Talk:B'Tselem/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

Untitled

"what they consider to be " human rights violations...

removed because it implies they are not human rights violations. Violation of NPOV. --Elian 23:58 Sep 27, 2002 (UTC)

No; saying "what they consider to be" is called a qualifier and is one of the main tools we use to nuetralize statements. --mav

In this case I disagree. Using this qualifier, which in other cases is totally justified, works here as qualifying the human rights violations as dubious. It gives the impression, that the cases b'tselem works on are de facto no human rights violations. Or would you equally write "Amnesty works against what they consider to be human rights violations"? --Elian 00:45 Sep 28, 2002 (UTC)

Yes I would say that "Amnesty International works against what they consider to be human rights violations" in the same way as saying that "Israel works against what they consider to be terrorist acts" and also "Iraqi President Saddam Hussein states that the current oil embargo is a form of terrorism". These statements are fact and do not cast either doubt or affirmation on the views of the partisans. What is not a fact and a matter of opinion is the definition of the term "human rights violations". --mav

You would, but people don't do. so f.e. in the article USA PATRIOT Act (randomly chosen) one should insert before each mention of terrorism "what the US considers as.." What I mean: there are a lot of statements - most of them undisputed - which go by such in a strict sense not neutral point of view formulations. Nobody feels a need to change this, it's common sense. In this contrast a strictly neutral formulation casts always doubts and I think in this case it is not appropriate. If you are the opinion, the definitions of B'tselem concerning human rights violation don't conform with universally accepted definitions (this would maybe hold true f.e. for the chinese government), such a NPOV formulation is justified, otherwise you are overdoing it and by doing this you are also damaging the value of the qualifiers. How would you formulate the strategy of a chinese human rights commission installed by the government? The same way? Do you see my point? --Elian 01:21 Sep 28, 2002 (UTC)

In a general sense, what you say does have a point (except the part where you imply I'm not a person ;) but anything having to do Israel and the middle east has a greater need to be qualified. For example; this organization probably considers the knocking down of Palestinian homes a human rights violation (I agree with this point, BTW, but that's my POV). Yet the Israeli government states that these actions are not human rights violations and are necessary in order to prevent and punish terrorism. Who is correct? Terrorism is another word I don't like, due to its dubious definition caused by its rampant misuse. However few would argue that the killing of innocent civilians by a non-governmental group who wants to make a political statement is not terrorism. But this particular issue isn't something so important that is warrents all this talk. If you feel strongly enough that the statement is fine unqualified, then change it. But don't be surprised if somebody re-qualifies it. --mav

---

Danny why do you believe that the follow statement is in error? are you saying that B'Tselem has not been critised? OneVoice 03:00, 20 Feb 2004 (UTC)

B'Tselem has been critised for concentrating exclusively on Palestinian issues and has not filed briefs regarding the human rights of individuals or groups not associated with the political left or the Palestinians.

I don't think it is necessary to mention criticisms whose falsity is easily determined just by visiting the B'Tselem web page. For example you can follow the link "Attacks on Israeli Civilians by Palestinians" on the front page to find things including an itemized list of Israeli citizens killed by Palestinians and the circumstances of each. --Zero 04:39, 20 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Zero0000, Danny, rather than declaring the criticism false could you support that statement...the criticism is that B'Tselem files briefs and court cases on behalf to the political left to the exclusion of other segments of Israeli society. This behavior differs from the ACLU for instance. A counter example would be most informative. OneVoice 14:39, 20 Feb 2004 (UTC)

NGO monitor qualifications

Now we are going to have every description of NGO Monitor "qualified" because one individual criticized it? This is simply not a Wikipedia standard, many organizations and groups are criticized, yet we don't list those criticisms every time we mention the group in every single article. Jayjg 16:54, 9 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Fair point - but clearly it would be nice to describe NGO Monitor in some way, so the reader has some idea where they're coming from. - Mustafaa 16:00, 10 Nov 2004 (UTC)

NGO Monitor criticisms

NGO Monitor criticisms belong in an article about NGO monitor, not in an article about Medial Aid for Palestinians. Please keep the articles on topic. Jayjg | (Talk) 23:27, 17 Jan 2005 (UTC)

That is not true, given the credibility of NGO monitor criticism of Medical Aid for Palestinians on the line. You have on several occasions made this point about criticism of NGO monitor, however, many Wikipedia articles have these counter-counterpoints among their articles.

If the "counterpoints" refer specifically to the topic of the page (e.g., in this case, they counter NGO Monitor's criticisms of B'Tselem) that's one thing. Otherwise it's just original research. Jayjg ^(talk) 00:19, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

Human rights violations and the Occupied territories

Oh, get over it. There is absolutely nothing POV to admit that human rights violations occur daily in the occupied territories. Or would you like to find a source that disputes that? I can find hundreds that confirms it. Palestine-info 21:52, 18 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Get over what? NPOV demands that we state the opinion of the group, and make it clear that that is its opinion. The wording is excruciatingly NPOV. Jayjg | (Talk) 22:09, 18 Jan 2005 (UTC)

No, NPOV means that we list all significant views. Not that we insert little "consider"-words everywhere just to ensure that our personal POV, that unfortunately isn't represented by any organisation whatsoever, will get an unworthy place in Wikipedia. Palestine-info 22:29, 18 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Actually, NPOV demands that claims should be clearly indicated as such, and not as simple facts. Quoting from the policy The neutral point of view attempts to present ideas and facts in such a fashion that both supporters and opponents can agree. and First, and most importantly, consider what it means to say that unbiased writing presents conflicting views without asserting them. Thus B'Tselem's view of its work should be presented without asserting that it is true. Jayjg | (Talk) 17:54, 19 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Anti-anti-Israeli NGO

This term is nonsensical and should be removed the article. --Viriditas | Talk 23:18, 18 Jan 2005 (UTC)

It came about this way: originally authors wanted to insert "pro-Israel" before the description of NGO Monitor. However, since NGO Monitor doesn't describe itself as pro-Israel, this was objected to as obviously POV. NGO Monitor does describe itself as against "anti-Israel" NGOs. Thus the absurd phrase "anti-anti-Israel" was invented. Personally, I think the qualifier is idiotic and adds nothing; one could arguably describe B'Tselem the same way. Jayjg | (Talk) 18:00, 19 Jan 2005 (UTC)

How about we remove all pointless little blurbs that is basically saying that "NGO Monitor doesn't like this organsiation" from all NGO:s NGO Monitor doesn't like and place them all on the NGO Monitor page where they really belong. Then all NGO:s can link to that page. Palestine-info 21:18, 19 Jan 2005 (UTC)

NGO Monitor lists different criticisms of each organization, each one relevant to the specific organization. It's much more than "NGO Monitor doesn't like this organization". The criticisms belong on the particular pages where they are relevant; that is standard Wikipedia practice. Jayjg | (Talk) 21:39, 19 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Criticism needs clarification

The following is removed here until it can be made sensible:

The organization is also assailed for its casualty statistics. Critics regularly complain that B'Tselem includes armed combatants among its Palestinian casualty counts. According to Tamar Sternthal of the Committee for Accuracy in Middle East Reporting in America (CAMERA), "B'Tselem has a very loose definition of the term 'civilian', including countless Palestinians who were killed while they attacked Israelis." [3]

B'Tselem statistics include all casualties for both Palestinians and Israelis, so the second sentence (no citation??) makes no sense. The CAMERA sentence is deceptive. The descriptions of the examples given on the CAMERA site are B'Tselem's own descriptions but they are presented as if they are exposes of B'Tselem's inaccuracy. The problem is that other people, not B'Tselem, misunderstand what the classifications mean. They are not combatants versus non-combatants, but military versus civilian. A Palestinian who is not a member of an armed organization counts as civilian even if acting violently, just as a settler who is not on army duty counts as a civilian even if acting violently (which oddly CAMERA has not complained about). It is quite consistent even if sometimes misunderstood. --Zero 15:24, 24 August 2005 (UTC)

It seems sensible enough to me. The way B'Tselem counts things is easily and regularly misunderstood, and it is a valid criticism. Please return it. Jayjg ^(talk) 20:00, 24 August 2005 (UTC)

Actually I agree that they are easily misunderstood. My problem with the current wording is that a reasonable person will take it to mean that B'Tselem is intentionally classifying combatants as innocents. We should try to get hold of the actual definition used by B'Tselem and quote it. Meanwhile, what about the following replacement?

The organization is also assailed for its casualty statistics. Critics regularly complain that B'Tselem classifies casualties into military versus civilian rather than combatant versus non-combatant. This can easily mislead others into thinking that the "civilian" casualties were all innocents, whereas the civilian classification means only that the person was not a member of an armed organization. According to Tamar Sternthal of the Committee for Accuracy in Middle East Reporting in America (CAMERA), "B'Tselem has a very loose definition of the term 'civilian', including countless Palestinians who were killed while they attacked Israelis." [4] --Zero 03:15, 25 August 2005 (UTC)

Looks good. Jayjg ^(talk) 20:41, 25 August 2005 (UTC)

Can someone please put a praise section as well? There are reliable sources that consider B'Tselem to be a factual and positive NGO. With only the criticism section (and without negation of the criticism by other sources) it seems to me that the organization is not being portrayed in a neutral POV. - SafireRain

I couldn't agree more. This criticism section is awful. People on both sides have died as a result of aggressive acts. One side uses terrorist tactics and the other insincerely apologizes for collateral damage. If my sister died as a result of either method, I could care less. Revenge is going to be on my mind. Also no mention of the spies found in the B'Tselem organization, spies working for the Israeli govt. In a conflict where each side is easily seen in a terrible light, B'Tselem has attempted to build some bridges. It's hard to say that about pretty much any other political organization working in the region.

How many people have they killed? -BMBTHC

I checked the source for the section in criticism of -

According to Caroline B. Glick, deputy managing editor of The Jerusalem Post, B'Tselem is a radical leftist organization with a documented history of falsifying and distorting data.[3] This is merely a re-printing of an opinion page which makes the accusation with no evidence provided to back it up. I don't see how this is particularly relevant to an academic discussion of B'Tselem and if it is should there not be quotes for opinion? Birdman9 09:42, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

Lead Section

Not sure about this wording either, it could be read that the article is stating that the subject of the article is guilty of "having a political agenda and falsifying and distorting data". Of course, this is an opinion by one particular group. By the way, I can't find reference to criticism in WP:LEAD, though it maybe necessary to mention it here. How about something like: "B'Tselem has been the subject of criticism by XX types of organisation "YY" and "ZZ", sourced, and then repeating the source further on without repeating any identical information. It is quite hard to figure out what is undue weight here as the weighting seems to depend on where you are in the world. No more bongos 22:21, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

The section that I meant was that "The lead should be capable of standing alone as a concise overview of the article...and briefly describing its notable controversies, if there are any". The next line of course is a discussion of providing appropriate weight, and I agree with you that that is often less than simple. I generally agree that we should condense the criticism if it is possible, but I'm not sure that the "XX" would be easily phrased, since at least in this case, the group in question's "type" is disputed, though I'm sure that the current wording could still be improved. Perhaps it would be best if you could produce a version that you'd like here, and then we could work from there? Tewfik^Talk 22:31, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

"Israeli organisations YY and ZZ?" No more bongos 22:37, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

I don't see any problem with the paragraph in question. NGO Monitor is Wikilinked in the lede, and described more fully later in the article.

I wonder, though, why the previous paragraph refers to "B'Tselem's stated goals". Doesn't that fall into the same category of words to avoid as "so-called", "alleged", and "purported"? — Malik Shabazz (talk · contribs) 23:22, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

If you look at the wording, one way of reading it makes it appear that the article is calling NGO Monitor's claim correct. Anyway, I would suggest this is too specific to put in the lead as any more than a brief reference. Compare to NGO Monitor's own page.

I wouldn't say "stated" is necessarily a weasel word, but I suppose it is unnecessary in that sentence. No more bongos 23:37, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

I don't agree that the criticism is too unimportant to belong in the lede. Criticism of B'Tselem is notable, and the group and its work is controversial. A single sentence, which is rebutted, definitely isn't giving the criticism WP:UNDUE weight.

