Talk:Birthright Israel/Archive 1

Archive 1

Edits made by 69.205.172.134

Before repeating your reverted edits a third time, please justify that they are NPOV and verifiable. In general, you should not remake edits that have been reverted without recourse to the talk page. Thanks. jnothman ^talk 04:47, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

Articles about birthright israel

Are articles from the press about birthright israel unnacceptable here? Also birthright israel is officially spelt in all lowercase letters. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.132.94.252 (talk • contribs)

• Sorry about that, my mistake. A whole bunch of anonymous IP editors have been adding spam links to the page recently, so I mistakenly assumed that this was another one. Anyways, I readded the link, it's a good article. And thanks for the tip on the title, I've added a little line at the top explaning the lowercase thing. -- pm_shef 00:00, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

• No worries! Spam links? That's crazy! Like the usual viagra stuff? Or spam from trip providers? I thought the jewlicious link was good because they blogged about the trips they led. I went on one and now I live in Israel (joining the IDF in November!) so maybe I'm biased, who knows.

• By spam links I meant trip providers. Just a thought, you may want to register a real account - it helps when you're interacting with the community. Also, when making a comment, please sign it with four tildes (~). Thanks! -- pm_shef 02:26, 10 September 2006 (UTC)
• All I saw in the history was israelxperts - but whatever, it's all good. I was just trying to contribute! I mean And if there was wouldn't that Jewlicious link qualify? And I have no idea what you mean about the tildes. I did create an account though! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Yallanu (talk • contribs)

• The Jewlicious one was a bit unnecessery IMO. -- pm_shef 15:14, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

• I thought it was cool because many of the posts contained day by day blog entries detailing the activities of a typical birthright israel trip - visits to Jerusalem, Tel Aviv, the Dead Sea, Bedouin Camp, Massada etc. As well, the posts contained pics too. But it's ok. Its your call I suppose. Now to try that signature thing... --Yallanu 19:27, 10 September 2006 (UTC)
• Oh sweet! That is soooo cool! I have so much to learn! --Yallanu 19:29, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

Compromise Section

Criticism

The birthright trip has been criticized by some participants as being biased towards the State of Israel and for giving cultural and Zionist issues more prominence than Jewish religious or spiritual issues. In line with this, the claim has been made that trip organizers attempt to create a mind-set in its participants through which Israel is the first thing that comes to mind when they think of Judaism.

While some also critics also point to the fact that trip organizers espouse the idea that "you don't have to be religiously observant to be a 'good Jew,'" this idea of cultural, rather than religious Judaism has increasingly become accepted in mainstream society. However, the criticism which has received the most attention is Birthright's tendency to avoid discussing current events such as the ongoing Israeli-Palestinian conflict.

It is important to note however that these criticisms, while significant, are not mainstream and have received little support from most of the participants of the program.

This is what I propose be included. Most of the "sources" that were given before were unverifiable, and all of them were primary sources, both of which are criteria for non-inclusion according to WP:Verifiability and WP:CITE. I believe this addresses the concerns. -- Chabuk ^{[ T • C ]} 00:46, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

I appreciate the surprising effort to compromise. I will make my edits in the next day or so.

However, I must say, you left out a lot of the important concerns. You are right that these criticisms are PROBABLY not representative of the MAJORITY of participant views, but since when should the majority viewpoint have exclusive authorship privelages in an encyclopedia? The majority of Encyclopedia Britannica contributors in centuries past wrote about how Africans adults were all "impure, culture-less savages" and psychologically "child-like". You should not equivocate majority opinion with truth, although the two do have a correlation with scholarly sources (that is, once we get past the issue of "who is a scholar?"). One might argue that most Birthright participants are not mature enough to reflect a scholarly consensus about the program. I would bet that most are not old enough to resist peer pressure to conform, and therefore they are being brainwashed to think what they are instructed about Taglit-birthright's program, Zionism, and Israel.

Your proposed are also correct in assuming that secular (nationalistic qua idolatrous) ideologies are rejecting and replacing religious Judaism, but you cleverly omit the provocative, controversial things (such as the IDF soldiers acting as salaried courtesans). BTW, my email survey has been quoted on a number of websites, and it qualifies as a germane, verifiable source. There is no reason why the Salon.com article or the Freedman quotes post should be struck from the page as well.--129.119.162.40 01:33, 9 December 2006 (UTC)Behemoth101

• Re; the soldiers, their presence on the trips are part of the trip itself, they're there specifically to engage the participants, so I'm not quite sure what the "controversy" in that is... the supposed controversy is their entire purpose for being there. Regarding the sources you mention, I didn't include them because they were citing things that were no longer in my version. Regarding the survey, as you said yourself, it's your survey, not verifiable, and written to explain your unique point of view, which is totally fine on your own website, but not legit to be included here. -- Chabuk ^{[ T • C ]} 02:22, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

• P.S. I'm glad that we seem to be able to work this out positively! -- Chabuk ^{[ T • C ]} 02:23, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

My new version

The birthright trip has been criticized by some participants as misrepresenting its goals in order to promote a biased propaganda message soliciting secular Jewish support for the State of Israel (See also: bait and switch advertising method). Evidence for the various critcisms stem from first-hand participant accounts and the trip program's administration and financial support.

One particularly controversial variant of the criticism is the trip's reported subordination of Jewish religious, spiritual, and ethical issues in favor of promoting a secular, political Zionist agenda. According to at least one source, trip organizers are specifically instructed to create top of mind awareness of Israel when participants think about Judaism, by any coercive pressuring means necessary.[1] Further support for this claim stems from the trip's main financial contributors' secularist leanings and documented involvement of The Jewish Agency of Israel, an organization that facilitates immigration to Israel[2][3]. It should be noted that secularist ideas in Judaism, particularly those ideas asserting: "Jews need not be observant to be considered good Jews so long as they support 'Jewish causes'" are widespread phenomena in many western states.

A common criticism of the trip involves allegations of trip organizers advocating Jewish-supremacy, separatism, and promotion of Hasbara within participants' countries of residence.[4]

Another criticism of the program is the program, despite its goal to establish "Jewish identity" and awareness of Jewish concerns, avoids discussions of salient, problematic identity issues concerning Jews in Israel (particularly along Palestinian topics such as the Palestinian right of return). Critics allege that many speakers and leaders on the trip take an anti-intellectual or reductionistic stance on fundamental mid-East policy, encouraging deference to western Jewish political leaders instead of individual consideration of issues. A related critcism is that the birthright trip is unconcerned with balanced discussion, rather with "just showing Jewish kids a good time." Taglit-birthright supporters argue that the inclusion of intense discussions problematizing such issues would compromise the trip's stated objectives.[4][5]

Others claim Taglit-birthright inadvertently employs speakers who espouse factual errors and inconsistencies.

A final controversial criticism is one source's documented claim that many Israeli Defense Force soldiers assigned to mingle with participants along the trip admitted to having been "briefed" or "encouraged" to indulge in lascivious activities with the participants in order to make the experience more "memorable." Taglit-birthright's official policy is that IDF soldiers are included along the trip to socialize with participants and answer their questions about Israel.[5]

Most, if not, all of these criticisms reflect the negative view that Taglit-birthright is used by Zionist proponents as an unscrupulous, deceptive tool for imposing secular, political beliefs on impressionable Jewish youths. As such, much of the program experience is predictably offensive to individuals who refuse to consider themselves Zionists or those who oppose the principles of Zionism. Non-secular and secular humanist Jews have published their disapproval of Jewish organizations' de-emphasizing or even rejection of traditional Jewish ethics/values and subsequent super-ordination of Zionist political values developed over the last century.[6]

It is important to note that these criticisms have received little to no public mention from proponents of the program.

