don't see any of them coming from Rowling. Rowling did offer to fund them, but those legal threats were incoming anyway. Notice both what those two primary sources say, and where they place the information. No one says "following legal threats from JK Rowling". That would be our synthesis. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 07:11, 3 August 2026 (UTC)

You say "Rowling did offer to fund them but those legal threats were incoming anyway". I think there's very little evidence for that.

Some groups complained about it. There's no evidence they would have launched legal threats without Rowling's backing, especially given eg FWS have a long history of not legally challenging such criticisms. WorthPoke2 (talk) 12:00, 3 August 2026 (UTC)

And this indicates why we need to get this information right. Because people like you are believing the synthetic narrative. Look, Genspect issued this letter on 12 July . Rowlings tweet saying such groups should apply to her Women's Fund was on 13 July. The lawsuits were already incoming. That's how time works. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 12:28, 3 August 2026 (UTC)

As far as I know, Rowling tweeted that groups should apply to her fund and expressed her opposition to the report, to fund their lawsuits, so in that way she "did" engage in a legal threat (if you want to say it exactly, she could say she offered to financially support legal action against Amnesty). BBC says:

In a post on X, Rowling has invited any women's organisation targeted by what she described as the "Amnesty blacklist" to apply to the JK Rowling Women's Fund for support if they are looking to take legal action. Rowling also offered financial support for legal action by gay men's organisations on the list, and said they could contact her via her website.

In another article, BBC said: "The Harry Potter author threatened Amnesty with legal action over a briefing it published on its website called "A growing threat: the anti-rights movement in the UK"."

So, on those grounds, I think Rowling should be included, as she has been a part of this whole thing from the beginning and seemingly declared victory after Amnesty's recent apology, even sharing a statement by Beira's Place after that point. We don't necessarily need to continue the last part, but we have to mention Rowling somewhere in the text, I'd say. In solidarity - Historyday01 (talk) 16:46, 3 August 2026 (UTC)

I think we should say "XYZ groups threatened to sue, with financial backing from JK Rowling" Snokalok2 (talk) 18:22, 3 August 2026 (UTC)

Yes, that's more accurate; or: XYZ groups threatened to sue, with JK Rowling offering to support the action financially. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 19:09, 3 August 2026 (UTC)

Disagree with this line in the proposed text: "The organization also withdrew an earlier report which detailed collaboration between anti-trans lobbyist groups and the British media to manufacture the contemporary anti-transgender movement". That suggests it is a simply a fact that there "anti trans lobbyist groups" which "collaborate" with the British to media in order to "manufacture" an "anti-transgender movement." All of which invites debate that isn't needed on this page.

Suggest instead "Amnesty withdrew the report, together with an earlier report covering related issues, and issued an apology, stating that "We apologise to Beira's Place and other groups..." StupidLookingKid (talk) 08:49, 3 August 2026 (UTC)

Eh, I don't agree that those two should be combined, as the other report isn't exactly the same as the July one, as the July one is more broad, talking about "anti-rights" while other is a bit narrower. I strongly disagree with combining them that way. If you don't like that language, we could just state that last sentence as:

The organization also withdrew an earlier report which asserted that anti-trans lobbyist groups and the British media were working together.

This way we aren't using the words "collaboration" or "manufacture" since you seem to be opposed to those words with the claims it will create additional issues. In solidarity - Historyday01 (talk) 16:53, 3 August 2026 (UTC)

Great, thanks StupidLookingKid (talk) 18:19, 3 August 2026 (UTC)

"Asserted" I feel goes a bit too much the other way. Let's just split the difference with MOS:SAID and used "said" or "stated" Snokalok2 (talk) 18:21, 3 August 2026 (UTC)

I also think that by removing "manufacture", we lose a sense of timeline. That is, the report didn't say they'd *just* started doing this, it said it'd been going on for a long time. So perhaps "to amplify the anti trans movement" or "for much of the duration of the anti-trans movement" something like that Snokalok2 (talk) 18:24, 3 August 2026 (UTC)

Nope. What you are doing here is taking implications from a report that has been retracted and weaving them into the text as if they are reliable. They aren't. The report was retracted.

With regards to MOS:SAID, it says "To say that someone asserted or claimed something can call their statement's credibility into question." Because the report was retracted, if we are going to make any reference to it, that is indeed the tone we should be using. StupidLookingKid (talk) 18:30, 3 August 2026 (UTC)

A. We're describing what the report said. So yes, taking implications from the report and using them in the description of the report is in fact the ideal thing to do.