With respect to the wording, I hadn't caught that before. Maybe we should use the same phrase used later: "NGO Monitor has accused B'Tselem ..." — Malik Shabazz (talk · contribs) 00:03, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

Would be better. Let's go with that for now, then I'll have a more in-depth look tomorrow, as the article isn't very cohesive in general - lots of two-sentence paragraphs. No more bongos 00:12, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

Sorry that it took me a while to respond. Undue weight is always a difficult factor to gauge, but wording now seems better X. Tewfik^Talk 22:31, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

Violent incidents

I've had to remove a lot of specific detail from the article, in order to keep it reasonably sized and devoting roughly proportionate weight to various aspects of the organization. However, I think there is most definitely sufficient sourcing out there to spin off an new article Shooting Back (B'Tselem campaign) wherein these details would be more useful. There has been coverage on the AFP wire, Ha'aretz, The Guardian, the Globe and Mail, and elsewhere. <eleland/talkedits> 21:16, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

B'Tselems response to criticism

People keep taking this down but I feel it's only fair to the organisation. If we insist on placing such great emphasis on the Camera (acknowledged to be a very biased institution) people's stuff then it is only fair that B'Tselem gets the opportunity to respond - as it has down with the release on this page of what it sent to Camera in response. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.40.178.68 (talk) 20:23, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

Copying

The first three paragraphs of the article body appear to be word for word copied from the official website http://www.btselem.org/English/About_BTselem/Index.asp -- perhaps the copying proceeded in the opposite direction; however that feels unlikely. If this is a copyright violation then the paragraphs should be deleted, according to WP:COPYVIO. all the best, Sam nead (talk) 00:24, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

False advertisments

Two articles on the issue:
http://www.news1.co.il/Archive/003-D-39262-00.html?tag=12-47-08
http://www.news1.co.il/Archive/003-D-39348-00.html?tag=12-37-29
Greets, Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 10:02, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

Can you add some content summary, people don't generally know Hebrew around in English wikipedia. Kasaalan (talk) 10:37, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

Basically, people B'tzelem claim/count as innocent civilians killed by Israeli actions are proclaimed as terrorists/mukawama fighters by the Palestinians (Istashada posters included). Articles note many examples to support a claim that B'tselem's figures are of "dubious reliability". Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 13:15, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

Retraction, no apology though

4.5 years after promoting a blood libel that 14 unarmed civilians were killed, B'Tselem finally changes their claim to follow Palestinian official version that they were killed while activly fighting. No apology though. [5] Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 23:48, 22 July 2009 (UTC)
More on this story - IDF considers a lawsuits and B'Tselem makes some type of Red Cross related suggestion.[6] Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 14:40, 23 July 2009 (UTC)
Another "silent" retraction.[7] Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 07:57, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

Israeli organization?

Looking at the names on B'tselem's Fieldwork Department, which obtains and supplies the actual data on which B'tselem's information and research is based, it is entirely Arab Palestinian. Surely, it is somewhat obtuse of B'tselem to classify itself as an Israeli NGO, rather than a Palestinian-Israeli one.

—Preceding unsigned comment added by 205.68.95.65 (talk) 16:38, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

If the New York Times relies on Iraqi stringers for Iraq war coverage, does that make it an Iraqi newspaper? If Reporters Without Borders relies on Cuban informants for information on Cuban press freedom, does it become a Cuban NGO? And how do you know that these "Arab Palestinian" names don't belong to "Arab Palestinian" citizens of Israel?

For that matter, do you feel that based on your name alone, it would be "somewhat obtuse" for you to classify yourself as an American (or Briton, or Frenchman, or whatever,) rather than an Israeli? If the answer is an emphatic and even angry "no," as I think it is, then perhaps you should explain why this principle isn't universal. EvanHarper (talk) 04:05, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

Reliable source? Join discussion at noticeboard

I don't think it is fair to have a talk about any media on the noticeboard without mentioning on it's discussion page that such a discussion is occurring without other editors being notified. Please see here: Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard#Reliability of Israeli human rights organization B.27Tselem --Shuki (talk) 21:05, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

NGO Monitor

Soosim, I'm finding your edits a bit troubling here and elsewhere. I've reverted you and restored Malik's edit (who by the way has made nearly 47k edits, is an admin and doesn't need to "study WP"). Are you getting a free coffee at Starbucks token everytime you spam NGO Monitor's views into Wikipedia directly from their site or something ?

NGO Monitor is not "an accepted source" as you said in your edit summary. It is not considered a reliable source for statements of fact in Wikipedia. Like countless other organizations it's reliable for its own opinions and those opinions only matter if they comply with WP:DUE. They only comply with WP:DUE when those opinions are published by third party reliable sources. If reliable sources don't care about something then neither do we for sources like NGO Monitor. It's not a source that qualifies for inclusion simply because it says something on its website. They aren't the kind of source that can simply say "organization X misrepresented international law, can't do accurate research to save its life, and its statistics are about as accurate as random numbers" etc and we just dutifully repeat those statements in this encyclopedia. If there are third party reliable sources that think those statements are notable and feel confident enough to repeat them then we can cite those sources with the statements attributed to NGO Monitor.

Also, let's get some perspective here, B'Tselem is without a shadow of a doubt one of Israel's most widely respected human rights organizations. There are many impeccably reliable sources without an axe to grind that say just that. We're obliged to present views in a way that doesn't misrepresent the extent and weight of those views. It's mandatory policy. I only seem to see you insert negative statements from partisan sources, sometimes unattributed and in Wikipedia's narrative voice, apparently without concern for balance or due weight. It would be better if you just stopped adding material cited directly to NGO Monitor's site in any article (unless they are talking about themselves) and stuck to third party reliable sources. I'm only going to remove the direct citations to NGO Monitor (and CAMERA) at some point when I see them anyway. Other editors may beat me to it. NGO Monitor's views are in the media quite often so it shouldn't be too difficult. It would be great if you could balance your editing a bit more too. The area of the conflict is covered by discretionary sanctions that you can read about at the top of this page. If you haven't read them yet I suggest that you do as they apply to the entire set of Arab-Israeli conflict-related articles and they are important. Sean.hoyland - talk 09:04, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

Arab Field Researchers and areas of research

RolandR, can you please explain your reasons for continued removal of this information? Koakhtzvigad (talk) 01:27, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

I removed it because it looks like unsourced original research. RolandR removed it for the same reason it seems. You are adding information about the ethnicity and activities of living people without any sources supporting the statements. We aren't allowed to do that. Content has to be based on what reliable sources actually say. If you would like to make the case that editors should be allowed to make statements about living people's ethnicity and activities based on their names you can do that at Wikipedia:No original research/Noticeboard. Sean.hoyland - talk 02:56, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

Look on the website of the organisation! It lists everyone by name. Are you familiar with Arabic names? It also lists where the said individuals are doing research. This isn't called original research, but reading and deductive thinking. I shouldn't have to ask Wikipedia this stuff. If I see an article where an French biology team is doing research on rain deer, and it says one of its field researchers has a Finnish name, it is a valid assumption that this researcher is ethnically a Fin :) This is beyond ludicrous. Have you ever done field research outside your own country? Use of locals is not just a good idea, its a must, and has a history spanning about 3000 years Koakhtzvigad (talk) 06:46, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

Obviously I looked at the source. That's why I removed the information. Yes, I'm familiar with Arabic names having lived and traveled around the Middle East for many years, I'm almost never in my "own country" and I'm painfully familiar with field work outside of my country, thanks for asking. None of that matters in the slightest because I'm not a reliable source and neither are you according to the policies of Wikipedia. Content isn't based on an editor's deductive reasoning, personal knowledge, personal experience or personal opinions and the validity of the result of an editor's personal decision procedure isn't relevant to whether a piece of information complies with a policy like WP:V. So, no, a field researcher can't be described as ethnically a Fin on the basis that they have a Finnish name. If you want an article to say something you just need to find a reliable source that says it. If it is verifiably the case and it is notable enough, there will be a reliable source that says it. That's just how Wikipedia works especially in matters related to living people. There's no point complaining about it. As I said, you can ask for other opinions at Wikipedia:No original research/Noticeboard. Sean.hoyland - talk 08:59, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

The only conclusion you could draw from the source you cite -- and even that, in my view, would be unallowable original research -- is that some of the staff have Arabic names. But this is not in itself an indication of Arab ethnicity. Many Pakistanis, Indians and Bangladeshis have Arabic names; but they are certainly not "ethnic Arabs". So, of course, do many converts: Yusuf Islam is ethnically Greek/Swedish; Muhammad Asad was an Austrian Jew; Amiri Baraka is a black American, as was Malik El-Shabazz. Even if you know personally the people involved, and know for a fact that they are "ethnically Arab", in the absence of a reliable source explicitly stating this you are not permitted to add this. You seem to have some difficulty grasping basic Wikipedia principles, both on original research and on edit warring, and have been arguing against several editors in support of your own interpretation of these rules. If you continue to act in this way, you are likely to find that your participation here is short-lived. I really recommend that you take the time to study Wikipedia's policies, especially the five pillars, in order to understand both what the rules are, and how they are interpreted and implemented. RolandR (talk) 10:52, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

Many Pakistanis, Indians and Bangladeshis do not live in the PA territories.

Do you have data on conversion to Islam in the PA territories?

I guess you know all about Wikipedia principles for which one can be blocked

Do you understand the concept of Field research? Here is a quote from the putative Wikipedia article "Field research involves the collection of primary data or information that is new. This is collected through surveys and questionnaires that are made out specifically for a purpose." This means that not only is it important what data is collected, but also who does it. I will be contacting B'Tselem to identify the qualifications of their field researchers, so I will ask them if they are in fact Palestinian Arabs as per my original research. However, the doubt you express about their identity also puts into question any research based on their work, and therefore the use of B'Tselem as a reliable source. But I guess you know about WP:RS

I have the foolowing proposal for this "phenomena"'s description:

In the beginning of 2011, the main part B'Tselem's Data Department, including Kareem Issa Jubran - its Fieldwork Director, consisted of Arab localities' residents (B'Tselem Staff)

• Data Department
  • Kareem Issa Jubran, Fieldwork Director (Kareem 'Issa Ahmad Jubran … a resident of East Jerusalem)
  • Noam Preiss, Data Coordination Director
  • Suhair Abdi-Habiballah, Statistics Coordinator (Suhair Abdi-Habib Allah (…) resident of ar-Ram)

• • Tamar Gonen, Data Coordinator
  • Noa Tal, Data Coordinator
  • Wassim Ghantous, Data Coordinator
  • Noam Raz, Data Coordinator
  • Musa Abu Hashhash, Field Researcher, Hebron District
  • 'Amer 'Aruri, Field Researcher, East Jerusalem
  • Atef Abu a-Rub, Field Researcher, Jenin District
  • 'Issa 'Amro, Field Researcher, Hebron City
  • Khaled 'Azayzeh, Field Researcher, The Gaza Strip
  • Salma a-Deb'i, Field Researcher, Nablus District
  • Iyad Hadad, Field Researcher, Ramallah District
  • Nasser a-Nawaj'ah, Field Researcher, the Southern Hebron Hills.
  • 'Abd al-Karim Sa'adi, Field Researcher, Qalqiliya-Tulkarm District
  • Muhammad Sabah, Field Researcher, The Gaza Strip
  • Suha Zeid, Field Researcher, Bethlehem District

--Igorp_lj (talk) 22:22, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

Sure, though it seems to me such an extensive copying of the website is probably necessary only to appease RolandR Koakhtzvigad (talk) 01:01, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

I take it back due to the inclusion of the phrase "Arab localities' residents", since we have no idea where they reside, and I am almost 100% sure the Jewsh members of the Data Department do not live in the PA localities Koakhtzvigad (talk) 01:06, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

keep in mind folks that there are very few options of whom to hire since israelis are not allowed in to PA controlled areas since the PA won't allow them in. it is obvious that btselem must use local residents, then. Soosim (talk) 04:36, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

As a matter of fact, it is actually Israel rather than the PA which bans the entry of Israeli citizens to PA-controlled areas. RolandR (talk) 19:46, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

Are you suggesting that the Palestinian Authority, so dedicated to the ideals of human rights, is discriminating against ethnic minorities? I refuse to believe such slanderous allegations. There is a plethora of Arab residents of the West Bank and Gaza that attend various international conferences on human rights and point out how important it is to not discriminate against anyone Koakhtzvigad (talk) 03:33, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

"Opinions" of newspapers.