  1. ^ Advertising source explained
  2. ^ Keren Hayesod
  3. ^ Michael Steinhardt
  4. ^ A Jewish participant's account
  5. ^ A birthright email survey published online
  6. ^ Thomas Freedman article

--66.69.211.12 08:42, 11 December 2006 (UTC)Behemoth101

• All you've done is taken your original section and added a watered down disclaimer at the bottom. That is not compromise, and it's not acceptable. Your section still violates Verifiability and WP:NPOV in every possible sense of the policy. The fact that you only have two sources for the criticisms themselves shows that they are essentially non-notable. However, if you insist on including them, they cannot be put in the biased form that you have here. My suggestion above is an example of non-biased structure. -- Chabuk ^{[ T • C ]} 19:17, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

Chabuk, I knew I had you pinned. You obviously are not concerned with the structure of the article, because I used an unbiased format. Even if I did, Wiki verifiability rules state that you may omit "unverifiable sections" and tag them in the comments for discussion, which you haven't done. You have eliminated THE ENTIRE SECTION, your blatant and uncompromising domineering on this subject leads me to make one conclusion: your biased intersts have gotten the better of you. The structure of my argument is not the part that you see as not belonging - since you obviously haven't cited anything in the rest of your article. You are concerned with the content. I'm going to give you one more chance. If you disagree with the section I post, you may EDIT IT FOR VERIFIABILITY, but do not just flat-out remove it, lest I slap you with a dispute tag.--Behemoth101 19:29, 12 December 2006 (UTC)Behemoth101

• First of all, do not threaten me. Second, I eliminated your entire biased section. The compromise which I came up with addresses the concerns (however non-notable) you raised, while maintaining a NEUTRAL POINT OF VIEW. I'm not sure what "slapping me with a dispute tag" will do, as I'll just go do AN/I, show them your edits, which are in clear violation of our POV rules, and they'll remove it, same as I have been doing. Regarding the issue of Verifiability, if a section is potentially libellous, which yours certainly is, it must be properly cited. The guideline at Biography of living persons applies here. I'm going to replace your POV section with my compromise section which contains all of your pertinent criticisms, with none of the POV. -- Chabuk ^{[ T • C ]} 19:47, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

Go ahead and notify the dispute board. Any third-party consensus is better than the one you're willing to give. On a side note, you have no chance of ever being a wikipedia monitor if you think your point of view is "neutral" on this subject.--66.69.211.12 21:03, 12 December 2006 (UTC)Behemoth101

POV

I should also add that this is not an NPOV dispute because of the following reasons:

-the author of the survey (I) entered into the Birthright trip with an open mind, and did not have a particular grudge against Israel (hence the acceptance to go on the trip). The participant's (my) disappointment is not "biased" because the participant (I) grew up in a conservative Jewish household, and attended regular Judaic/Hebrew instruction and was Bar Mitzvah'ed. The author is a Jew who clearly knows about Judaism and clearly is interested in religious/spiritual reflection and not Israel-centric political ideologies.

-the author speaks for several other members of the same trip who did not publish their opinions out of fear or lack of motivation.

-"Samuel G. Freedman is a journalist and currently a professor at the Columbia University Graduate School of Journalism. He has authored five nonfiction books, including Who She Was, a book about his mother's life as a teenager and young woman, and Jew vs. Jew: The Struggle for the Soul of American Jewry. He has also won the National Jewish Book Award in 2000 in the Non-Fiction category for Jew vs. Jew, and The Inheritance was a finalist for the 1997 Pulitzer Prize." (from Wikipedia article) --Behemoth101 19:13, 8 December 2006 (UTC)Behemoth101

Just because the source "entered... with an open mind" doesn't mean it's not in violation of WP:NPOV. Your edits, as currently framed, were clearly in violation of that rule. Without a doubt, a lot of what you're trying to stay has some basis in fact. the very name of trip, "Birthright Israel" implies a Zionist slant to the trip. That being said, you've framed the argument as a condemnation rather than as an observation. If you can clean up the language so that it is neutral, it would certainly be acceptable. -- Chabuk ^{[ T • C ]} 22:04, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

Forgive the apparent "language slip-up," but there is nothing about the term "birthright Israel" (which is frequently and casually used by trip organizers) that suggests a POV bias. However, I listen to what you say on that issue so long as the rest of the section remains. I have also adjusted some of the language to fit more closely to your concept of neutrality.

I find it hard to believe the User: Chabuk is truly concerned about presenting a balanced article about Taglit-birthright given his/her repeated exclusion of ALL critcisms of the program. If anyone is concerned with the veracity or "framing" of the criticisms, then he or she may research them him/herself and edit them as he/she sees fit. There is no rule against making something clearly labeled as a "criticism" a condemnation so long as it adheres to the facts. The criticisms don't come from thin-air, they are real. Simply eliminating any mention of them does not solve the problem of article neutrality. If someone wishes to refute the criticisms, then by all means, add a "controversy" section to the article, and we can work from there.--129.119.162.40 22:48, 8 December 2006 (UTC)Behemoth101

• Unfortunately, Behemoth, that's not how Wikipedia works. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, it's not window shopping. The point is that this is the research, people shouldn't have to go somewhere else only to realize that what they found at Wiki is in fact biased. What I'm going to do is remove the section from the article as it is a prima facie violation of WP:NPOV and place it here, where we can work on helping it conform to Wikipedia policies. I hope this is an acceptable compromise to you. -- Chabuk ^{[ T • C ]} 00:30, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

I agree with chabuk. There certainly are problems with birthright Israel, but this is not the place for our personal thoughts on the experience. Using shadowy language of "some critcisize" for "I cirticize" doesn't make it less of a personal opinion. It's a fine line between opinionated condemnation and factual destription. For example to call the KKK racist/white supremacist *is* condemnatory, but also not a violation of NPOV. What's at issue isn't the bias of the trip, to say that taglit has a secular zionist agenda is totally true and fair, however a launch into an essay of "why taglit is evil" is a fish of a different color. Avraham 10:36, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

User:66.69.211.12

• I don't know how many times I have to say this. You cannot unilaterally add information in violation of WP:NPOV and WP:RS. Most of your supposed controversy is also WP:OR. The fact is, I have made an attempt to compromise by including a more succinct section. The version you keep reverting to is long, rambling and pov. Not to mention the fact that you yourself say, at the bottom of your version that the criticisms are essentially not notable by virtue of them being raised by an insignificant proportion of participants. Either stop reverting or start compromising. -- Chabuk ^{[ T • C ]} 00:52, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

• Dispute

Dispute

•Zionism supporters refuse to publish factual criticisms of the program, citing NPOV and formatting inconsistencies. Factual accuracy is evidenced by indpendent attestations by former participants. •Zionist contributors to this article have, rather than editing the criticisms for factual accuracy, chosen to delete them entirely without attempting to preserve NPOV. This constitutes white-washing the program. In effect, the wikipedia article serves as free advertising for the program while ignoring its faults. •This article, so long as it lacks the specific criticisms non-Zionist contributors make, should qualify as NPOV.