B. The report was retracted under threat of billionaire lawsuit. That hardly earns it a skeptical tone in wikivoice, and if you disagree, great, that's what the words "said" and "stated" are for - to neither say the report was right nor wrong, merely that that's what it said. Snokalok2 (talk) 18:39, 3 August 2026 (UTC)

My point is that we shouldn't be focusing, in any detail, on what the report said. Apologies if I had the wrong impression of your suggestion, but you seemed to be implying we use the contents of the report in order to tell the reader about the timeline of the anti-trans movement in the UK. I don't think we should do that. You can of course always take any retracted report and list out its contents because that's describing what the report said. But my point is we should not be describing what it said unless it is essential to explain the retraction.

As a way past this, could we just adopt the proposal by @Historyday01 and replace 'assert' with 'said' there? Because we wouldn't be giving a lot of detail from the report, I'd be happy that it doesn't need the skeptical tone. Reasonable compromise? StupidLookingKid (talk) 19:04, 3 August 2026 (UTC)

And my point is that, even ad extremum - let's say that this was really a report that Amnesty didn't mean to publish, and that months later, after the report had already been thoroughly disseminated and had been reported on in the news, JK Rowling heroically came in and pointed it out to them 100% not at financial gunpoint - and only then did Amnesty realize that "Wait, we actually never meant to publish this at all!"

Let's say all of that was true. It is still worth a sentence to describe what the report said. If this was a report that said the Earth was flat or that evolution was a lie, I'd still say it was worth at least a full sentence describing what it said that was so objectionable so that the reader has a complete picture.

We should not be self-censoring out of some belief that the reader needs to be shielded or that they can't come to their own fully informed conclusion. Snokalok2 (talk) 19:17, 3 August 2026 (UTC)

I agree. Not trying to self-censor or anything here, just to ensure that there's be consensus on the text, to be clear. I'd be okay with "to amplify the anti trans movement". In solidarity - Historyday01 (talk) 19:23, 3 August 2026 (UTC)

We already have, and I am comfortable with, "which asserted [or said] that anti-trans lobbyist groups and the British media were working together." As we add more, the risk that a casual reader uses our text to learn about the research in the report and its findings, rather than to learn about the retraction, grows. But, very happy to accept that I might be jumping at shadows with all this! What's the full line you are thinking of? StupidLookingKid (talk) 19:59, 3 August 2026 (UTC)

"The organization also withdrew a previous report published in May of that year, which said that gender-critical lobbyist groups and the British media had been working together over the past decade to amplify the anti-trans movement."

You may draw exception with "over the past decade". I'd also be happy with "over the past several years" but my basic point comes back to, they weren't alleging this was a new development. Thoughts? Snokalok2 (talk) 21:02, 3 August 2026 (UTC)

Thanks for this. Having seen this in full, I am not worried about the time aspect. However, my point about listing multiple facts from a retracted report in what sounds pretty close to wikivoice still stands. Here you are giving the reader three facts from the retracted report. That gender critical lobbying groups and the British media are in cahoots. That this has been going on for a decade. And that the purpose is to amplify the antitrans movement.

We don't need to do this. The original shorter suggestion was fine. But if you want to include multiple facts from a retracted report we should be emphasisng to readers that the credibility of these statements has been called into question. MOS:SAID suggests "assert" is correct for this, rather than said, so that's what I'd suggest.

Very happy to be outvoted on this one, and I recognise this is itself a pretty trivial spat, which we don't need to keep dragging out! Will leave it with you guys. StupidLookingKid (talk) 09:39, 4 August 2026 (UTC)

How would you feel about "alleged" Snokalok2 (talk) 16:07, 4 August 2026 (UTC)

Yes, "which alleged that gender-critical lobbyist groups..." would work for me. StupidLookingKid (talk) 17:18, 4 August 2026 (UTC)

Why would we want to prevent a reader from learning what the report said? That seems like an NPOV violation to me. That sounds like we're going to bat for J.K. Rowling and company rather than just reporting facts as they exist in reliable sources. Loki (talk) 15:13, 4 August 2026 (UTC)

Because it's been retracted. StupidLookingKid (talk) 17:22, 4 August 2026 (UTC)

I agree. We should not be preventing a reader from learning what the report says at ALL. In solidarity - Historyday01 (talk) 18:25, 4 August 2026 (UTC)