"The group has been referred to as "left-wing" by Haaretz, and anti-Israel by Arutz Sheva." — Well, no, the "left-wing" label was applied by Anshel Pfeffer and the "anti-Israel" label was applied by Hillel Fendel. The only time that an opinion should be attributed to a newspaper is if it is in an official editorial. Journalists with by-lines state their own opinions which (in the case of good newspapers like Haaretz but less so in the case of political mouthpieces like Arutz Sheva) frequently conflict with the editor's views. Zero^talk 12:45, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

Of course you are right. But it is history now. I have put in a much stronger quote than the mamby-pamby "left-wing" and attributed it to someone with a lot more weight (figuratively and literally) than Anshel Pfeffer. --Ravpapa (talk) 14:33, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

Ravpapa (talk · contribs), what's the deal with your edits here and here? That Haaretz article doesn't attribute to Lieberman any statements about B'Tselem aiding terror. The groups it mentions in that context are Ittijah, New Profile, Adalah, Pysicians for Human Rights, and the Public Committee Against Torture in Israel. The article even says, "'[The proposed probe] does not include the Geneva Initiative and Peace Now, which are legitimate,' or any other group honestly involved in either politics or human rights, he added" – presumably also including B'Tselem.—Biosketch (talk) 02:26, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

@Zero0000 (talk · contribs), in relation to this, has it been established that 972mag.com is a WP:RS? It looks like a collection of blogs. If someone can demonstrate that established RSes cite 972mag as a reliable source for information, that would be sufficient for me. Otherwise, I'll have to insist that it doesn't make the cut and tag it with Template:Rs?.—Biosketch (talk) 02:26, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

I added a reference that shows that Betselem is included in Lieberman's list. --Ravpapa (talk) 02:51, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

972mag is an online magazine with an editorial board of professional journalists who control the content (it isn't an open blog or wiki). I believe it fits the following description from WP:RS: "Some news outlets host interactive columns they call blogs, and these may be acceptable as sources so long as the writers are professional journalists or are professionals in the field on which they write and the blog is subject to the news outlet's full editorial control." In this instance we are not even relying on 972mag as a source of fact (and many times I have avoided using it as a source of fact as an argument would be required). We are only relying it to accurately reproduce the article written by the Btselem spokesperson. Besides that, it would be a very severe violation of WP:NPOV to include Glick's cricitism without including Btselem's response. Zero^talk 10:49, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

I agree, especially about the potential NPOV violation. Is it a "reliable source for information" is a bit vague. It's not a reliable source for information about medical research which is probably a good thing. I think the question is more like, is an op-ed in 972mag written by Jessica Montell, the Executive Director of B’Tselem, in response to Caroline Glick's op-ed in the Jerusalem Post, a reliable source for Montell's opinions (attributed to Montell) about Caroline Glick, a living person, statements about B’Tselem and its work (attributed to Montell) and a statement about JPost's refusal to publish and what Montell has done about it (attributed to Montell). It's certainly reliable for Montell's opinions and for statements about B’Tselem's work since she's the Executive Director. It also seems like a reliable source for what she says she has done in response to what she says was JPost's refusal to publish a response. There's nothing in Wikipedia's unattributed narrative voice apart from that she's B'Tselem's Executive Director. Sean.hoyland - talk 11:29, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

Where at 972mag is indication given that any of those people on the editorial board are professional journalists? The leading figure there, Noam Sheizaf, describes himself elsewhere on the web as a freelancer who's occasionally contributed to leading Israeli newspapers. By that standard, even I could be considered a professional journalist, which I'm certainly not. I would have expected Montell's letter to be referenced at least by B'Tselem itself in order to vouch for its credibility. It seems a little strange that the only place where it was published was a radical blog site. And yes, "radical" because no reliable mainstream medium appears to have ever taken them seriously.—Biosketch (talk) 05:17, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

The description you found does not match "occasionally contributed", perhaps you gave the wrong url. It clearly shows Noam Sheizaf as a professional journalist, as does the similar description here. Of the other three people listed as editor, Noa Yachot is a staff writer at Haaretz and Mairav Zonszein is also a professional journalist. The other one, Shir Harel is a public relations consultant. The reason Montell's letter appeared where it did as the only place that published Glick's attack refused to publish the response. Mainstream newspapers tend to just ignore Glick. Zero^talk 09:58, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

You're correct, Noam Sheizaf is not an occasional contributor but was in fact on the payroll of some of Israel's leading newspapers, which makes him a professional journalist. The same goes for the other guys you mentioned, i.e. they're not a bunch of random people from the street. Also, in relation to my claim that no reliable mainstream news sources cite 972mag, at least according to our Wikipedia article on the website (which I didn't think to search for until after my comment), that seems not to be the case, as in fact quite a few RSes have referenced the site.—Biosketch (talk) 09:52, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

Our eyes have failed us - or we have failed our eyes

This article in general, and especially the section Critical commentary and response, is an illuminating illustration of the failure of the advocacy editing model espoused by Wikipedia. It fails precisely because of its attempt to represent in one article two opposing viewpoints.

The entire section on critical commentary consists of attempts by B'tselem's opponents to undermine its credibility, and B'tselem's rebuttals. The section makes the critics seem nitpicky and mean-minded, and B'tselem as petty and defensive.

The section pretty completely misses the point of the dispute: the dispute is political, not academic. Critics see B'tselem as a frontal attack on the security of the state, as giving aid and comfort to those who want to see Israel destroyed. These critics believe that, in the face of mortal danger, Israel must present a united front, and B'tselem destroys that front.

B'tselem, for its part, sees Israel's policies and actions as acts of oppression, acts that erode the very foundations of a democratic society.

These opposing views are obvious, and to write a section that would accurately represent them, using quotes and reliable sources, would be a pretty straightforward matter. But, because of the adversarial approach to Wikipedia editing, neither side has an interest in representing this dispute for what it is.

Opponents of B'tselem don't want to present the political nature of the dispute, because that would legitimize it; their objective is to discredit the organization, and the way to do that is to challenge its credibility, not to quote political attacks by Lieberman.

Supporters of B'tselem, on the other hand, also are not interested in emphasizing the political nature of the organization's activities. B'tselem is only reporting the truth, they contend, not playing a political game. The greatest concern of this camp is to ensure the credibility of the organization, and to debunk the critics.

The result? the article suffers. --Ravpapa (talk) 10:07, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

Further our eyes

I think we should take measures. The entire section (except for the Lieberman quote) on criticism is turgid, loaded with entirely non-notable or irrelevant detail, and almost undecipherable. Here is my proposal for a rewrite:

B'Tselem has come under intense fire from elements among Israel's nationalist camp. Early in 2011, Foreign Minister Avigdor Lieberman called for a parliamentary investigation of B'Tselem and other human rights organizations. B'tselem and other human rights organizations, he charged, "are clearly not concerned with human rights. They spread lies, they slander and incite against the state of Israel and against Israeli soldiers... Clearly these organizations are abetting terrorism and their only objective is to undermine Israel," he said in a speech to fellow members of his nationalist "Israel Beitenu" (Israel our homeland) party.

B'tselem's opponents have challenged the accuracy of its reports. The Committee for Accuracy in Middle East Reporting in America (CAMERA), a pro-Israel media watchdog group, charged that B'tselem repeatedly classified Arab combatants and terrorists as civilian casualties. NGO Monitor, another opponent, claimed that B'tselem distorts its data and uses "abusive and demonizing rhetoric designed to elicit political support for Palestinians". Caroline B. Glick, deputy managing editor of The Jerusalem Post and former advisor to Benjamin Netanyahu, pointed to several instances where, she claimed, B'tselem had misrepresented Palestinian rioters or terrorists as innocent victims, or where B'tselem failed to report when an Arab changed his testimony about an attack by settlers.

In each of these cases, B'tselem issued detailed rebuttals. In spite of the attacks on B'tselem's credibility, news agencies in Israel and elsewhere continue to give prominent coverage to B'tselem's reports, further angering its Israeli critics. B'tselem and another human rights group are "radical leftist organizations with documented histories of falsifying and distorting data," charged Glick in an editorial. She charged fellow journalists who covered B'tselem's reports with "professional malpractice... As long as we continue to base our national debates and policies on enemy propaganda, it should surprise no one that Israel finds itself in its current dire predicament."

Note that this version preserves all the footnotes, so if a reader really wants to read all the gory details, he or she can look them up. --Ravpapa (talk) 07:13, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

I endorse. Malik Shabazz (talk · contribs)'s restoration of the Haaretz ref is baffling, as it doesn't say anything about B'Tselem in relation to Lieberman. I left a message on his Talk page requesting that he elaborate on the reason he restored the Haaretz ref, but all he's done is leave a nebulous reply on my Talk page.—Biosketch (talk) 09:58, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

I dissent strongly. This is a list of complaints against B'tselem, complete with quotations, versus one useless sentence "In each of these cases, B'tselem issued detailed rebuttals." Not even a hint of what those rebuttals might contain. What is B'teslem's explanation of how it classifies casualties? Then it wonders aloud how such a terrible organization is given such extensive coverage. It so obviously violates WP:NPOV that I'm really quite surprised. What the article contains now is contained before this was awful, but this is monstrous. Zero^talk

I have added a bit of detail to the sentence on rebuttals. Zero, is it more acceptable to you now?

The most important thing here, in my opinion, is not going into detail about the substance of the complaints and rebuttals, but making it clear who is making the complaints and where they stand in the political landscape. --Ravpapa (talk) 06:00, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

References

Financial mismanagement

I think, Biosketch, you are on pretty shaky ground when you contend that Lieberman charged B'tselem with financial mismanagement. If you read the article, you will see that the charges of financial mismanagement are leveled at other organizations, but not at B'tselem. So, unless you have another source which says what type of financial mismanagement Lieberman suspected B'tselem of, I fear you must remove the edit.

BTW, the fact that an amutah does not have "nihul takin" is not an indication of financial mismanagement. Most amutot do not have nihul takin, which is an indication of a high level of fiscal reporting. Nihul takin is required in order to receive tax-exempt donations from private donors (that is, so that the donors can take a write-off for the contribution), but is not required by israeli law. --Ravpapa (talk) 14:40, 22 June 2011 (UTC)

No, I don't have another source that attributes the claim of financial mismanagement to Lieberman in relation to B'Tselem. But as for the NRG article, it's not clear to me where you're getting that Lieberman's charges are leveled "at other organizations, but not at B'tselem." Did you read the article first? The first paragraph says, "Foreign Minister Avigdor Lieberman lashes out at Israeli human rights organizations that will be the focus of a parliamentary investigation committee to be established by the Knesset, and claims that a series of financial mismanagement incidents which he says are typical of them may indicate abetting terrorist activity." The next paragraph says, "...and then listed some of the organizations to be investigated: B'Tselem, which documents the government's and army's activities in the territories." Now please explain why you're convinced B'Tselem is excluded from Lieberman's list, or why you're skeptical of the article's reliability in this context.—Biosketch (talk) 04:13, 23 June 2011 (UTC)

I didn't say that Btselem was excluded from Lieberman's list. I wrote that Lieberman made no specific allegations of financial wrongdoing on Btselem's part. The article lists the actual allegations of financial misdeeds - most of which, incidentally, are not misdeeds at all - and no specific allegation is made against Btselem. You cannot simply assume that because Lieberman wants to investigate Btselem that he has made some specific accusation of financial mismanagement. In fact, he has made no such allegation, and therefore, the article's statement that he has is incorrect. --Ravpapa (talk) 17:47, 9 July 2011 (UTC)

The article first attributes a general claim of financial wrongdoing to Lieberman without specifying which organizations he's accusing. It then offers a list of organizations along with the specific claims made by Lieberman in relation to each one. If I understand what you're saying, you're saying that because the passage dealing specifically with B'Tselem doesn't include anything about financial wrongdoing, we shouldn't extrapolate that Lieberman had B'Tselem in mind when he made his accusation. If that's what the problem is, you may edit the claim of financial mismanagement out of the article. If it's not, then I'm not sure I follow: whether or not the claims against these organizations are valid is of no concern to us. It's enough that an individual in Lieberman's position made the accusations in the first place to make them noteworthy for our purposes.—Biosketch (talk) 08:37, 10 July 2011 (UTC)

Subtle synthesis, let's do this..

These sorts of edits need to stop. The original language was obvious original research. Then editors sought to find sources that could possibly support their own words.

BUT, the sources do not support this:

Notwithstanding these criticisms of B'tselem's credibility, leading international newspapers and news agencies like Associated Press

• 1) None of the sources point to criticisms of B'tselem's credibility
• 2) No one is disputing newspapers and news agencies carry reports released by B'tselem.

At some point in history an editor made an original thought and inserted it into this article. His/her thought being the inference that B'tselem's credibility is enhanced by citations from newspapers. The jump from "notwithstanding these criticisms" to examples of feign mentions in newspapers (like the NYT cite, an op-ed btw) is blatant synthesis. Unless there is evidence suggesting a struggle to tarnish B'tselem's credibility through "criticism" then the edit needs to be removed. Wikifan^{Be nice} 07:47, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

Wikifan, it seems that I still have not written the sentence clearly enough. "These criticisms of B'tselem's credibility" refer to the criticisms appearing in the preceding paragraphs; specifically, the CAMERA criticism, the NGO Monitor, and Caroline Glick, all of whome, the article says, "challenged the accuracy of its reports." With all these people pointing to what they consider inaccuracies in B'tselem's reporting, one might think that international news agencies and newspapers might think twice on relying on it. But, says the sentence, that is not the case, and organizations like the New York Times and Associated Press continue to quote B'tselem reports.

I thought this connection was clear from the sentence, but apparently it is not. How would you recommend to rewrite it to make that clear? --Ravpapa (talk) 11:45, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

Those are your thoughts. Don't you understand this? You said it yourself: "one might think that international news agencies and newspapers might think twice on relying on it." So x, y and z criticize B'tselem, the fact that B'tselem is used as a source by respectable sources doesn't give it credence. Editors are making this conclusion on their own (original research) when the sources themselves don't support the narrative. Unless an RS EXPLICITLY says B'tselems credibility is demonstrated by being cited in the NYT "in spite of the critics", we can't say it. Wikifan^{Be nice} 11:49, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

i'm leaning towards wikifan here. we could write the same sentence for every article on wikipedia ("despite the criticisms, mlb still allows the cleveland indians in the league" or "despite the criticism, beyonce still sold over million albums in the last hour", etc.). i am not sure why this would be allowed to stand. as wikifan said, if there was a source that wrote an article about how b'tselem has maintained to influence journalists and the like despite the public criticism, then yes, fine. otherwise....delete time.... Soosim (talk) 12:11, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

I agree with Wikifan. Not only is it synthesis, but it's poorly sourced synthesis. You can't cite a single example from The New York Times (and an op-ed column at that); you would have to use a secondary source that says The New York Times uses B'Tselem as a resource. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 17:14, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

Point taken. I have restored the statement, using a quote from a third party, as Wikifan asks. So it is no more my own synthesis. --Ravpapa (talk) 11:14, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

Same problem

Uh, it is still synthesis. And from the looks of it, a lot of the preceding sentences are SYNTH as well. Let's take a closer look...again.