Parties' agreement to mediate: --Behemoth101 02:29, 28 December 2006 (UTC)Behemoth101

--Behemoth101 02:33, 28 December 2006 (UTC)Behemoth101

• Are you kidding me? I (being the so-called "zionist contributor" am the only party to this dispute who has made ANY attempt to resolve this dispute! Both you, behemoth and the AnonIP simply revert and refused to cooperate when I presented a compromise section. Plus, even if you did have some claim to having been wronged, this isn't how you apply for mediation. -- Chabuk ^{[ T • C ]} 02:53, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

• Well, you may notify the mediator, then. Let's get this straightened out as soon as possible.

--Behemoth101 03:03, 28 December 2006 (UTC)Behemoth101

• Despite my disbelief that you insist on this, despite the fact that you just blatantly violated WP:CIV and WP:AGF, I've opened a request for informal mediation. -- Chabuk ^{[ T • C ]} 03:30, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

• Thank you. For the record, it was never my intention to stir up anyone's ire. I'm interested in presenting an accurate account of Birthright Israel's true intentions, which may or may not be so innocent (as certain individuals assume). --66.69.211.12 04:03, 28 December 2006 (UTC)Behemoth101

what wikipedia is

Since there are clearly some people editing this page who are new to wikipedia, I'm going to take a minute to exaplin something about wikipedia. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia. It is not a place for you opinions. It is not a place to reveal the truth about anything. In fact, wikipedia has a strong policy against original research. That means if you've discovered something, this is not the place to publish it. All information in wikipedia must be referenced using reliable sources. If you have a compliant about a person, group, or institution, no matter how legitimate it may be, this is not the place for airing grievances. --Bachrach44 15:06, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

• Good luck trying to get them to understand that. I've already tried multiple times, it doesn't seem to work. -- Chabuk ^{[ T • C ]} 17:42, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

Mediation active?

Is this mediation request still active or can I close it? --Ideogram 01:32, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

It seems dead to me: the pro-Criticism-section people seem to have given up on inserting an unsourced or unreliably sourced section, and the anti-Criticism-section people will presumably accept a reliably sourced Criticism section (assuming it's not ridiculously long) once one is provided. —Ruakh_TALK 02:20, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

I will close the case; leave a note on my talk page if it needs to be reopened. --Ideogram 02:23, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

removal of criticism section

Even the section Chabuk approved has now been deleted. This act demonstrates how there is an uttler lack of good faith on the part of the other contributors. The goal with your edits has been unabashed political propaganda.

There is no question that Wikipedia is an encyclopedia. However, this article is flawed because it misrepresents Birthright Israel's agenda. Proponents and adminstrators of the program have themselves admitted to a hidden agenda. This problem must be addressed for the description of Birthright Israel to be objective. --66.69.211.12 09:02, 29 December 2006 (UTC)Behemoth101

If they "admit" to it, how is it a hidden agenda?Drsmoo 08:21, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

Not quite. Wikipedia is not the place to reveal hidden agendas. News should be broken in a newspaper, not an encyclopedia. --Bachrach44 14:08, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

Agreed. It has nothing to do with good faith, and everything to do with our No original research policy. Wikipedia should not be the first place that anything is published; our task is to summarize what has been published already in reliable sources. -GTBacchus^(talk) 21:10, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

Total outsider's view - that criticism section seems ridiculous. Just because someone on a blog has criticised something, doesn't mean that has to be incorporated in the article. For example, every major politican will be subject to criticisms by bloggers or individuals in letters to newspapers etc. We don't reference such trivial matters in their biography. --SandyDancer 21:43, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

• Making that 4-1, I'd say that's a pretty good consensus to remove it completely. -- Chabuk ^{[ T • C ]} 04:53, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
• 5-1. I don't see why this was taken seriously at any point. Blogs of this type are clearly original research and are not reliable sources. To suggest that one person's disappointment with his trip is notable is ridiculous, especially when he has an entry on his blog entitled "Biased Wikipedia article - CALL TO ARMS!"[1] wherein he solicits readers to create one-use Wikipedia accounts solely to back him on this issue. Dbratton 18:23, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

While I agree the past criticisms sections here have been crappy, it's not like criticisms of Taglit are lunatic-fringe material. There definitely needs to be some discussion of the controversies surrounding Taglit. —Ruakh_TALK 03:35, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

BTW, I myself have been on Taglit, loved it greatly, and have encouraged many others to go. I'm not trying to push an anti-Taglit POV; I just think that a balanced article needs to note the existence of controversy, as it's really not a minor point. —Ruakh_TALK 03:38, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

Well said, Ruakh. You have exercised considerable NPOV in this discussion. Can I please ask that you spearhead this new criticism section? It's nothing new that people of mild intelligence find flaws in the Birthright campaign, and it's certainly not a huge leap to make to argue that Birthright is principally concerned with Israel (Zionist) political advocacy. --71.42.119.67 12:45, 3 January 2007 (UTC)Behemoth101

I would definitely agree that a criticism section would not be out of place, under the assumption that reliable sources can be found. In the meantime, no OR applies. Dbratton 12:49, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

Responses to Proposal

• All of this is inflammatory and none of it is referenced at all. It cannot be put into the article until it is properly cited and backed up with verifiable sources. Also, this talk page is not your sandbox. If you want to experiment, please use your own userspace or the Wikipedia sandbox -- Chabuk ^{[ T • C ]} 15:51, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

• Let's be clear here for a moment - this is an encyclopedia, not a place for argument or discussion. If you have an axe to grind with birthright then please find the appropriate forum to do so. If you want to get a new idea into wikipedia, the way to go it is to disseminate the idea elsewhere first - have it written up in newspapers or journals (or other WP:RS), and then (and only then) does it make it into wikipedia. No new ideas should be entered into wikipedia. --Bachrach44 16:28, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

• Ditto bachrach44. Several thousand people have gone on these trips, this 'crticism' seems to generalize the reader into thinking that this is the norm on all trips which I'm sure is not. And even if/when this is verified and put into proper context, it should go without saying that a disclaimer be attached saying, 'participant receives heavily subsidized overseas trip and has the gall to whine.' If the intention of the criticism section is a WP:POINT to get back at the organizers, then it does not belong here. If it is valid claims meant as constructive criticism, then it should be sent to the organizers, not on WP. --Shuki 20:56, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

• Regarding the updates you just made, you can add anything you like, it doesn't change the fact that you're just trying to make a WP:POINT. You simply cannot add unsourced opinion to an article, regardless of what the opinion is. --Bachrach44 13:08, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

Criticism section is accurate

My edits were removed on the grounds of "blogs are not verifiable sources." If that were the case, then all those articles citing boingboing and slashdot would be "unverifiable." Anonymous blogs, if they are well-written and compiled and cite their sources, are verifiable. Especially if their information has multiple independent attestations.

In this case, the blog I cited explains exactly what happened, and what the participant felt (among others). I am the author of the website in question (note: the website began when I specifically did NOT have an axe to grind with Zionism), and the website qualifies as a primary source. Furthermore, the source website is factually accurate on other posts, and it refelcts commonly-held sentiments that Taglit-birthright organization wishes to ignore.

Participants of even mild intelligence comes to similar conclusions. The blog is a primary source, and it accurately reflects certain criticisms particpants have.

Now, I know this makes it hard for Taglit to advertise its indoctrination methods online, but that's the way things work in a democracy with free speech. When someone disagrees with you based on facts, the criticism sticks.