The report was retracted under threat of billionaire lawsuit is your take on this, but as we still have no secondary sourcing, that is WP:OR. And I've already answered this. The information was retracted because it really wasn't in line with the mission of Amnesty International. The lawsuits were a real legal jeopardy because of this. Amnesty couldn't defend against them, regardless of who was funding them. That's my take of course. Also WP:OR until secondary sources look at this. But it also happens to be right. Amnesty’s impartial application of human‑rights standards in cases across ideological divides is what allows it both to stay out of ideological conflicts and to shape emerging international norms. They strive (or have historically striven) for "unimpeachable impartiality and professionalism" (Clark, 2001:15). To label, for instance, a women's crisis mission "anti-rights" is very clearly not unimpeachably impartial, and defending that in court at all would have been a disaster for them. And the thing is, this is not over yet. This was always a story about Amnesty. That story is ongoing. There will be an investigation, and more statements and changes may be made (you bet they will). Our understanding will increase, and secondary sources will be written. But they are not written yet, so we need to stop stitching together the narrative that we want to tell, and just wait for the blinking sources. Until then, keep this short, sweet, and unimpeachably impartial please.

Notes

• Clark, Ann Marie, (2001) Diplomacy of Conscience: Amnesty International and Changing Human Rights Norms. Princeton University Press

Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 19:38, 3 August 2026 (UTC)

They retracted their report. StupidLookingKid (talk) 18:23, 3 August 2026 (UTC)

The winthdrawn report was defamatory, & argued for reducing availability to funding for the named organisations. This seems to have been overlooked, & should be included in the impartial summary. Mattymmoo (talk) 09:34, 4 August 2026 (UTC)

The only people who are saying it is "defamatory" are the groups listed. To include what you suggest makes the text biased. I strongly oppose adding it. Stop muddying the waters. In solidarity - Historyday01 (talk) 12:06, 4 August 2026 (UTC)

Speaking of muddying the waters: our information is limited for lack of secondary sources, but it is still untrue to say that the only people saying this is defamatory are the groups listed. this should be obvious. Rowling was not listed, but was clear in her opinion that it is defamatory. Likewise Andrew Doyle is pretty clear in the Washington Post. There will be others. Not that we should say it is defamatory in Wikivoice. It is enough to be clear that Amnesty said that the labelling did not represent their institutional position. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 13:43, 4 August 2026 (UTC)

As I think of it now, should we also mention the charity commission thing? It feels notable that one of the demands of no lawsuit was that Amensty commission an external investigation into itself, then immediately after it reported itself for a serious incident to the Charity Commission, and the Charity Commission opened a case against them Snokalok2 (talk) 18:48, 4 August 2026 (UTC)

Oh blimey. I don't know. I have a feeling that every new word we add involves three threads and 15 heated tangents. Can I plead that we not add the charity commission stuff, at least until after their findings are out? That shouldn't take too long, and by then it will be clear what we need to say. For example, if the findings are "actually AI did nothing wrong here, the report should go back up" then we can do all that editing in one go. StupidLookingKid (talk) 08:44, 5 August 2026 (UTC)

Some political science analysis: Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 16:06, 4 August 2026 (UTC)

I don't understand why you posted this? It's a self published source, and one with surprising skew:

“ For years, individuals and groups in the gender critical space have—rightly—charged that the views of the most vocal LGBT+ activists and their allies have hardened into orthodoxy, leading to cancellations of people daring to question them in academia, media, and cultural institutions. ”

“ Who were these organizations so intent on undermining the basic rights of Britons? Islamist terrorists? Neo-Nazis?

”

pauliesnug ^{(message / contribs)} 21:40, 4 August 2026 (UTC)

How do you figure it is a WP:SPS? It is published in Persuasion (magazine). Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 22:18, 4 August 2026 (UTC)

It's clearly structurally a Substack, which is probably where the confusion comes from. I agree it's not a particularly reliable source, though. Loki (talk) 22:33, 4 August 2026 (UTC)

I'm bemused. See . Persuasion is Yascha Mounk's non-profit digital magazine. It invites and accepts pitches, edits submissions, and curates content around a stated philosophically liberal perspective. The article is an interesting one, but it is also an opinion piece and primary for the opinion (which is not skewed as you think. The writer is Jacob Mchangama, and on this matter, even if this were an SPS, which it isn't, WP:EXPERTSPS could be invoked). But hey, if you don't like it, walk on by. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 22:44, 4 August 2026 (UTC)

I agree that the source is okay, but what do you want to use it for? InfernoHues (talk) 23:17, 4 August 2026 (UTC)

I didn't want to use it at all. Like the Washington Post article, it is an opinion piece, which I pointed out is primary for the opinion. I posted it for editors who might want to read around the subject more widely and understand the issues and what analysis of this situation is currently being written. The analysis is interesting, and the mission of Persuasion is to challenge groupthink. You don't have to agree with them to agree that's a good idea. Indeed, if you don't read the source critically, they'd probably be upset! Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 06:58, 5 August 2026 (UTC)