Old edit:

In each of these cases, B'tselem issued detailed rebuttals, based on its own research, as well as statistics and information from the Israeli army and international organizations.[53][54] In spite of the attacks on B'tselem's credibility by Israeli nationalists, leading international newspapers and news agencies like Associated Press[55] and the New York Times[56] continue to cite B'Tselem's reports.

New edit:

In each of these cases, B'tselem issued detailed rebuttals, based on its own research, as well as statistics and information from the Israeli army and international organizations.[53][54] Despite these challenges to B'tselem's credibility, international news media continue to rely on B'tselem's reports. Tamar Sternthal of CAMERA laments that, in spite of CAMERA's challenges to the reliability of B'tselem's statistics on casualty figures, the statistics are "cited widely by Western news organizations."[55]

Let's start with the first sentence.

• Evidence:I don't know where "B'Tselem Official written response to the CAMERA Organisation, Fax & Press Release, 22nd August 2007" leads to.

Here is a full quote from the 22 August 2007 press release:

B'Tselem's methodology is completely transparent; indeed much of CAMERA's "ammunition" was taken from our own website. Palestinians employing potentially lethal force (guns, rockets, explosives, Molotov cocktails) are listed as having participated in hostilities at the time they were killed. The fact that a person carried a weapon but did not actually take it out and use it does not make that person a combatant. Likewise with regard to stonethrowing; in most situations, stonethrowing does not constitute lethal force. This does not relieve the stonethrower of criminal liability, and his crime is plainly noted in our statistics. However, a 14 year-old boy throwing stones at an armoured jeep from a distance of over 50 feet – as was the case when soldiers shot Jamil al-Jabji – is not participating in an armed conflict, and the military does not need to respond with live ammunition (the fact that the military has initiated an investigation into this case would indicate that they retroactively agree). The devil is in the details. In those cases, where stonethrowing does indeed endanger lives (dropping cinder blocks from a roof, for example) this is classified as participation in hostilities.

This quote appeared in an earlier version of the article, but I took it out. If you feel it is necessary, I can put it back in. Personally, I think it is superfluous.

• Evidence:This is an editorial published by a non-RS.

The complaint you raise has been discussed ad nauseum on the RS noticeboard. An editorial written by a representative of an organization, under that representative's own name, can be considered a reliable source for that representative's statements, even if the publisher is not considered generally reliable.

• Conclusion: Based on the sources, there is nothing to support the claim that B'tselem has issued "detailed rebuttals" to each of these cases. B'tselem has been criticized by figures other than Glick. The whole sentence should be thrown out IMO if a suitable source cannot be found to support the language.

In the old version to which I referred, there is a B'Tselem rebuttal to each criticism. Read that version. If you think it is better, please feel free to restore it. Personally, I think it is polemic and picayune, it makes the critics appear small-minded and petty, and B'Tselem seem self-righteous. But if you prefer it, go ahead.

Second sentence.

• Evidence:I don't know where "Diaa Hadid, "835 Palestinian youths held for rock throwing", Associated Press, July 18, 2011." leads to. A URL link would be helpful.
• Evidence:Kristof op-ed. Same source used before, again he as an individual is citing B'tselem. The New York Times is not endorsing B'tselem officially.
• Conclusion: Same problem, just a more candy-coated version. Synth is synth. Let's stop gift-wrapping it and remove the paragraph entirely. Wikifan^{Be nice} 12:34, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

Wikifan: I am having a little trouble following your arguments. Concerning your comments on the first sentence, I have included in-line my responses. Regarding the second sentence, you seem to be talking about the sentence as it appeared in the previous version, which you deleted. Neither the AP nor the New York Times citations are in the current version.

Your earlier complaint was that the contention that I had written - that international news agencies continued to quote B'Tselem despite attacks on its credibility - was my own synthetic conclusion. You said then that if a third party who was a reliable source said this, it would be acceptable. Well, now a third party says so. So I don't understand your complaint. Regards, --Ravpapa (talk) 13:20, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

Where did I say this? No new sources have been proposed, other than a non-RS/partisan blog. The SYNTH remains. I really dislike in-line responses. It clutters the discussion and it deters non-involved editors to weigh in. Please move your edits outside of mine. Nobody here has supported your edits. Wikifan^{Be nice} 13:26, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

Soosim wrote: "if there was a source that wrote an article about how b'tselem has maintained to influence journalists and the like despite the public criticism, then yes, fine." That is precisely what I have done.

You wrote: "Unless an RS EXPLICITLY says B'tselems credibility is demonstrated by being cited in the NYT "in spite of the critics", we can't say it." In fact, the article - in its current version and in the previous version - never said that. What it said was that international news media continue to quote B'tselem, criticisms of its credibility notwithstanding. The sentence makes no judgement about how credible or incredible B'tselem's reports are. Now there is a source that says that, so it is no longer my synthesis.

You refer to Tamar Sternthal's column as "a non-RS/partisan blog". Does this mean you also discount the criticisms that appear from the same source, earlier in the section? If so, we should remove them also. --Ravpapa (talk) 14:46, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

No, I was referring to this a a NON-RS/partisan blog. There is no evidence to suggest that B'tselem has issued "detailed rebuttals, based on its own research, as well as statistics and information from the Israeli army and international organizations." that is coming from the mouths of editors, the source does not say this. Editors are taking B'tselem's POV with very little challenge and then linking B'tselem's presence in the mainstream media which somehow increases its legitimacy. The paragraph is still SYNTH. Not only is it SYNTH, the CAMERA source is not properly cited. Assuming B'tselem has published detailed rebuttals using "its own research" naturally we can find a B'tselem source that responds to this:

And, as it turns out, B'Tselem's newer system distinguishing between those who were and were not participating in hostilities when killed is no more trustworthy than its earlier false identification of "civilians."

Making this omission yet more deceptive, B'Tselem's end-of-the-year press release on

Palestinian casualties specifically claims that the organization has tallied civilian Palestinian casualties. For instance, the press release from Dec. 31, 2007 misleads, stating that in 2007 Israeli security forces killed 373 Palestinians and that "about 35 percent of those killed were civilians who were not taking part in the hostilities when killed."

Yet, Islamic Jihad leaders from Bethlehem or Qabatiya, even if they weren't murdering anyone at

the moment they were killed, are no more civilians than the man who shot dead six people celebrating at a bat mitzvah.

• The Ynet cite is accusing B'tselem is operating under deceptive practice. This is what is written:

"Nevertheless, the organization's current detailed data on all Palestinians killed by Israelis since Sept. 29, 2000 - cited widely by Western news organizations - are no less problematic for a number of reasons. Most importantly, B'Tselem's research is as shoddy and unreliable as ever."

• Nobody is "lamenting" anything. Editors are jumping to the conclusion that "in spite of" criticism B'tselem is mentioned in major news organizations. The source doesn't say that. In layman's terms, Ynet columnist is saying B'tselem is giving out rotten data for Palestinian deaths killed by Israelis since 2000, and Western media still uses this information, blah blah blah." This isn't "in spite of" anything. Wikifan^{Be nice} 22:03, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

I can't think of any reason to regard CAMERA as more reliable than 972mag. The situation isn't even symmetrical, since CAMERA is being cited for their own claims while 972mag is simply being provided as the location of an article written by a well known person not belonging to 972mag. It is not acceptable to report a charge and fail to report the reply. Another thing that is missing is B'Tselem's explanation of their statistics. It is here. That is their real reply to the charge of being misleading. Zero^talk 23:17, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

CAMERA and 972 can only be cited for themselves, not as independent RS. The Ynet cite is an editorial. The edit is still SYNTH. Wikifan^{Be nice} 00:07, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

Please remember that while WP:RS is a guideline that we should follow if we can, WP:NPOV is a core policy that we are required to follow. To mention a charge without mentioning the reply is a very clear violation of WP:NPOV. Unless there is a credible reason for doubting Jessica Montell wrote the article published by 972mag, we have to cite it. Zero^talk 00:55, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

A blog is a blog. The 972mag cite is simply an editorial from a B'tselem "chief" criticizing Glick. IT does not support this sentence: "detailed rebuttals, based on its own research, as well as statistics and information from the Israeli army and international organizations"

This isn't about NPOV. Wikifan^{Be nice} 02:45, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

Wikifan, I have already responded to this specious argument. As I stated above, it is Wikipedia policy (and common sense) that signed editorials can be quoted as representing the views of the author, even when they appear in publications that are not generally considered reliable. However, in this case, the editorial was also released as a press release by B'Tselem, and, while it has since been removed from the website, you are welcome to write to B'Tselem and ask for the press release if you sincerely believe that Jessica Montell did not write it.

As I suggested above, in the earlier version of this section, B'tselem's detailed responses to each of the charges were included in the text. I removed them, because I felt that it added little to the reader's understanding of the nature of the dispute. However, if you insist that they appear, I can certainly restore the section as it was written half a year ago, even though, as I said above, it makes the opponents of B'tselem appear petty and small minded. --Ravpapa (talk) 04:40, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

Zero, thank you for pointing out the additional source for B'tselem rebuttal. I have added it to the article. --Ravpapa (talk) 04:45, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

972mag is not a blog, and Montell is not a blogger. It is an online magazine with an editorial board, which published an op-ed by Montell. As a whole the magazine is too activist to treat as a reliable source of news, but it is perfectly reliable as a source of opinions of named known persons. Zero^talk 06:53, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

Online magazine? Okay, it isn't an RS. And yeah, of course it can be used as a source for opinions of a known person or the views of 972mag. I'm not disputing that - I'm saying the sentence (in the article) is not supported by the source. That is editor language. Wikifan^{Be nice} 08:54, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

Wikifan, I am glad that you no longer dispute that the editorial is admissible to the article under Wikipedia policy. Now I understand that you dispute that Montell's editorial is a "detailed rebuttal". Here are the allegations in Glick's editorial, and Montell's responses:

Glick:

B’Tselem claimed that the previous day, Palestinian shepherd Samir Bani Fadel was peacefully herding his sheep when he was set upon by a mob of Israeli settlers.

He alleged that these kippa-clad Israelis drove up in a car and chased him away. Then they torched the pasture and burned 12 pregnant ewes alive and badly burned five others. B’Tselem furnished reporters with graphic photos of the dead sheep.

While the media published the account without a shred of skepticism, the police found Fadel’s account hard to believe. Observant Jews neither drive nor light fires on Saturdays.

And indeed, when questioned by police investigators, Fadel admitted he made the whole attack up. He accidentally killed his herd himself when he set fire to a pile of bramble. Too embarrassed to admit his mistake, he decided to blame the Jews and become a local hero. B’Tselem was only too happy to spread his lies.

Montell:

Similarly, Glick cites a false report provided by settler sources, claiming that a Palestinian shepherd who complained that settlers attacked his sheep later admitted that he fabricated the incident. It is not incidental that the only source repeating this allegation is the settler media – it was denied by the shepherd who is sticking to his version. B’Tselem’s media statement focused solely on the fact that he submitted a complaint, and was careful to avoid irresponsibly accusing anyone of wrongdoing.

Glick:

Channel 2 presented the footage as further proof – if anyone needed it – that the Israelis who live in Judea, Samaria and eastern Jerusalem are a bunch of lawless, hate-filled, violent fanatics.

Unfortunately for B’Tselem and Channel 2, Yitzhar residents also own a video camera. And they also filmed the event. The Samaria Regional Council released the video to the media on Tuesday.

The Yitzhar video exposes the B’Tselem video as a complete fraud. As it happened, on Monday afternoon a group of Palestinians joined by Israelis and/or foreigners descended on Yitzhar and attacked its residents with bricks and rocks of all sizes. Among the assailants was the cameraman who shot the footage presented on Channel 2.

Not only did the videographer – who has blond hair – participate in the violent assault on Yitzhar.

He staged the incident by alternately throwing rocks, filming, and directing his fellow attackers where to throw their rocks.

The Jews of Yitzhar only began throwing rocks to fend off their attackers.

Montell:

The allegation that B’Tselem incited Palestinian youth to throw stones is equally ludicrous. Indeed, B’Tselem’s videographer filmed the settler attack from inside her house (the bars on her window are seen throughout the footage), so she is clearly not the person seen in the film released by Yizhar. Unlike the settlers who issued a short, highly edited clip presenting only Palestinian stone-throwers, B’Tselem provided the media with all footage from the half hour-long incident, depicting Palestinian stone-throwers, and their settler attackers.