One last argument, most of the people who look at this article are likely to be prospective participants. If that's the case, why hide the criticism from them? Do you think your indoctrination won't be as effective if they know going in the caveats to the trip? What does Birthright have to hide from a little criticism? --Behemoth101 19:12, 8 December 2006 (UTC)Behemoth101

The criticism section is important for perspective participants as popular source of information. Most people enjoy it, but what is presented as fact is not always true when there is only one side telling the story. The organizers do their best to remain objective, but it's hard to remain unaffected by the environment while under stress.

It's kind of like a state wide timeshare presentation.--Nadyes 11:19, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

Lynn Schusterman

I know Lynn Schusterman and the Schusterman Foundation sponsor many teen/peer Israel trips. Does she sponsor Birthright trips? —Preceding unsigned comment added by PabloSus86 (talk • contribs) 02:51, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

minor formatting problem in funding section

I'm not very experienced in Wikipedia, but it looked like there was a mislabeled tag in the "funding" section that was putting the Adelson donation down in the references. I moved the reference back to the right place and pared it down a bit to make sure it fit the section. Feel free to change as needed, just trying to help. PeteBDawg (talk) 06:01, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

Tourism

I think this article needs more information on the amount of tourism and money Birthright brings to Israel. --Mayak88 (talk) 04:18, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

Israeli Citizenship for Birthright trip participants?

Could anyone educate me as to whether these trip participants receive, or are informed of, the possibility of obtaining an Israeli citizenship in the course of, or arising out of the trips?Critical Chris (talk) 09:46, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

• Not directly, no. -Chabuk ^{[ T • C ]} 17:27, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the prompt answer.Critical Chris (talk) 20:39, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

• • On my birthright trip, there was no talk of Aliya in any official capacity - of course it was a very common discussion informally with peers on the bus and so on. People often say that 1 in 40 (ie 1 per buys) kids who go on birthright move to Israel within 5 years, but I've never seen any reliable stats on this. 67.193.131.167 (talk) 03:42, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

New Criticism Section

I just wanted to clarify that the criticism section is based on verifiable articles in reliable media sources. If you wish to challenge my facts feel free to present other verifiable sources, but do not reduce the encyclopedic tone and weaken the section by inserting weasel words and eliminating relevant quotes. Farbotron (talk) 19:36, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

Just undid some unjustified deletions. My stuff is sourced. If you are going to delete it please explain yourself on the talk page. Farbotron (talk) 05:06, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

Article in the Forward

Birthright Alumni Center Tied to Haredi Outreach Group I'll leave this for someone else... Zero^talk 12:44, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

I'm trying to understand where on WP:TALK it justifies that comment. If you'd like to improve the article, then do so. I AGF U, but this also might be seen as a subtle way to add an external link without the need to justify it on the main page. Given that, if you could summarize the issue, it should go in the Trip Organizers section. Your prerogative I suppose. I think it is ONEEVENT, UNDUE and NN, there are dozens of trip organizers from a entirely different backgrounds. --Shuki (talk) 13:10, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

Suggesting a source that might be useful for an article is obviously supported by WP:TALK. The Forward is a highly respected magazine and the article is clearly related to the topic of this page. However I don't like editing articles on topics I know or care little about so I am leaving it to others to decide if and how to use it. Zero^talk 14:58, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

"Sex and Romance"

I removed the "Sex and Romance" section. Even if it was cited from two different sources, the section is just made up of quotes from blogs or web postings (i.e. not actual news). It doesn't really add anything credible to the page, aside from two quotes about how this theme might happen during the trip. Dustman15 (talk) 23:28, 6 April 2013 (UTC)

User:dustman15 removed this section yesterday only to be reverted immediately by Nbauman with the edit summary Replace "Sex and romance" section. This has been reported by many WP:RS, and we reached consensus about it. WP:PRESERVE. May I ask where that consensus was reached? Debresser (talk) 14:38, 7 April 2013 (UTC)

Misuse of money

I am shocked to read that the article says Germany funds this programme. The money given to the Jewish Claims Conference is solely for holocaust and labour camp survivors and not for subsidizing propaganda visits and political indoctrination. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.77.215.108 (talk) 13:58, 3 November 2012 (UTC)

Says who? Debresser (talk) 16:14, 3 November 2012 (UTC)

"Who says so?" What a question! Just read all the agreements from the early 50s (Luxembourg Agreement) to the last "Goodwill Agreements". All of them are about compensation for injustice, hardship, loss of life, health, etc, of Jewish People during the Nazi reign. The only fact that the German people are not in rage when they read about such a scandalous breech of trust is that they will cynically say that they did not expect anything else. In the 1970s and 1980s the chairman of the Jewish Council in Germany pocketed the interest that had grown on compensation money- at least 8 million mark were not issued to Jewish people entitled to it. The money was never found again. Two years ago the FBI found out that at least 42 million USD had been pocketed by JCC staff themselves. Currently heirs of former Jewish property are taking legal action against the JCC because they act as trustees for that property and will not hand it even in cases when a living heir has been found eventually. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.82.249.88 (talk) 18:16, 5 November 2012 (UTC)

To the best of my understanding, the Jewish Claims Conference also creates funds for furthering general Jewish interests. This in addition to the compensations to people who are direct or indirect victims of Nazi persecution. This program would fall under that category.

In any case, I am not happy with you calling these educational peer trips to Israel "propaganda visits and political indoctrination". Especially since I know that this is not true, and most certainly not one of the goals of these trips. Debresser (talk) 19:42, 5 November 2012 (UTC)

Me again ( sorry for staying ananymous, that is due to my inadequate computer knowledge only): I have in fact emailed to the Ministry of Finance in that matter and at first got a mail back that told me they had had no idea of such a use of the money transferred to the JCC but would check. Some days later a second mail came. This time I was indirectly told to keep my mouth shut. My question had been forwarded to the lawyers of Jewish representatives in Germany in contact and cooperation with the JCC. Fact is that according to the agreements between the German state and the JCC the money is intended as a relief for people who had been in captivity during the years 1933-45, compensation for material losses and cultural purposes. Maybe the German government had in mind something like reviving Jewish life in regions that had been made "judenrein", rebuilding synagogues and the like, as this is what is going on in Germany, but sending fit and healthy young people to Israel to show them the best bits and pieces of that country and its society is sureley not what it had in mind when agreeing to that. Following the homepage of the "Zentralrat der Juden in Deutschland" Taglit is active in Germany, too. The "Sozialwerk", a branch of the "Zentralrat" does the job. It is openly declared that the purpose of Taglit is to prevent assimilation within the German society. Such a policy is totally contradictory to all aims of establishing / reestablishing a florishing Jewish life in Germany as it had been before 1933. It will turn the Jewish community in Germany into an Israeli minority. Germany has - the reasons are obvious- only a small number of Jewish people who are children or grandchildren of those who had lived there before the holocaust. A far greater portion is from Russia and other Eastern European countries and has preferred staying in Germany rather than emigrating to Israel. Where do their children belong? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 178.11.37.42 (talk) 13:19, 10 April 2013 (UTC)

This sounds so incredibly juicy. You must tell us more! This is incredibly enlightening into the nature and underpinnings of such a controversial trip. Charles Xavier 00:12, 11 April 2013 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Yaakov Birthright Franklin (talk • contribs)