Imo it falls into the same category as The Free Press, The Argument, SlowBoring, etc. It's a soapbox substack for self-styled "politically homeless" journalists to write opinion pieces that none of the more reputable publications are willing to pick up. Not particularly useful Snokalok2 (talk) 23:23, 4 August 2026 (UTC)

That is to say, it's an online magazine owned by and strongly associated with one person. It's also new enough it hasn't had enough time to build a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy. I tried to find their editorial policy but they don't seem to have one. Snokalok's assessment is harsher than mine but I think basically we agree on the substance: it's up to them to prove they're more factually rigorous than any random website and I don't think they have. Loki (talk) 23:30, 4 August 2026 (UTC)

Pink News, which is frequently cited, is an online newspaper strongly associated with Benjamin Cohen. It is older of course. Persuasion is 6 years old. At what point does it become sufficiently venerable?

I find this reaction interesting. Yascha Mounk is a notable "political scientist, academic, and author. He is Associate Professor of the Practice of International Affairs at the School of Advanced International Studies at Johns Hopkins University in Washington, D.C." Persuasion has been mentioned or discussed in, at least, the Washington Post, The New York Times, The New Republic, New York Magazine and The Boston Review. The article is not by Mounk but by an equally notable author and human rights lawyer. It may be that you, like pauliesnug, may not like the author's "surprising skew", but if we are not to read the opinion of those we disagree with, we'll live our lives in echo chambers - and in a pluralistic society, that way lies darkness. This is a perfectly good opinion piece that will inform editors of analysis of the situation. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 07:29, 5 August 2026 (UTC)

@Sirfurboy how are you proposing the source is used? Apols, this thread is now so long it is hard to keep track! StupidLookingKid (talk) 08:39, 5 August 2026 (UTC)

I don't propose using it at this time. I propose editors who wish to be well read on the matter read it. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 10:58, 5 August 2026 (UTC)

References

Sub-headers

Separate thing, but reading over the history section, it seems a tad disorganized. Would anyone be opposed to me adding topical subheaders? Say “Israel”, “Islamic world”, “Eastern Europe”, etc Snokalok2 (talk) 21:17, 16 July 2026 (UTC)

Perhaps supplanting the chronological divide but we might see. I suppose it'd be a bit cluttered to have three "Syria", "Israel", "Middle East Misc" tabs for each decade Snokalok2 (talk) 21:20, 16 July 2026 (UTC)

As I think of it now, not supplanting fully, but nonetheless I feel that having section headers so that we're not jumping back and forth between Putin, Israel, and China would be helpful Snokalok2 (talk) 21:30, 16 July 2026 (UTC)

If it is just re-arranging the WP:PROSELINE under new headings, that would feel like re-arranging deck chairs on the Titanic. There are some excellent secondary treatments of Amnesty that could inform the arrangement of the page. This one is already referenced:

• Hopgood, Stephen, Keepers of the Flame: Understanding Amnesty International (Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press, 2006).

John Power has a book referenced already. Here's another:

• Power, Jonathan, Like Water on Stone: The Story of Amnesty International (Boston, MA: Northeastern University Press, 2001).

Tom Buchanan is referenced for some articles but has contributed to the historiography:

• Buchanan, Tom, Amnesty International and Human Rights Activism in Post‑War Britain, 1945–1977 (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2020).

There is a critical monograph here, but there may be some concerns regarding it - the author is polarising, with critics claiming he is a partisan actor working to delegitimise human rights. Propably a good reason we don't quote it here:

• Steinberg, Gerald, Amnesty International: Failed Methodology, Corruption, and Anti‑Israel Bias (Jerusalem: NGO Monitor, 2015).

I'd suggest considering their arrangement of material before trying to decide on ours.

Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 21:46, 16 July 2026 (UTC)

Not a terrible idea, but A. How do we actually source these books? B. Apart from one, they all concern Amnesty pre-2010. C. I very strongly question the reliability of the 2015 source. Snokalok2 (talk) 21:53, 16 July 2026 (UTC)

• Buchanan is available through the Wikipedia library, Cambridge Core: . I'll have to check access on the others if you don't have institutional access. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 22:31, 16 July 2026 (UTC)
• Hopgood's Keepers of the Flame is available through Proquest's ebook central, but the Wikipedia library does not have access to that. If you don't have any institutional or other library access to ebook central, then you may be able to request it here: .
• Buchanan's Like Water on Stone is available to borrow at OpenLibrary:
• Steinberg is available online: , but again, we are in agreement about its reliability as a source. I suggest reading it only inasmuch as any literature review should engage with hostile sources - and at this stage, it may not be the right thing to be reading. I definitely wouldn't start here.

Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 09:26, 17 July 2026 (UTC)