Wikifan, is this not a "detailed rebuttal" of Glick's allegations?

If you read the sources cited in the article, you will see that B'tselem has issued statements regarding each of the challenges of fact by the critics quoted in the article, with detailed responses to each challenge. Again, I do not feel that to repeat all of these responses in the article is necessary nor edifying, but if you insist, that is what we will do. --Ravpapa (talk) 11:13, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

This sentence: "detailed rebuttals, based on its own research, as well as statistics and information from the Israeli army and international organizations" is not supported by the sources listed. For starters, Motell is a "key" person of B'tselem, but not B'tselem. This is an editorial feud between one critic (glick) and a prominent member of B'tselem, that is all. The sentence is SYNTHESIS. One of the sources isn't even an RS and is simply hosting a commentary by a B'tselem member. And what is the notability of this feud?

You are still not addressing my original complaint, this edit: "Despite these challenges to B'tselem's credibility, international news media continue to rely on B'tselem's reports. Tamar Sternthal of CAMERA laments that, in spite of CAMERA's challenges to the reliability of B'tselem's statistics on casualty figures, the statistics are "cited widely by Western news organizations."

• More SYNTH. WE as editors cannot link disputes between CAMERA/GLICK and B'tselem to B'tselem's presence in the mainstream media. The premise is that x is challenging B'tselem's credibility, but y cited B'tselem as a source, thus y is credible "in spite" of these challenges. The fact that a NYT columnist cites B'tselem has no weight on specific criticism from Glick or others. Get it?

Here is what I said before:

• Nobody is "lamenting" anything. Editors are jumping to the conclusion that "in spite of" criticism B'tselem is mentioned in major news organizations. The source doesn't say that. In layman's terms, Ynet columnist is saying B'tselem is giving out rotten data for Palestinian deaths killed by Israelis since 2000, and Western media still uses this information, blah blah blah." This isn't "in spite of" anything."

Am I making sense? Wikifan^{Be nice} 11:43, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

Not much sense. NGO Monitor, CAMERA and Glick are not challenging B'tselem's credibility for their own amusement, but because they want to encourage news media to stop relying on B'tselem. Glick calls quoting B'tselem "professional malfeasance." Is that not pretty clear? So the question whether their challenges have any impact is directly relevant to the paragraph.

Moreover, nowhere does the paragraph suggest that the fact that news media continue to quote B'tselem is a proof of its accuracy or credibility. Glick and NGO Monitor have different explanations for this: Glick claims that the news media share with B'tselem an anti-Israeli agenda and therefore don't care about credibility. NGO Monitor suggests that news media quote B'tselem because B'tselem spoon feeds them and makes their job easier. It is you, not me, who is concluding that the currency of B'tselem in international media is a proof of its credibility.

But I suggest that we take a break from this discussion and let others comment. Somehow I have the feeling that I am not convincing you. So let's see what others have to say. --Ravpapa (talk) 12:01, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

Rav, several editors have endorsed the claim that your edits have bordered on SYNTH. Malik suggests "poor synth."

The original sentence, "Despite these challenges to B'tselem's credibility, international news media continue to rely on B'tselem's reports is synthesis. Unless we can find a strong-RS that explicitly says B'tselem continues to be cited in mainstream press "in spite" of criticisms, the sentence is pure editor language. I find this statement somewhat discouraging: "NGO Monitor, CAMERA and Glick are not challenging B'tselem's credibility for their own amusement, but because they want to encourage news media to stop relying on B'tselem.."

And how do you know this? Editors can only contribute based on what sources say. Framing the motives of NGO monitor/CAMERA in such a manner is definitely out of line, and perhaps therein lies the problem. Wikifan^{Be nice} 12:44, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

The paragraph has changed since Malik commented. Let's wait for some more comments. --Ravpapa (talk) 13:26, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

I think the source from Sternthal(!) shouldnt be used for anything at all, even though it does back the line that B'tselem continues to be used by the news media. But much of this section is focused on one line while ignoring the problems with the others. Wikifan is demanding that this line be cited to a secondary source, and he is right to do so. However, the claims by CAMERA and NGO Monitor are not cited to secondary sources, we are directly citing CAMERA and NGO Monitor, two sources that are not "reliable sources", for their criticisms, and providing lengthy quotes from them while relegating B'tselem's responses to a single line about B'tselem issuing detailed rebuttals. We quote Caroline Glick as though she were an authority on anything besides, well perhaps that should left untyped, but we dont even consider including B'tselem's response (one of which was Caroline Glick is a hack of a journalist, who parrots any drivel that suits her extremist ideological agenda without having the basic journalistic integrity to check her facts.) Please note that I am not saying we should include that line in the article, but the argument here stems from an apparent want to include criticisms and reduce defenses. But, if we are going to cite NGO Monitor and CAMERA in the section, I see no reason why CAMERA's Israel office chief's own admission that B'tselem is widely cited in the Western media should not be a valid source for that sentence. However, in my view, the entire section needs to be rewritten, using sources that cover the criticism, not ones that offer the criticism. In that way you may be able to get an actually balanced and informative section on the criticisms of B'tselem and their veracity. As it stands, there are a collection of partisan sources used to present a slanted view of the organization. nableezy - 19:20, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

I haven't spent a lot of time looking at the other sentences (takes awhile to sift through sources) but I mostly agree with what you say. But right now my main concern is the one sentence. CAMERa and NGO monitor are prominent pressure groups/watchdog organizations and their analysis of B'tselem is extensive, so I can see their importance. However the issue is editors inserting language not stated in an actual source. The inference is B'tselem is being cited by media sources "in spite of" criticism, thus lending it more credibility. Editors can't make that leap unless an RS says, specifically, "BT continues to be cited in mainstream sources in spite of on-going criticism from x,y and z." Wikifan^{Be nice} 23:54, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

The sourcing must seem sweet—citing a CAMERA officer to the effect that B'Tselem is widely cited in the media—but I think the transition ("Despite these challenges to B'tselem's credibility ...") makes it synthesis. I think the sentence can be reworded and maybe moved to deal with Wikifan's concern about inferences. Perhaps something like:

B'Tselem's statistics on casualty figures are "cited widely by Western news organizations" according to Tamar Sternthal of CAMERA, although her organization challenges the reliability of those statistics, describing them as "grossly deceptive".

I agree with nableezy that there's no reason to be so generous in quoting B'tselem's critics and so stingy in quoting the organization. Better still, as he suggests, we should find third-party sources about the disagreement. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 04:09, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

Thank you Malik, excellent suggestion. Should have thought of it myself. --Ravpapa (talk) 05:23, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

...And now for the real issue with this section

As the author of the section on Criticism, I feel I should defend it. Both Nableezy and Malik, in the previous discussion, have said that the section is unbalanced, because it quotes the critics and does not quote B'Tselem's responses.

The original version of this section was written just as Nableezy and Malik suggest. My feeling about the earlier version was that it was tedious, picky, and did not reflect the real nature of the dispute. The section concentrated on the essentially technical criticisms of B'Tselem's statistics gathering, and B'Tselem's defense of those statistics, and ignored the key fact: that the attacks on B'Tselem are political. Critics detest B'Tselem because "they spread lies, they slander and incite against the state of Israel", because they promote "enemy propaganda." The essentially technical arguments that attempt to undermine the credibility of B'tselem's reports must be viewed in light of this political position.

Therefore, I removed all the quotes which focused on the picayune details of how one counts casualties, and focused on the political aspect of the debate. I quoted Lieberman (who, astoundingly, had been completely ignored in the previous version), I quoted Glick. I summarized B'Tselem's responses in a single sentence (with footnotes so that if readers are really interested in these details they can look them up), and added the fact that no one in the international media takes these technical criticisms seriously.

Nableezy's suggestion that we delete the statements of CAMERA and NGOMonitor, and replace them with third party sources describing the dispute is clever but, as he well knows, impractical. Because there are no third party sources, not that I know of anyway. All western media, with the exception perhaps of Fox news and the Miami Jewish Herald, consider these groups to be part of the lunatic fringe. They may occasionally give Sternthal an oped, but they continue to quote B'tselem's reports and to ignore CAMERA's and NGOMonitor's complaints. I don't see any reason that we at Wikipedia should be any different.

I believe that if you read the two versions, you will agree that the current version presents the nature of the criticism in a much more accurate way. --Ravpapa (talk) 05:55, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

Do you like actually follow the discussion? You ask for third parties to weigh in, and then go ahead and make unilateral edits in spite of objections? I mean really, look at this:

Although CAMERA challenges the reliability of B'Tselem's statistics and describes them as "grossly deceptive", CAMERA commentator Tamar Sternthal notes that B'Tselem's statistics on casualty figures are "cited widely by Western news organizations".

More synth! Here is Sternthal's full quote (widely-cited does not END in a period but with a HYPHEN):

Nevertheless, the organization's current detailed data on all Palestinians killed by Israelis since

Sept. 29, 2000 - cited widely by Western news organizations - are no less problematic for a

number of reasons. Most importantly, B'Tselem's research is as shoddy and unreliable as ever.

Sternthal is stating the obvious - B'tselem is "widely cited" by mainstream media. But she is not "noting" that statement with "challenges of reliability." Basically, the edit gives the illusion that CAMERA says "B'tselem is bad, but oh wait it is cited widely by Western news organizations."

And the syntax is rather poor. Wikifan^{Be nice} 06:10, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

(ec) If we were writing a secondary source covering the criticisms I think your (Ravpapa) version would be very good, and we could base our section on that. But we arent writing a secondary source, and if secondary sources covering an "incident", real or imagined, dont exist then the article shouldnt be covering it at all. But there are specific instances where such coverage is available. Maybe not on the "controversies" that filled, and fill, the section, but on things that might be a bit more important. For example, this details the response to a report by B'tselem on torture, with the following page discussing criticisms of it and of the organization. This can be used as a source for one of the more common criticisms of B'tselem (and most human rights organizations in Israel). Now, I dont know how many more such sources can be found, but in my opinion, the only way to write this section is to use secondary sources discussing the criticism, and if we cant find such a source for some criticism than that simply does not belong in the article. nableezy - 06:13, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

If you think it can be done, feel free. I have no pride of authorship. --Ravpapa (talk) 06:20, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

All right, but I tend to either be lazy (during the day) or otherwise occupied (at night) during Ramadan (today was an aberration, musta been a sugar rush from the kunafa), so you may not want to hold your breath. Ill try to do it, but if others can find additional sources covering criticism that would make it easier. Or, better yet, if others could just write it I can carry on not doing anything. nableezy - 06:30, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

Renewing the battle

The section of this article "Critical commentary and response" was, as can be seen from the discussions above, the subject of rather extensive and ascerbic disagreement. The outcome of that discussion was, rather surprisingly, a version that held its own for almost a year. Now several editors have made a number of edits that suggest some dissatisfaction with the consensual version that has weathered so well.

In hopes of restoring the fragile stability of this section, I will summarize here the two principles on which that compromise was reached:

• The section, in its contentious form, was essentially a very detailed list of criticisms, each with its own detailed rebuttal by BeTselem and its supporters. It was the feeling of the editors at the time that this level of detail did not serve the reader well. Instead, we removed a great deal of the details of the criticism, leaving the main points and a few representative quotes, as well as, on the other side, all the details of BeTselem's rebuttals. Readers who were interested in these details could follow up by reading the extensive footnotes of the section.

• On the other hand, what was lacking in the contentious version of a year ago was the political context of the criticisms and responses. Regardless of the factual validity of the criticisms and rebuttals - something we are unlikely ever to determine to the satisfaction of the two sides - these criticisms invariably come from organizations or individuals who are opposed to BeTselem's political agenda. That context is essential to understanding the nature and motivation for the arguments made by both sides.

The latest edits, by Soosim and by MathKnight, have both undermined these two principles on which the consensual version is based. In the case of MathKnight, the edit restored details of criticisms that were summarized in the second paragraph of the section. The edit by Soosim removed what he referred to as "weasel words", words that described the place of one of the critics on the political map vis a vis BeTselem.