I would disagree, and argue that "sending people to visit Israel" fits very well into the description of "strengthening Jewish culture". As to how best support the Jewish community in Germany, I can only guess that I am not the only one who does think that preventing assimilation is a good way of supporting the Jewish community in Germany. Whatever the case, our personal opinions are not important to this article. Debresser (talk) 00:42, 11 April 2013 (UTC)

Yaakov, wouldn't you just like to hear some dirt about this philanthropic program that has given over 300,000 young Americans (and other) the trip of their life? If it is enlightening to anything, it is enlightening the matter of your very non-neutral point of view regarding the subject of this article. Debresser (talk) 00:42, 11 April 2013 (UTC)

You really missed the sarcasm there didn't you Debresser? I'll lay it on thicker next time so you don't continue to slander me since that seems to be your go-to thing when talking to me. Charles Xavier 18:24, 12 April 2013 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Yaakov Birthright Franklin (talk • contribs)

Controversy

I have attempted to include the following as a preface for the criticism section: "There is controversy surrounding the trip's exclusivity, not only because it is limited to Jews, but because of political background checks to ensure that none of the travelers' interests are orthogonal to the purpose of the trip. Further, some have argued that the trip's ideologically biases do not encourage Jews to develop a relationship with Israel on their own but rather to adopt strong nationalism. Furthermore, there is criticism coming from both Jewish and non-Jewish parties because this trip encourages Jewish people who have no relation to Israel to think of it as their birthright while at the same time there exists a significant Palestinian refugee population not able to return to their place of birth."

However, Debresser continues to remove it saying it is vague. Can we please work together to clarify these well-cited issues in a way that is not vague to this user so that we add it to the page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Yaakov Birthright Franklin (talk • contribs) 18:06, 16 March 2013 (UTC)

Independent of the content, the style needs work. "Orthogonal" should be replaced by a clearer term. "Ideologically biases" has an adverb where an adjective belongs. "Nationalism" is inappropriate because these trips are for non-Israelis. (Would "Zionism" be appropriate?) I'm not going to edit the article, but this addition needs copy-editing. --John Nagle (talk) 19:12, 16 March 2013 (UTC)

Nationalism is presumably referring to Jewish nationalism, so it may not be inappropriate in this context. Having said that, the relationship between the content in the sources and the proposed highly summarized content for this article might need to be clearer for a consensus to be found. Sean.hoyland - talk 19:27, 16 March 2013 (UTC)

Copied from talkpage

Can you explain what you mean by "the trip's exclusivity"? Debresser (talk) 18:20, 16 March 2013 (UTC)

The trip is exclusive to Jews which is controversial because of the issues regarding Israel/Palestine and thus calling it a Jew's birthright (even Jews who have no affiliation to the land) to go there is upsetting to many of the indigenous people of the area who were forced to leave. It is also exclusive among Jews because they do background political checks and have been known to exclude Jews who they think have a "political agenda." Thus they are exclusive both for reasons of ethno-religious discrimination and for political affiliation bias.Yaakov Birthright Franklin (talk) 18:29, 16 March 2013 (UTC)

I don't think that is called "exclusivity" in English. Try rephrasing that. By the way, your words "discrimination" and "bias" seem to show that you have some agenda here. If that is so, please spare all of us the trouble, and do not edit that article, since nothing good will come out of it. Debresser (talk) 00:10, 17 March 2013 (UTC)

What do you mean? The trip is exclusive to a very small subset of people. I think if we try to qualify it as ethno-religiously exclusive it would sound worse, and still miss the point, that it is not just exclusive to jews but also to Jews who do not have agenda as based on a political background screening. Like I said on my page, I obviously don't have an agenda. The article came off as advert-like and didn't mention any of the drawbacks to the program and the controversy that is being pinned against in the past couple of years. Yaakov Birthright Franklin (talk) 00:36, 17 March 2013 (UTC)

I still feel the words "controversy surrounding the trip's exclusivity" are vague or even bad English. Since I am not a native English speaker, I kindly request my fellow editors to post here regarding this. Debresser (talk) 01:17, 17 March 2013 (UTC)

Well as a native speaker I can assure you this is not poor English. I have a question, how long must we wait for another person to weigh in on this matter so we can re-add this important content? Yaakov Birthright Franklin (talk) 18:26, 22 March 2013 (UTC)

Feel free to invite any editor you respect to have a look at this issue. In the mean time there were two editors, Nagle and Sean who commented above, and neither were happy with the text you propose to add, for the reasons they mentioned. Debresser (talk) 17:37, 23 March 2013 (UTC)

I'm dubious about using the Harvard Crimson - the author was a sophomore a year ago and we certainly can't use her for something that says 'some' - or in my opinion for anything unless she has an article in The Nation where she is/was an intern. The other two sources would be ok if they were used properly. The third source,[2] doesn't seem to mention Birthright Israel, so we can't use it. I can see using the 2nd source as a source for what Keira Feldman says, but not as a preface. It's moot as I don't think we can use this as it stands, but the first sentence is far too long and convoluted, and 'orthogonal' has good uses but not here, there are clearer ways to say the same thing even though that would take more words. "Ideologically biases" is of course wrong. Dougweller (talk) 18:54, 23 March 2013 (UTC)

Thank you, Dougweller, for replying so quickly. Note: I asked him to give his opinion as an uninvolved editor. Debresser (talk) 23:04, 23 March 2013 (UTC)

I don't understand what her being a junior has to do with this? The trip is aimed at youth these ages, their voices should definitely be heard and probably have more merit than older folk who have never been on the trip. Also I didn't use her one voice to say some, I used hers and Feldmans, that makes "some". Fine we can get rid of the third source, even though it does explain why others find it problematic. So how about the following: "There is controversy surrounding the trip's exclusivity, not only because it is limited to Jews, but because of political background checks to ensure that none of the travelers' interests are antithetical to the purpose of the trip. Further, some have argued that the trip has an ideological bias that do not encourage Jews to develop a relationship with Israel on their own but rather to adopt strong nationalism. Yaakov Birthright Franklin (talk) 18:06, 24 March 2013 (UTC)

The Harvard Crimson is definitely a WP:RS according to WP:SOURCE. It is generally known to be reliable, it goes through a process of fact-checking, and everything else that is needed to meet the requirements of WP:RS, as far as I can tell. --Nbauman (talk) 00:17, 25 March 2013 (UTC)

BTW here's the URL. http://www.thecrimson.com/article/2012/7/6/israel-trip-sylk/ I think it's a well-edited, reliable, personal account and interpretation. Viewpoints like this are required by WP:NPOV. --Nbauman (talk) 00:29, 25 March 2013 (UTC)

Thank you Nbauman for your help-I definitely agree that is important to have it in for the page to be NPOV. What did you think of my new suggested addition to that: "There is controversy surrounding the trip's exclusivity, not only because it is limited to Jews, but because of political background checks to ensure that none of the travelers' interests are antithetical to the purpose of the trip. Further, some have argued that the trip has an ideological bias that do not encourage Jews to develop a relationship with Israel on their own but rather to adopt strong nationalism. " Should I go ahead and add it in? Yaakov Birthright Franklin (talk) 04:15, 25 March 2013 (UTC)