If these editors feel that the version that has enjoyed consensus for so long is inadequate, I would appreciate if they would discuss it on this talk page first, before turning the section back into the battleground that it was a year ago. Regards, --Ravpapa (talk) 08:01, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

where and how much about org's name

i have now edited the page to have one very short reference to the meaning of the name in the lede, and a longer explanation in the body. however, i did remove what was commentary, and not 'fact' about the name. comments welcome. Soosim (talk) 13:58, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

The commentary was intended as a summary of the organisation's position on the name: "In Hebrew, “b’tselem” is used to mean human dignity, echoing Article 1 of the Universal Declaration of Human Right: “All human beings are born free and equal in dignity and rights.”" [8] ~~ Lothar von Richthofen (talk) 17:41, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

i understand but i don't think it is appropriate here. it is commentary. it is already explained in translation and wikilinked to that article page about that phrase and biblical verse. Soosim (talk) 18:00, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

Of course the organization's explanation of what its name means belongs in the article. We should be careful to make it clear that it is B'Tselem's explanation, and not Wikipedia's. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 20:01, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

malik - of course the organization's explanation of what its name means belongs in the article, and hence, i put it in, left it in, etc. Soosim (talk) 06:39, 18 April 2013 (UTC)

Since you have no objection, Soosim, I've restored the "commentary" you deleted without good reason. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 04:05, 20 April 2013 (UTC)

i have no objection if it is quoted properly. see article change. Soosim (talk) 05:34, 21 April 2013 (UTC)

leftist

That isnt a primary descriptor for B'tselem, and certainly should not be the first adjective used to describe the organization. Later in the article under criticism the view that it is a "leftist" organization is attributed. Besides, left and right in the Israeli political spectrum doesnt exactly coincide to left and right wing political philosophies as those terms are applied outside of Israel. nableezy - 16:20, 10 August 2015 (UTC)

• It is, in fact, important when dealing with "human rights" organizations with overtly and intensely plitical agendas to have those agendas stated in the lede. Omission is a form of censorship.E.M.Gregory (talk) 18:23, 10 August 2015 (UTC)

I do not see the use of "leftist" as widespread in description of B'Tselem. The NYT usually only calls it "B'Tselem, an Israeli human rights group", with no qualifications. See here for an example. The NYT basically only mentions "leftist" in their story because the people detained were rightists, and B'Tselem objected to their administrative detention, as it does for Palestinians. There is nothing here which could be interpreted as B'Tselem fulfilling a partisan agenda, quite the reverse in fact, similar to ACLU defending neo-Nazis in Skokie, even though some people call ACLU liberal or leftist. Kingsindian ♝♚ 19:38, 10 August 2015 (UTC)

The Times certainly said so this morning [9] in an article written by a notably progressive/left reporter; and Haaretz, which the NYTimes calles "a left-leaning newspaper" [10] also categorizes Betselem as leftist. [11] The Guardian has been describing Betselem as leftist for years [12]. Probably because it is a leftist organization. This is not weird or complicated. Betselem is an overtly leftist organization. It is not only well-sourced, it a useful and accurate descriptor.E.M.Gregory (talk) 20:06, 10 August 2015 (UTC)

You have to look at how B'Tselem is described in the vast majority of reliable sources, where it is simply identified as an "Israeli human rights organization". I discussed the NYT article you link above in my last comment. As to your other sources, the Haaretz editorial is talking about "leftist and human rights organizations", and it is pretty clear that it meant the latter here. The Guardian article is talking about both leftist and liberals, the previous sentence talks about "secular liberals", for instance. These kinds of vague sources are not sufficient for this addition in the lead. Kingsindian ♝♚ 10:02, 11 August 2015 (UTC)

overtly and intensely plitical (sic) agendas ... an overtly leftist organization. Jesus christ, what are you talking about. nableezy - 17:35, 11 August 2015 (UTC)

Yes it is, regarding to RS. So? (and it's besides of its leftist parents ):) --Igorp_lj (talk) 22:51, 13 August 2015 (UTC)

Expanded lead per MOS:LEAD

I have expanded the lead per MOS:LEAD based on the following scheme:

• Definition, leadership, branches
• History
• Focus of work
• International and domestic reception

The rough model is the ACLU page.

Kingsindian ♝♚ 10:50, 11 August 2015 (UTC)

Copyvio?

@Brad Dyer: What copyvio are you talking about in this edit? Kingsindian ♝♚ 18:05, 17 August 2015 (UTC)

The statements "human rights violations in the occupied territories"; "funded by contributions from foundations in Europe and North America" and "and by private individuals in Israel and abroad" are taken, word for word, from B'Tselem's "about" page. Simply putting those into the article, without (at a minimum ) putting it in quotes, is a copyright violation. As Malik himself told me in no uncertain terms recently, even hooking up sentence fragments like these with a few words of original content does not remove the copyright violation. I'm surprised you're asking this, because you were involved in the previous discussion not that long ago, here - [13]. Perhaps you've forgotten. Brad Dyer (talk) 18:19, 17 August 2015 (UTC)

@Brad Dyer: I had not forgotten, indeed, I found the edit quite WP:POINTy. The About page of B'Tselem does not contain a copyright notice that I can see, the website is public, unlike NYT, which is a newspaper under paywall. It seems really weird to me that the about page of some org would be under copyright. And in any case, the sentences are very fragmentary. The edit explicitly says "B'Tselem's stated purpose is". Presumably one would have to quote someone to give their stated purpose. I don't really have a problem with adding quote marks, because I modeled it on the ACLU page, which also contains quotes. I just thought it was weird. Kingsindian ♝♚ 18:41, 17 August 2015 (UTC)

Text you write is automatically copyrighted, whether or not a copyright statement exist, and the web pages of any org are almost certainly under copyright, unless there is an explicit statement on the page revoking the copyright. Our policy, WP:COPYRIGHT is pretty explicit about the fact that the absence of a copyright notice does not mean something is not copyrighted and that "If you want to import media (including text) that you have found elsewhere, and it does not meet the non-free content policy and guideline, you can only do so if it is public domain or available under terms that are compatible with the CC BY-SA license" . I agree the statement are fragmentary - as were the two fragments I took from the NYT article, from two completely separate paragraphs, and yet, Malik was quick to declare me "sick in the head" for thinking that linking two fragments with a sentence of my own creation does not violate copyright. I took that message to heart. Brad Dyer (talk) 20:21, 17 August 2015 (UTC)

Yes, of course, one cannot just assume that it is not copyrighted, but there needs to be some common sense here. An about page exists to tell others about what you do, and others would naturally take text from there. In any case, the fragmentary parts quoted would definitely come under fair use. Anyway, this is a rather pointless discussion, since I don't really have a problem with the edit. Kingsindian ♝♚ 20:29, 17 August 2015 (UTC)

Brad, I expect you to identify the source of those alleged copyright violations or undo your edit right away. You know damn well those are not quotes; they're scare quotes. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 21:32, 17 August 2015 (UTC)

I've already identified the source- take the time to read what I wrote above. They come from the "About " page of B'tselem's web site. I doubt you don't know where that page is, since you copied your sentences from there, word for word , in a blatant vioaltion of WP:COPYRIGHT, but just to dispell any amiguity - the URL is http://www.btselem.org/about_btselem .

Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously , and if you believe that copying the meat of your sentences from the source while connecting them with some fragment you authored isn't a copyright violation, you should not be editing wikipedia. Brad Dyer (talk) 22:03, 17 August 2015 (UTC)

<perosnal attck removed>—I did no such thing. I reverted the addition of scare quotes to the article. And I'm about to do it again. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 22:10, 17 August 2015 (UTC)

Your removal of the quotes turned a quote attributed to B'Tselem's "About" page into a statement by Wikipedia using the identical phrases used by B'Tselem - which is a copyright violation. We take copyright violations seriously here. The article is also subject to a 1RR restriction, which you violated when you repeated that copyright violation. If you can't abide by the policies and rules , you need to stop editing here. Brad Dyer (talk) 23:27, 17 August 2015 (UTC)

To correct a mistake, MShabazz did not "copy the sentences from there", I did. I did not use quotation marks because I do not see this as a copyvio, as I mentioned above. The article which existed prior to my expansion did not use quotes either. Kingsindian ♝♚ 07:43, 18 August 2015 (UTC)

I have slightly rewrote one part of the lead (about the funding). I have removed the quotes everywhere now because all the stuff quoted now are in very short phrases. Kingsindian ♝♚ 08:17, 18 August 2015 (UTC)

I also "have slightly rewrote one part of the lead" clarifying "is an independent" to "describes itself as an independent" according to the wording in "Funding". --Igorp_lj (talk) 23:41, 18 August 2015 (UTC)

"main Activities" and "Reports"

Sections reads like an advertisement, self-sourced. If this is notable, it needs secondary sourcing. Otherwise it's an inappropriate use of WP as a brag sheet.E.M.Gregory (talk) 19:44, 19 August 2015 (UTC)

I agree, for a change. Some of the material could be retained, because a lot of its reports are mentioned in sources. However, I did not have the energy to sift through them. Kingsindian ♝♚ 20:29, 19 August 2015 (UTC)

Executive Director

B'Tselem's staff page used for the Jessica Montell reference (par 1) says that Hagai El-Ad is now B'Tselem's Executive Director. http://www.btselem.org/about_btselem/staff_members. The announcement is at http://www.btselem.org/press_releases/20140528_new_director.

Jessica Montell stepped down in June 2014. http://www.sfgate.com/movies/article/World-premiere-of-In-the-Image-at-S-F-Jewish-5629446.php, https://il.linkedin.com/pub/jessica-montell/9/789/b4a. Her parting statement is at http://www.btselem.org/about_btselem/jessica_montell_leaving_btselem (no date).

I was going to simply change the name, but then thought Montell deserves at least a mention so it would need a slightly more extended edit. I'll leave that to someone with more vested in the article than I have. --michellegraham 17:06, 18 October 2015 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Michellegraham (talk • contribs)

Semi-protected edit request on 14 January 2016

5.29.164.74 (talk) 04:57, 14 January 2016 (UTC) regarding the last paragraph. Naawi is not a B'tselem activist, he's a member of Ta'ayush. "Ezra Nawi and Nasser Nawaja admitted they entrapped Palestinians into selling land to Israelis" that part was never mentioned in the Uvda report.

Not done: Hi, the sources listed for the claim both clearly state what the article says, so I see no reason to remove it. --allthefoxes ^(Talk) 05:12, 14 January 2016 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 14 January 2016

5.29.164.74 (talk) 13:23, 14 January 2016 (UTC) let's try again but with more attention and effort from the mods this time. Naawi is not a B'tselem activist, he's a member of Ta'ayush. there's no source claiming that he is a member of B'tselem, his wiki page only mentions his association with Ta'ayush

"Ezra Nawi and Nasser Nawaja admitted they entrapped Palestinians into selling land to Israelis" that part was never mentioned in the Uvda report.

the uvda report doesn't present them as "entrapping someone INTO selling land", that's a blatant misquote, that's not what the tablemag article is saying either. what the uvda report showed is that they report those land sellers to the relevant authorities because they break PA laws. moreover using tablemag, an obviously right wing leaning website to retell the report of uvda, and using it as a source is questionable as well.

The article has been edited by another editor and the source and content has been changed. I believe it no longer an issue. Sir Joseph ^(talk) 15:32, 18 January 2016 (UTC)

Bassem Eid, Palestinian Human Rights Monitoring Group

I restored this well-sourced information about B'Tselem's early years, and an NGO that originated with a key early member. I think it's notable.:

• Bassem Eid the group's first Arab member, is credited with putting B'Tsemem "on the map." Eid left B'Tselem to found the Palestinian Human Rights Monitoring Group because B'Tselem was unilling to expand its portfolio to include the violation of Palestinian Arab rights by the Palestinian Authority. The Washington Post describes Eid and and the Palestinian Human Rights Monitoring Group as "defying a taboo" among human rights organizations against criticizing violations of human rights by Palestinian governing authorities.E.M.Gregory (talk) 12:02, 16 March 2016 (UTC)

References

You are using edit warring to force content into articles. Your addition was reverted. Now you need to try to find consensus. Sean.hoyland - talk 16:02, 16 March 2016 (UTC)

The information was well sourced. What exactly is the problem with the information? You can reword if you wish, but the information is certainly notable for inclusion. Sir Joseph ^(talk) 16:07, 16 March 2016 (UTC)

I'm not interested in the content. Others can discuss that. My interest is in reminding E.M.Gregory for the second time in less than a week that they are not allowed to edit war and that when they are reverted they need to discuss the content and gain consensus. Sean.hoyland - talk 16:31, 16 March 2016 (UTC)

Neither of the 2 editors who have removed this material have offered any reason for removing this well-sourced, pertinent material. Each seems to be acting on gorunds of WP:OWN and WP:IDONTLIKEIT.E.M.Gregory (talk) 17:43, 16 March 2016 (UTC)

I'll say it again. Have another go at understanding it. Do not edit war. The more you repeat this behavior the more likely it becomes that I report it as a disruptive pattern. Sean.hoyland - talk 05:20, 17 March 2016 (UTC)

The problem is that only one (and maybe another half) of the three sentences have anything to do with B'Tselem, the subject of this article. The Washington Post article, one of the two sources, doesn't mention B'Tselem. As I wrote in my edit summary, the material belongs in Bassem Eid or at Palestinian Human Rights Monitoring Group. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 22:00, 16 March 2016 (UTC)

No problem. Lots of sources out there:

• "Bassem Eid, who established the Palestinian Human Rights Monitoring Group (PHRMG) in 1996 to monitor the PA in the same manner as he had monitored Israeli violations of Palestinian rights for the Israeli human rights group B'tselem." [14]
• In fact, looking at teh results on the Proquest search [15] it is apparent how crucial his role in B'Tselem was in the early years.E.M.Gregory (talk) 23:10, 16 March 2016 (UTC)