Given the controversy and likelihood that it will be challenged, I think it's important to stick to the wording of WP:RSs. If a WP:RS says that, then you can put it in. If you can't attribute it to a WP:RS, then you can't put it in. According to WP rules, it will be challenged and deleted. If you can defend it under WP:RS (and also WP:VERIFY) you'll be OK. Just remember, we're not writing our own opinions in Wikipedia. We're not even writing the "truth". We're quoting what WP:RSs say. --Nbauman (talk) 05:14, 25 March 2013 (UTC)

Nbauman, I have carefully checked the sources you provided, and removed a lot of statements that I do not see in these sources. At this point I prefer to assume good faith, so let me just remind you that you should be careful not to make statements that are likely to be controversial and then add sources that do not support them. Of course, if you feel I am mistaken, please point me to the precise places in your sources that support the statements I removed, and we'll discuss it. Debresser (talk) 19:28, 26 March 2013 (UTC)

Returning to adding the stuff to the beginning; have we been able to reach any sort of consensus on: "There is controversy surrounding the trip's exclusivity, not only because it is limited to Jews, but because of political background checks to ensure that none of the travelers' interests are antithetical to the purpose of the trip. Further, some have argued that the trip has an ideological bias that do not encourage Jews to develop a relationship with Israel on their own but rather to adopt strong nationalism. "

If you prefer, do we just say: "However the trip is controversial and has received criticism regarding its exclusivity through political background checks and its alleged force-fed nationalism "Yaakov Birthright Franklin (talk) 14:49, 28 March 2013 (UTC)

Could you quote the text in the sources that directly supports your proposed text ? Sean.hoyland - talk 18:24, 28 March 2013 (UTC)

Korn's article states 1) "Birthright advances the political agenda of the Israeli and American right." 2) "We posed for a picture atop an old tank, shouting, “Israeli power!” And meanwhile, throughout the entire tour, we were encouraged to return to Israel, to make aliyah" 3) "Even liberal Zionist Peter Beinart, when he came to speak at Harvard last semester, critiqued Birthright only for failing to expose participants to a Palestinian perspective (it’s true: we didn’t speak to a single non-Jew during a full ten days in the Middle East)." Feldman's article states: 1) " No longer is it simply a project to shore up Jewish identity; Birthright has joined the fight for the political loyalties of young Jews. It invites travelers to “explore Israel without being force-fed ideology,” but you don’t have to be Althusser to know that ideology almost always calls itself nonideological."Yaakov Birthright Franklin (talk) 04:20, 29 March 2013 (UTC)

None of these support directly the text you propose. Please read WP:SYNTH. Debresser (talk) 08:26, 29 March 2013 (UTC)

Actually, Korn's article doesn't say they were force-fed nationalism. The nationalism seemed to be much more subtle than that, which is why it can be effective.

Why not summarize the criticisms in Korn's own words, in her own conclusions, at the end:

But Birthright’s idea of engaging with Israel means supporting an illegal and oppressive military occupation, claiming citizenship to a state that deports African immigrants, glorifying “the Jewish mind,” and decrying all Arabs collectively for their hateful terrorist tactics. Simply introducing a Palestinian voice could not begin to correct for the fact that Birthright is firmly entrenched in right-wing rhetoric, from racism to militarism. If liberal American supporters of Israel truly hope for their children to engage with global Jewish politics in a meaningful way, they should stop sending them on a trip to Israel called “Birthright” and start teaching critical thinking about the role of Jews in promoting justice around the world.

Yaakov Birthright Franklin, can you see anything in that paragraph that you could quote or paraphrase to summarize the critics? I think the central idea is that Birthright supports an illegal and oppressive military occupation. Should we say that? "Some critics oppose Birthright because it supports an illegal and oppressive military occupation."? --Nbauman (talk) 22:07, 29 March 2013 (UTC)

That makes sense to me. I am not sure how quotations work though, is it better to paraphrase and cite Korn on that and then add the bit by Feldman? Yaakov Birthright Franklin (talk) 19:00, 31 March 2013 (UTC)

Not only is that statement contested, it is not in the sources at all. Won't do. Debresser (talk) 19:41, 1 April 2013 (UTC)

Are you joking? Reread the last paragraph of Korn's article. The first sentence: "Birthright’s idea of engaging with Israel means supporting an illegal and oppressive military occupation." Please do not say something is not in the sources when it is (almost verbatim!).Yaakov Birthright Franklin (talk) 22:13, 1 April 2013 (UTC)

I have boldfaced the statement in the source by Korn that I quoted above. Does this resolve your objection? --Nbauman (talk) 00:54, 2 April 2013 (UTC)

Oops, sorry. Do we think a personal account (the article is in first person) is a good source? I think Korn's opinion is just that, a personal opinion, and if brought in this article should be represented as such. Debresser (talk) 08:31, 2 April 2013 (UTC)

Debresser, you are continuing to show bias in wanting to silence this piece. As Nbauman said before, this article is well-edited, reliable, personal account and interpretation. Viewpoints like this are required by WP:NPOV. I agree that we go with what Nbauman wrote before:

But Birthright’s idea of engaging with Israel means supporting an illegal and oppressive military occupation, claiming citizenship to a state that deports African immigrants, glorifying “the Jewish mind,” and decrying all Arabs collectively for their hateful terrorist tactics. Simply introducing a Palestinian voice could not begin to correct for the fact that Birthright is firmly entrenched in right-wing rhetoric, from racism to militarism. If liberal American supporters of Israel truly hope for their children to engage with global Jewish politics in a meaningful way, they should stop sending them on a trip to Israel called “Birthright” and start teaching critical thinking about the role of Jews in promoting justice around the world. Yaakov Birthright Franklin (talk) 20:53, 2 April 2013 (UTC)

Korn's opinion not withstanding, see WP:NOT, specifically WP:NOTFORUM #3 and WP:NOTADVOCATE #2, that this text is not acceptable on Wikipedia. Debresser (talk) 23:24, 2 April 2013 (UTC)

Yaakov, apart from the above rules. There is a reason for these rules. Tell me, in this case, don't you 'smell' an non-neutral text when you read those lines you propose? It stinks to high heavens of personal opinion, to say the least, even in the choice of words and the style. That is one of the reasons such "articles" (I'd call them "texts") are not acceptable per Wikipedia policies and guidelines. Wikipedia is not an editorial. Debresser (talk) 23:28, 2 April 2013 (UTC)

At issue is whether we add the line, "Some critics oppose Birthright because it supports an illegal and oppressive military occupation."

I don't see how this violates WP:NOTFORUM or WP:NOTADVOCATE.

On the contrary, I think it's required under WP:NPOV. There are many critics of Birthright, enough to justify their inclusion under WP:WEIGHT.

WP:NOTADVOCATE says:

Advocacy, propaganda, or recruitment of any kind: commercial, political, religious, national, sports-related, or otherwise. An article can report objectively about such things, as long as an attempt is made to describe the topic from a neutral point of view. [Emphasis added]

We are reporting objectively about one of the many viewpoints we are obliged to include to be WP:NPOV. We have an entire generally favorable article about Birthright. But Birthright is controversial, and many people object for reasons like the one above by Korn. In order for the article as a whole to be WP:NPOV, we have to include the other points of view. --Nbauman (talk) 01:00, 3 April 2013 (UTC)

I have no problem with that. But within the Wikipedia policies and guidelines. They have to be good sources. This is a personal opinion, and worded in a POV manner. It should not be hard to find something written in a secondary source and more neutrally worded, while still bringing across the criticism.