The WP article doesn't mention B'Tselem and is almost 20 years old. So it is synth to include it and bad editing to report it in the present tense. The Tablet article is relevant, but it doesn't say that "B'Tselem was unilling (sic) to expand its portfolio to include teh (sic) violation of Palestinian Arab rights by the Palestinian Authority". What it actually says is that "the leadership of B’Tselem was divided" on the issue. Zero^talk 23:25, 16 March 2016 (UTC)

Lay off, Zero. Do you have any idea how hard it is to find a web browser with a spellcheck feature, and how much it costs when you finally find one? — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 03:55, 17 March 2016 (UTC)

• Nice job of tag team CENSORING significant, reliable material, dudes.E.M.Gregory (talk) 17:02, 18 March 2016 (UTC)
  • Please read WP:NOTCENSORED before you invoke it. It has nothing to do with this off-topic nonsense. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 17:09, 18 March 2016 (UTC)

Do not feed the sock trolls + WP:ARBPIA3#500/30
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Malik, you are an administrator. Why are you engaging in this petty, partisan behavior? CarolOfTheForest (talk) 17:04, 18 March 2016 (UTC) Carol, I'm not an administrator, my behavior isn't petty or partisan, and you're not allowed to edit here under WP:ARBPIA3#500/30. — Malik Shabazz Talk/Stalk 17:09, 18 March 2016 (UTC) Oh, sorry. How many times do I have to throw around words like "jewboy" before I'm allowed to edit something related to Israel? CarolOfTheForest (talk) 17:35, 18 March 2016 (UTC) Laugh. Thank you, User:CarolOfTheForest, for inspiring that bit of self-satire by Malik Shabaaz, to quote "my behavior isn't petty or partisan, and you're not allowed to edit here under WP:ARBPIA3#500/30" Does he even hear himself? Still laughing. E.M.Gregory (talk) 17:27, 18 March 2016 (UTC)

last revert

Shrike, you actually think a criticism of an unnamed Btselem researcher belongs in an encyclopedia article about Btselem? Thats "due weight" to you? And the line on not calling a Hamas a terror organization, drew criticism from who and why? nableezy - 14:48, 17 October 2016 (UTC)

If multiple WP:RS mention it that yes its WP:DUE to include it.--Shrike (talk) 14:53, 17 October 2016 (UTC)

Thats a fairly simplistic response and as far as I can tell one not based on anything in WP:DUE. Why should an encyclopedia article on B'tselem include any random bit of information you can find in a newspaper? How does a criticism of an unnamed researcher improve the article? Does it add any type of understanding about Btselem, or why it might be criticized? No, of course not. Its a random tidbit that people insert because they want to add anything they can find negative about Btselem to the article. And so some incredibly trivial thing gets added and then defended with what appears to be a reason but lacks any substance behind it. So let me rephrase the question. Why should a criticism of an unnamed researcher employed by Btselem be included in the article. Is it your position that anything I can find in two reliable sources that is even tangentially related to Btselem should be in this article? nableezy - 16:50, 17 October 2016 (UTC)

Its not a random a tidbit The organisation itself responded to the allegations [16].And here is another sources[17],[18].There are also several op-eds about it also.So yes if something discussed by 5 WP:RS including TV channel it can be safely included in to the article.

That was not my question. My question to you was if I can find 2 newspapers that mention Btselem, does that mean that material should be included in the article? Btselem responds to a lot of things, a lot of op-eds are written every day, what does any of that have to do with an encyclopedia article? In the amount of criticism that Btselem has received since its inception, how much weight has been given to this random researcher? Do you not see what you are doing here? Should I add every criticism that is found in 2 newspapers to say the article on the IDF? Or Ariel Sharon? Or Benjamin Netanyahu? Or ... . This is not something that matters, even a little bit, and I really do not understand why somebody would harp on it. nableezy - 07:27, 18 October 2016 (UTC)

But its not our case there 5 sources that discuss this.And yes if you find something that mentioned in 5 WP:RS + some opinion pieces you can safely include this in any wiki article.So I think we do should include this too.Maybe you want to change wording?--Shrike (talk) 16:53, 18 October 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

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

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20101212232823/http://cartercenter.org/news/documents/doc181.html to http://www.cartercenter.org/news/documents/doc181.html#previous

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

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

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

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 04:43, 23 October 2016 (UTC)

Foreign government funding

I reverted Shrike's addition of "foreign governments" to funding sources, because I did not find it in the source. But that was because I didn't read the source all the way to the end. Shrike is right and I am wrong. My apologies. Ravpapa (talk) 17:54, 29 October 2016 (UTC)

Casualty Statistics: Participation in hostilities irrelevant?

Noticing how the organization's website differentiates between casualties among Israeli security forces and Israeli civilians, but doesn't offers a parallel classification of Palestinian casualties, I was inclined to look closer at their statistical data. I examined the downloadable .csv file listing 3,031 deaths since January 2009 in the West Bank and Gaza, and did find a relevant rubric titled Took part in the hostilities. However, since October 2014, 217 of 250 casualties' participation in hostilities has been deemed Irrelevant (23 listed as No, 10 as Yes). Here are a few questionable examples from last year's casualties, accompanied by the description offered by B'Tselem in the same file:

• Hammad Dakhil Khader a-Sheikh, 21, "critically injured by police fire... after stabbing a police officer with a screwdriver." Irrelevant.
• Muhammad 'Abd al-Khaleq Rida Turkman, 25, "shot dead by soldiers at the DCO Checkpoint after he fired at soldiers there. According to media reports, three soldiers were wounded by his gunfire" Irrelevant.
• Khaled Ahmad 'Alian Ekhlil, 25, "shot dead by Border Police near Beit Ummar after hitting three Border Police officers with his car." Irrelevant.
• Mesbah Sbieh Mesbah Abu Sbeih, 39, "Shot dead by Border Police in East Jerusalem's a-Sheikh Jarrah neighborhood after he shot and killed an Israeli woman and an Israeli police officer." Irrelevant.
• Hatem 'Abd al-Hafiz 'Abd a-Rahim a-Shaloudi, 25, "Shot to death by soldiers near Tel Rumeidah. Video footage shows him producing a knife and lunging at soldiers during a security check" Irrelevant.
• al-Majd 'Abdallah 'Abdallah al-Khadur, 18, "Shot and killed by soldiers after deliberately ramming her car into another car that was at a hitchhiking station at the entrance to Kiryat Arba." Irrelevant.

I call into question the reliability of their statistics on non-combatant casualties. --ארינמל (talk) 07:14, 22 February 2017 (UTC)

Israeli military wear uniforms so it is fairly easy to identify who is a civilian and who is not, which is harder on the other side. From your first link, I see five categories for Palestinians dead in Gaza, two of which related to special operations ("targeted killings"). In the other three, the stats are 1591 "did not take part in hostilities", 1042 "took part in hostilities" and 70 "not known if involved in fighting".

I did not look deeply in the site but depending on how "took part in hostilities" is understood, it may exclude terror attacks such as the one you mentioned above. Tigraan^{Click here to contact me} 09:53, 22 February 2017 (UTC)

This is what their website has to say about the classification: "B’Tselem records Palestinian fatalities according to whether or not they took part in the hostilities [...]

• Took part in hostilities: [...] As of Operation Cast Lead - persons directly involved in hostilities when killed or else persons fulfilling a continuous combat function.
• Did not take part in the hostilities - persons who were not participating directly in hostilities at the time they were killed and were not fulfilling a continuous combat function...
• Unknown if took part in the hostilities - In some cases, B'Tselem was unable to collect sufficient information, or else the existing information was insufficient to determine whether the person participated directly in the hostilities, and if so, the nature of the person's involvement. In these cases, the list states “unknown” with respect to whether the person took part in the hostilities." --ארינמל (talk) 19:25, 1 March 2017 (UTC)

The clarification page states: In May 2012 B’Tselem decided to stop addressing the question of participation in combat, with respect to Palestinians killed in the West Bank. As long ago as 2000, B’Tselem opposed the sweeping definition of what was happening in the territories as “armed conflict.” Nonetheless, while in the past there were complicated incidents in the West Bank that might have met the definition of “combat incidents,” in recent years the incidents meeting that definition have been almost nil. Hence, B’Tselem has decided that, with regard to all Palestinians killed in the West Bank after Operation Cast Lead, the notion of “participation in hostilities” will no longer be addressed; instead, a short factual description of the circumstances of the death will be provided. The situation in Gaza is different from the one in the West Bank, so they are treated according to different criteria. Kingsindian ♝ ♚ 20:08, 1 March 2017 (UTC)

Recent Reverts

I'd like to open up a thread to discuss two recent reverts of additions I'd made to the article.

1) An editor took out this sentence, arguing that it is not context[19]. The fact that the IDF had previously relied on the group for cooperation is clearly significant and related to BTselem's about-face here. Can somebody please explain why this should not be included in that section?

2) This edit [20] to try to better reflect the content of the section, and present a more NPOV (where we have both criticsm and responses) was reverted on the grounds that it is "not criticism." Clearly wikipedia policies of NPOV would have us include both praise and criticism. And lead sentences need to reflect the content of the section. If the issue is the section title, perhaps that should be changed. Reactions to this proposal? [[PPX]] (talk) 14:52, 26 May 2017 (UTC)

1. The first edit is not relevant, since it is in the "Overview" section. That section should only give a short overview of the present situation. It does not make sense to write a whole megilla about how it was once. In addition, and as I clearly explained in my edit summary, we already have that information in the criticism section, nl. "The IDF has also expressed gratitude to the organization for publishing information about the military's wrongdoing". Repeating it is overkill.
2. A criticism section is for criticism, not praise. Also please notice that the first sentence of a section is not a lead as intended in WP:LEAD, and there is no rule that it should summarize the section. At all. Debresser (talk) 15:47, 26 May 2017 (UTC)

1) Other items in the "Overview" section are not just about the current situation. For instance, the 2011 comments by Lieberman. (And I've not seen a policy that "Overview" requires it to only be about a status quo). Does it make sense to strip out those non-current items? Or, alternatively, does it make more sense to reference the IDF's previous reliance on B'Tselem in a chronological order in the overview section (i.e. in 2010, before the Lieberman comments)?

2) To have an entire section that is only about criticism, and leaves no place for a counterpoint, seems to grossly violate NPOV. Other articles I've been involved with have shifted to the header "Reception" so as to include both. Thoughts on applying that here? It bears saying, of course, that this section does already have some (if minimal) counterpoint.

And, as another matter, I believe that the tremendous focus on criticism, some of which is of questionable notability, and the tiny amount of space given to praise or explanation to be a flaw in this article that needs correction. There is more nuance and complexity to this organization than the article demonstrates. My edits from earlier this week were intended as small steps to addressing this. [[PPX]] (talk) 17:22, 26 May 2017 (UTC)

From what I see in the media, criticism of this organization is most notable, especially in the last few years. It is positively vilified by some. It is only fair that the article should reflect this. Debresser (talk) 17:22, 27 May 2017 (UTC)

It is positively vilified by some, and the article should report on this. And it can probably do so with more significant critics than CAMERA, Glick, and Regavim. But that doesn't take away from the need to have NPOV. The critics come overwhelmingly, from what I see in the media, from a particular political camp. To just echo that partisan narrative would not be appropriate.

Any reactions to the above proposals? [[PPX]] (talk) 14:46, 28 May 2017 (UTC)

Both edits you propose try to add information that is not needed. In the first case because we already have that very same information elsewhere, in the second case because yes, a criticism section is about criticism and that is not NPOV per definition and that is perfectly fine with Wikipedia policies and guidelines.

It is the way of the POV editor to try and balance every negative statement with a positive one, but there is no problem in having some places with positive and others with negative information.

You claim the criticism comes from a certain political camp. There is absolutely nothing wrong with that. Just like there is nothing wrong with the fact that B'Tselem adherents and defenders come from a certain political camp. Debresser (talk) 15:32, 28 May 2017 (UTC)

This doesn't actually bring in any policy that would have us exclude the proposed edits. Rather, it is a defense of the status quo as legitimate. And the more important question is not whether the status quo is Ok vis-a-vis Wikipedia policies; the question we should ask is whether it is better with the changes.

If the "overview" section is only of the present situation "and not the whole megilla" than why would the Lieberman stuff from 6 years ago be there? There's no legitimate standard to include that but exclude this proposal.

Why wouldn't we retitle "criticism" to "reception" when similar changes have been done in other articles having to do with similar NGOs to get better at NPOV? Just because it is sometimes Ok to have a "criticism" section doesn't mean that it isn't better to cast it neutrally? [[PPX]] (talk) 15:09, 30 May 2017 (UTC)

I'm wondering if we should request a third opinion on this. Yes? [[PPX]] (talk) 15:18, 9 June 2017 (UTC)

You want another opinion? Here is another opinions: The sentence "In 2016, B'Tselem announced that it was cutting ties with the IDF over the alleged whitewashing of complaints raised by the NGO" does not belong in the overview section. An overview section is for summing up information that is discussed in more detail in the rest of the article. But this particular fact is never again mentioned. Moreover, it is not particularly germane - the IDF and B'Tselem always had a complex relationship, and this particular event must be seen in that context.