Doing a Google search I found remarkably few such articles. Which in itself already says something. I think two interesting articles to take material from could be this and probably the best this.

See there such sentences as "there have been (more) claims of indoctrination, pre-trip screening and a more overt political tone to some of the activities and discussions", and "some critics of the Birthright program say it glosses over matters such as the Israeli-Palestinian conflict". Now that is a reliable secondary source (a newspaper), and the wording is impeccably neutral. See and learn. Debresser (talk) 10:16, 3 April 2013 (UTC)

Either way a phrase like "an illegal and oppressive military occupation" can't be unattributed and presented using Wikipedia's narrative voice. Sean.hoyland - talk 11:17, 3 April 2013 (UTC)

1. The phrase "an illegal and oppressive military occupation" is attributed and in quotes. It would not be presented in Wikipedia's narrative voice. It would be presented in the voice of the critics, which is what WP:NPOV is supposed to include.

2. "it glosses over matters such as the Israeli-Palestinian conflict" is not the same as "it supports an illegal and oppressive military occupation." You're removing a strong, specific, convincing argument by the critics and replacing it with a weak, vague statement. The Crimson piece is better written, with better arguments. That's what they learn in Harvard.

One of the links you give is a blog, which is not acceptable in Wikipieda (and I couldn't find any criticism). The other is an article in Haaretz based entirely on interviews with defenders of the program, responding to its critics. If you want to use this as a source of arguments in defense of the program, go ahead, but don't use it as a source of criticism of the program, because it's not bona fide criticism and is merely a collection of rebuttals to critics.

One of the central complaints, of the Jewish peace movement and of the Palestinians, is that the Israeli occupation of the west bank is illegal, under the Geneva convention and many other legal determinations. Another complaint is that the occupation is military and oppressive. If you leave out those facts, you're leaving out the central criticism. This section is about criticisms of Birthright. Please don't weaken the arguments of the critics. --Nbauman (talk) 16:44, 3 April 2013 (UTC)

@Nbauman

1. The first source is "The Rebel Yell", a student newspaper. Not a blog.
2. And yes, I propose not to add a strong statement, but a weaker one instead. One that has a secondary source, and is neutrally worded. You seem to think that weaker wording is inferior to stronger one. As a matter of fact, it is good style in any encyclopedia - and part and parcel of Wikipedia policies and guidelines - to use good sources and neutral wording. And for good reason: it is precisely to avoid the addition of such material, which sounds more like a blog or an editorial, and is a personal opinion in any case. Now I seem to get the impression that you share this opinion. Please note that that is not sufficient reason to advocate its inclusion against Wikipedia policies and guidelines. Your relentless efforts in this regard are starting to discredit you.
3. This article, and Wikipedia in general, is not a work of the "Israeli peace movement" (whatever that is) or any Palestinian organization, and we have no obligation to present their point of view in this article about Birthright Israel, until you find a source that shows their point of view regarding Birthright Israel. Their general opinions are not relevant to this article, see WP:SYNTH.
4. The Haaretz article may defend the program. But that is besides the point. It mentions the point of view of critics. And it is a good source, with neutral wording. So it is the best source available, I'd even say the only acceptable source. By the way, I rather liked the replies to the criticism. Debresser (talk) 17:14, 3 April 2013 (UTC)

This is WP:NPOV:

This page in a nutshell: Articles mustn't take sides, but should explain the sides, fairly and without bias. This applies to both what you say and how you say it.

We should explain the sides. One side says that Birthright is supporting an illegal and oppressive military occupation. We should explain that side fairly. If you delete their best, strongest, most convincing argument, that's not fair. --Nbauman (talk) 19:09, 3 April 2013 (UTC)

There is no such side, as far as this article is concerned, because it is only a personal opinion. In addition, since when did that opinion become an "argument"? Nbauman and Yakov, please stand down now. This is getting tiresome. Debresser (talk) 21:11, 3 April 2013 (UTC)

No, this has devolved into you just telling us to stop trying to make the article include things with which you disagree. That's clearly in violation of Wikipedia's rules regarding intimidation. Nbauman and I have worked hard to try to reach some sort of agreement with you, but you continue to dismiss every suggestion; you continue to move the goalpost in order to censor opinions and have outright lied in saying that there is no such side: you yourself were trying to find watered-down articles and even gave a hareetz article defending birthright. If there were no such side, there would be no need for apologists! It's simple as that. Nbauman, I am not sure how to proceed from here. Debresser's agenda is so blatantly patent that I see no reason to have to continue to make concessions and appeasements. We have given articles that provide strong critiques, and I see no reason to continue depriving this article of them. Yaakov Birthright Franklin (talk) 14:26, 4 April 2013 (UTC)

Here is some further stuff to put in the criticism: http://mondoweiss.net/2012/03/a-palestinian-student-asks-can-i-go-on-birthright.html Yaakov Birthright Franklin (talk) 14:57, 4 April 2013 (UTC)

If you want to make an edit which is so blatantly without consensus, and against Wikipedia policies and guidelines, as amply demonstrated above, please go ahead. But be prepared to be sanctioned. Debresser (talk) 17:58, 4 April 2013 (UTC)

But you are so patently wrong. According to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:SOURCE#Reliable_sources this is perfectly acceptable for this article and as Nbauman has said several times it is necessary for NPOV. You literally have no arguments, you are just saying that you don't want it and therefore we don't have consensus. That's not how this works. If you can give a REAL explanation as to why this cannot go into the article, I am adding it! Yaakov Birthright Franklin (talk) 01:48, 5 April 2013 (UTC)

<- How about a break ? This 2009 study and the follow up 2011 study probably merit a mention in the article.[3][4] Also, for the record, this article is probably covered by WP:1RR or at least the material that falls within scope of WP:ARBPIA. Sean.hoyland - talk 18:41, 6 April 2013 (UTC)

A break for what? Not including a paragraph explaining the controversial aspects of the trip? How is that at all NPOV?? This is incredibly wrong! Also, no need for your articles, someone decided to DELETE the entire romance section, for unsound reason. I don't see how this whole consensus thing works? Is the consensus in the way of adding material or deleting material? Who has the burden? Yaakov Birthright Franklin (talk) 00:53, 7 April 2013 (UTC)

Will someone respond? I want to assume good faith, but I believe stalling so that we cannot discuss the matter is how this should work? We should establish a way to include this information as it is necessary to include for NPOV reasons. Yaakov Birthright Franklin (talk) 21:21, 8 April 2013 (UTC)

Take it easy, Yaakov. I can see a few simple reasons why nobody replied yet. 1. This article is frequented by no too many editors. 2. All Wikipedia editors have a life outside Wikipedia, and might not have had time to check this article yet, or to think of a reply, or to write that reply. 3. Perhaps I am not the only one who is getting tired or fruitlessly trying to explain to you that I disagree with you and/or that your point of view is not in accordance with Wikipedia policies and guidelines. 4. Silence is usually an indication of consensus. In this case maybe the consensus is that you have been told enough times that you are wrong, and should be smart enough to understand this. Debresser (talk) 22:57, 8 April 2013 (UTC)

As a more direct reply to your post, I must say that your premises are all wrong. You say "We should establish a way to include this information". It seems to me rather that there is no consensus for inclusion of that material at all. If you pose the wrong questions, don't be surprised when you don't receive answers. Debresser (talk) 22:59, 8 April 2013 (UTC)