I would suggest that we take the sentence out of the overview section, and create a new section "B'Tselem and the IDF", where we include this factoid along with other discussion of IDF responses to B'Tselem activities and reports.

Yours in controversy,

Ravpapa (talk) 06:21, 10 June 2017 (UTC)

Thank you Ravpapa. I can't tell if you were being sarcastic, but I agree completely that this item should not be only an overview item. It's a flaw that there is so little on what the relationship between the IDF and B'Tselem has been like. I'm fascinated by the issue myself. My only concern about a section would be relying too much on primary sources/original research. But let's try it... Also, I think the issue can be bigger than the IDF. It's about the relationship between a watchdog group and the government whose activities are being monitored. How is it that there is no mention of Rabin's comment "without Bagatz and B'Tselem" in the article either?

Your suggestion, however, didn't touch on the two items that were under discussion here before. (1) Does this content belong in Overview? (It is mentioned again in the article). And (2) should the "Criticism" section be reworked as a "Reception" section.

Reactions to those? [[PPX]] (talk) 15:00, 12 June 2017 (UTC)

Here is how I would rewrite the Overview section:

B'Tselem was founded in 1989, during the First Intifada, by Israeli academics and members of civil rights organizations. Since then, the organization has published over a hundred reports on various issues alleging the use of torture, fatal shootings by security forces, restrictions on movement, expropriation of land and discrimination in planning and building in East Jerusalem, administrative detention, house demolitions, violence by Israeli settlers and Palestinians, and Israeli operations in the occupied territories. B'Tselem has a staff of more than ten trained investigators; it was invited to present evidence of human rights violations to the United Nations Fact Finding Mission on the Gaza Conflict; in 2016, B'tselem executive director Hagai Elad was invited to address the United Nations Security Council. B'tselem enjoys the vociferous support of Israel's left wing, including the Meretz party and numerous other organizations that oppose Israel's occupation of the West Bank.

On the other hand, B'Tselem has come under intense fire from a wide range of the political spectrum in Israel, including political parties from the right wing to politicians considered centrist, like Yair Lapid, founder of the Yesh Atid party.Several organizations have found fault with the quality of B'tselem's research; the organization Im Tirtzu accused the organization of being a "foreign agent" militating for Israel's downfall. After Elad's appearance at the UN, Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu called B'tselem "a delusional, ephemeral organization that has joined the chorus of defamers" of Israel.

B'Tselem's funding comes from private individuals (both Israeli and foreign), governments, and European and North American foundations focusing on human rights.

References

Proposal

and here is how I would write a section on "B'Tselem and the IDF":

Until 2016, B'Tselem as a policy sent findings of wrongdoing by the IDF to the Military Advocate General Corps, the IDF body charged with investigating malfeasance by soldiers. However, in May 2016 the organization announced it would no longer file complaints with the police, claiming that out of more than 700 documented incidents reported to the IDF, less than half were dealt with, and only 25 ended in action against the soldiers involved. The IDF, for its part, has sometimes praised and sometimes villified the organization.

The IDF expressed gratitude to the organization for publishing information about the military's wrongdoing, including information that led, in July 2010, to indictments of a number of soldiers. The IDF's top lawyer at the time General Avichai Mendelblit "voiced his gratitude to the human rights organization B’Tselem, thanking the organization for testimonies its activists passed on to the IDF and for assisting in coordinating the questioning of Palestinian eyewitnesses at the Erez crossing."

On the other hand, a response from the IDF from 1992 to a particular B'Tselem report on the activities of military undercover units remarked that "a large portion of the incidents cited are attributed to vague, anonymous sources - often rumors or stories gleaned from the press." The IDF letter added that B'Tselem's report "ignores the prevailing situation in the area, in which armed, hard-core terrorists, who do not adhere to any code of law, have engaged in terror attacks." At the same time, the IDF letter also acknowledged wrongdoing by military forces. In an incident that B'Tselem reported on at Idna, the IDF commented that a police investigation "found that an officer and several soldiers were apparently negligent in performing their duties and acted in an illegal manner." The IDF said it could not comment on some of the other cases from the B'Tselem report due to ongoing legal proceedings.

B'Tselem's relationship to the IDF came to the forefront in March 2016, when a video filmed by a B'Tselem investigator led to the indictment of an IDF soldier for killing a wounded and disabled Palestinian after a knife attack on another soldier. The incident caused intense controversy within Israel.

B'Tselem's decision to cease filing complaints with the IDF has exposed it to criticism that it is publishing these complaints abroad while eschewing the Israeli legal processes charged with investigating them. B'Tselem, wrote Sar-shalom Djerbi, "works against the state and its soldiers, who are risking their lives with great courage to ensure peace and security for all citizens, including those who have suffered for many years from rocket fire at their homes, wives and children."

This is really excellent work. Very impressive. A big improvement over the status quo. I have comments below on how to improve these:

On the overview--

1) Setting the number of investigators as more than 10 based on an article from 1989 might be misleading, as 1989 was a long time ago and the structure of the organization has surely changed since then.

• "More than ten" is based on the current website information, which lists 12. I didn't want to be exact, because tomorrow one might resign or one might be added.

2) We're devoting a great deal of space, perhaps excessive, in the overview to interactions with non-Israeli officials. Conspicuously absent is the group's interactions with Israeli authorities, including the IDF, Israeli media, and the courts. The Jpost editorial cited touches on this matter "Petitioning the Supreme Court, B’Tselem has contributed to the creation of more oversight when it comes to Israeli operations and government policy regarding Palestinians who live in the West Bank."

It's a matter of undue weight: Elad addressed the Security Council for a few minutes. How many times has the organization provided information to the IDF? How many interviews with Israeli papers?

• I agree. We should add a sentence to the overview: B'Tselem has filed more than 700 complaints of soldier misconduct with the IDF, and has petitioned Israel's courts dozens of times to stop human rights violations.

3) The sentence on the support from Israel's left wing is not sufficently sourced, nor does it represent content that is fleshed out elsewhere in the article. We need to work at least on the later.

4) The better translation for the Im Tirtzu report is "plants" and not "foreign agents." This is the translation used by the Yisrael Hayom article cited here.

• I agree. I think the best translation is "fifth column". I used "foreign agents" because that is a term the organization used in an English language news release. But I don't think we have to stick with it.

5) The sentence "Several organizations have found fault with the quality of B'tselem's research" gives undue weight to the criticism of ideological partisans like CAMERA or pundits like Glick. It seems to me that we should both amend this part of the overview (either by expanding it, or, preferably, by removing it) and continue to improve the body of the article with respect to this matter.

To be clear: I do believe that the sentence accurately portrays what's currently in the article, and in so doing reinforces the existing flaw in the article that needs remedy.

In digging more into this now, I discovered a better source for assessing the reliability of the organization: Mordechai Bar-On's book "In Pursuit of Peace." Bar-On is a historian with expertise on the matter (PhD from Hebrew U, author/editor of ~15 books on Israeli military history, who is also a retired senior IDF officer). On page 244 of that book, he describes B'tselem's research and verification apparatus and wrote that the Israeli media viewed the organization as a reliable source of information. On Page 401 he reveals that "military authorities often asked B'tselem to confirm their own information."

References

This academic scholarship should be given greater weight in the article than the media articles currently relied on. And that proper weight should be reflected in the overview.

• I'm fine with that. The truth is that most of the challenges to B'Tselem's accuracy are from before 2016. Since Im Tirzu's "Shtulim" campaign, most of the attacks on B'Tselem have been that it is anti-Israeli and is defaming Israel abroad. Oddly enough, the critics do not rush to accuse B'Tselem of inaccuracy, only of washing Israel's dirty linen in public.

On the B'Tselem and the IDF section--

1) Do we have a source for IDF "vilification" of the organization? That's a very strong word and it needs to be backed up.

• I thought the quote we have qualfied as villifcation. But I see your point. Perhaps "criticized", though less colorful, would be better.

2) More on that point, we should incorporate the Bar-On research. Here's a quick write up for consideration:

Israeli military authorities have often turned to B'tselem to confirm the IDF's own information. One IDF chief of staff apologized to B'tselem for casting doubt on the organization's research. The apology came after he learned that his information was wrong and that B'tselem's report was correct.

• Go for it..

3) The Djerbi quote is a misfit for the final paragraph. Among other issues, he made those comments before the change in B'Tselem's policy. As such it doesn't back up that B'tselem's move "exposed it to criticism." Another citation is needed here so that it doesn't appear as original research.

• Agree. I looked for one and couldn't find it. At the time, I heard a lot of pols on the radio making just that point - why does B'Tselem go outside with the garbage, and not address Israeli channels? Maybe you will have better luck.

Thank you again for starting this draft. Let's polish it up and get it in there! [[PPX]] (talk) 15:44, 13 June 2017 (UTC)

My responses to your comments are included inline. I think before we go ahead we need input from @Debresser: and perhaps others who have different views of the subject matter than we do. Ravpapa (talk) 10:54, 14 June 2017 (UTC)

Ok. We are largely in agreement here. The three things I still want to flag are:

#3 in the draft overview section, (it looks like you might have missed that one).

#4, the best translation for Im Tirtzu's terminology. (Here I think the best move is to use the translation used by the best reliable sources because that is less original-research-ish. But I agree "fifth column" is a valid translation).

On the paragraph with the Djerbi quote, if we aren't able to find another source, I believe that we should strike that paragraph. And I think we need a different type of source than an example of criticism. We need to cite somebody else's analysis: Did the move open them up to this line of criticism? Or was this line of criticism already existing and now they get more of it? Or maybe their move didn't actually generate more of this line criticism than had been voiced earlier (as your search for quotes might indicate)? It's not up to us to answer these questions ourselves.

And, of course, I'd be very happy for more input from any editor. [[PPX]] (talk) 13:55, 14 June 2017 (UTC)

My superficial comment on Ravpapa's edit is the following. The version much better than the status quo. However, I find it a bit too focused on the Israeli domestic politics. From what I see in newspapers and scholarship, B'Tselem is widely cited in all sorts of contexts. This might be worth emphasizing. I see that my point is mostly covered is point (5) of Perplexed566's comments. Kingsindian ♝ ♚ 19:02, 17 June 2017 (UTC)

References

Undue weight in recent edit

I believe that this edit puts undue weight on the views of Ms. Glick (a media personality) relative to the scholarly academic work of Dr. Bar-On (a historian who has authored or edited ~15 books on related topics). I know that B'tselem is something of a lightning rod, and we must not exclude criticism, but nor do I think it's appropriate to include heated argumentation as equal weight, or even greater weight, relative to academic research. [[PPX]] (talk) 15:41, 16 June 2017 (UTC)

Given her credentials, see Caroline B. Glick, I think this is not too much.

Especially I was unhappy with you removal of that information, since it was part of a larger action from your sight to whitewash this controversial organization. As I told you before, don't be afraid to show the truth. Debresser (talk) 16:38, 16 June 2017 (UTC)

(1) Please refrain from personal attacks. I did not "whitewash" anything.

(2) I admit that I did not know everything on her bio, but her work cited here is still not academic research. It's an op-ed. Bar-On, on the other hand, studied the organization and published his findings in a book published by USIP (which is not exactly a vanity press).

(3) The issue isn't only the inclusion of the Glick quote but also the removal of Bar-On's finding, which was disqualified because it sounded "like an advertisement." That's not exactly Wikipedia policy.

(4) If you think that this material doesn't present the organization as you would like it presented, can you find high quality sources to support your view? [[PPX]] (talk) 19:27, 16 June 2017 (UTC)

Note to @Debresser:: I am aware that your view of the subject of this article is sharply different from that of other editors here. Because there is so much disagreement about the subject, I think it would be a good policy to discuss edits on the talk page first, to try to gain some consensus. I have posted above a suggestion for a major rewrite of one section of the article and addition of another section, and invited you to comment. So far you have refrained from doing so, and I have held off incorporating those changes until you do.

Of course, you are under no duress to comment. I just think it would be much healthier for you to do so, and for us all to work out our differences on the talk page, rather than have you revert and rewrite once the changes are made in the article. Regards, Ravpapa (talk) 12:34, 17 June 2017 (UTC)

I am all for consensus. Since there have been a few proposals above, and at least one of them is not signed, would you mind posting here the present text and your proposal in blockquotes, so we could more easily compare them? Debresser (talk) 17:53, 17 June 2017 (UTC)

I agree there is undue weight given to an opinion piece by Ms Glick. And I fail to see any expertise that she has that allows for her to be considered a reliable source for anything besides her opinion on the topic. nableezy - 20:11, 17 June 2017 (UTC)

Undue weight tag in Award nominations section

This tag was added recently. It seems like this is something worth discussing. While I don't think "Due Weight" is the policy issue at hand, I'm sympathetic to the notion that listing a nomination for an award from years back might constitute Trivia and should be removed. Can anybody comment more about this prize and the significance of the nomination? [[PPX]] (talk) 13:49, 22 June 2017 (UTC)

Neutral. Debresser (talk) 14:56, 22 June 2017 (UTC)