1) I am perfectly aware people have lives outside of wikipedia, but you and sean seemed to be pretty active, but then suddenly don't respond to my open question. It seemed bizarre given that you replied to other things. 2) You are saying that you disagree that Korn's criticism should be included at all? If that's the case, then I think we need to ask for outside mediation to decide on that, because I disagree with you there. Yaakov Birthright Franklin (talk) 04:40, 9 April 2013 (UTC)

Let me give you another piece of advice. You are a relatively new editor, you edit only this article, even your username is about Birthright. All these things indicate that you came to this article with an agenda. And it is only natural that problems should arise as soon as your agenda clashes with Wikipedia policies and guidelines, and the ruling consensus and common sense. In order to avoid you becoming a bitter and disillusioned editor on Wikipedia, perhaps you should take a break from this article and go edit other - non-related - articles for a few weeks. In this regard, please read the following Wikipedia essay: Wikipedia:Single-purpose account. Debresser (talk) 06:36, 9 April 2013 (UTC)

Let me tell you something, I am not a new editor, I just never made an account before, but seeing how all the Arab-Israeli related articles are locked, I made one. I do not just edit this article. I do not have a single-purpose account. Birthright is in the name because of work I have done in my past regarding not the birthright trip, but the so-called inherit right to exist of Israel, which many people have attacked, but that's another story. So no, I will not take a break from this article, that doesn't seem to solve anything; I want to talk this through, I do not know why are you so afraid of that (Or perhaps I am). I am not going to become disillusioned nor bitter; I am just going to continue trying to make Wikipedia more NPOV, but you seem to want me to just leave this page so you can have ownership of this article. Now, actually respond to my critiques and concerns please.Yaakov Birthright Franklin (talk) 15:35, 9 April 2013 (UTC)

I would like to believe that all you said here is true. But in view of your unreasonable unwillingness to accept that your proposed edits are not neutral and are not acceptable according to Wikipedia policies and guidelines, and in view of the distinct anti-Birthright program attitude you have shown in your edits and in your most recent post on this talkpage in the section above, I find that very hard. And that is not saying it all.

Your issues have sufficiently been addresses, you just refuse to get the point. I don't own this article, I just don't see why I should let anybody ruin it either. Debresser (talk) 00:52, 11 April 2013 (UTC)

You do own the article, and you continue to abuse me. I am not sure if your English is not sufficient to express what you really mean, or if you are suggesting what you literally wrote, but either way you are wrong. I did not propose a single edit and demand its inclusion, I have proposed an edit, been declined, requested feedback, edited, been declined, requested feedback, edited, been declined, requested feedback, edited, been declined, requested feedback, edited, ....do you get the point yet. And then finally you just say I am insisting on an edit. No no no! I am trying to include the controversy, but you don't want it to be in any form whatsoever! So can we get back to the point and tell me what is wrong with my most recent proposed edit? Charles Xavier 18:27, 12 April 2013 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Yaakov Birthright Franklin (talk • contribs)

What happened to this conversation? Also, why does my edit for including information about RenounceBirthrigh keep getting reverted? Daniel Stavons (talk) 19:14, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

References

Debresser Own?

Can we get some moderator on this article. Looking at this talk page it seems the Debresser controls what is important and what is not. It is pretty clear that when talking about similar trips, the criteria to determine similarity is not name, it should be things like purpose and location. If the section were titled similarly named trips then maybe. Also why is "Know Thy Heritage" now being accused by Debresser as propoganda. Looking at this article history, it seems to me to be monopolized by Debresser and I would like to see some mod sort this out. Daniel Stavons (talk) 14:26, 3 May 2013 (UTC)

Daniel, I understand you are a new editor on Wikipedia. Well, I am not. So maybe I know a few things about how to edit correctly on this encyclopedia which is called Wikipedia. But I have no problem with your suggestion. By the way, we don't have "moderators" on Wikipedia, since Wikipedia is a community project. We do have "admins", who have more technical tools than non-admin editors like we, but any editor, admin or not, can weigh in here, and opinions are all equal. Debresser (talk) 17:28, 4 May 2013 (UTC)

So are you contacting an admin to go over this page? Daniel Stavons (talk) 16:58, 6 May 2013 (UTC)

Please feel free to approach any admin. Debresser (talk) 17:52, 6 May 2013 (UTC)

Know thy Heritage

Explain to me how you read: "The reason for this is that Palestinians with dual citizenship, foreign nationals of Palestinian or other Arab heritage, and sometimes even potential activists who might be affiliated with the Palestinian cause are frequently held for hours and interrogated, in some cases leading to denied entry into Israel, for “security reasons.” as "However these Palestinian visitors, entering through the Jordanian border, face strict interrogation, and are sometimes denied entry into Israel, due to the fact that they are potential Palestinian activists and might pose a security risk to the State of Israel."? You are misunderstanding what the author wrote; it's shameful. He didn't say the people were being denied since they are potential activists...that would be silly. He is saying here is a list of people (palestinians, palestinian descent people, AND activists) and here is what happens to them at the border...they get denied for "security reasons". . Yaakov Birthright Franklin (talk) 07:21, 7 April 2013 (UTC)

"Security risks" is not the same as "security reasons." Yaakov Birthright Franklin and I believe the meaning is significantly different. There is no consensus that the two phrases are interchangeable.

If you want to find another WP:RS that says that the Palestinians are held at the border because they are "security risks," you can add that. But don't distort the words of the WP:RS you are citing.

BTW, it's not a "fact" that they are potential security risks or might pose a security risk to the state of Israel. It's somebody's opinion (and not Wikipedia's opinion, so you can't state it in Wikipedia's voice). --Nbauman (talk) 12:45, 7 April 2013 (UTC)

Nbauman, thank you for fixing the reference.

I have no problem with the text as in your last edit. After all, it is closer to the source. And even though we don't have to always use the precise wording of sources, and we may - and are encouraged in fact - to use our own wording (and preferably the most "encyclopedical" wording possible), in this case, where the issue is showing to be controversial, it is always the best way out to stick close to the source. Debresser (talk) 14:43, 7 April 2013 (UTC)

A couple more sources.

• AFP
• PNN

Sean.hoyland - talk 19:51, 6 May 2013 (UTC)

That first source mentions Birthright. That is good for establishing the connection with this article. Debresser (talk) 20:06, 6 May 2013 (UTC)

On Israeli nationalism and openness

Just in case someone decides to remove this particular edit, which I am not going to dispute if there is no consensus to include, but for the sake of discussion, this was what was reverted by Gilabrand:

A 2013 photography contest sponsored by Taglit-Birthright Israel prohibited any participation by individuals residing in Cuba, Iran, North Korea, the Province of Quebec, Sudan, Syria, and "all other countries subject to sanctions by the United States Department of the Treasury."

I believe this is noteworthy for inclusion, especially considering the fact that Taglit-Birthright prohibits residents of a Canadian province, Quebec, from participation. This is despite the fact that Quebec is not under any US Depart of Treasury sanctions. But it is also noteworthy as it prohibits Jews from countries whose governments are hostile to Zionism from participating, which seems contrary to the purpose of such an organization that promotes greater knowledge of Israel among Jewish youths. It would be helpful to include criticisms of Taglit-Birthright from other Jewish and Israeli NGOs regarding this matter. As it stands, the current article is mostly an advertisement. Laval (talk) 09:54, 8 September 2013 (UTC)

References

Assimilation or Segregation?

This is to discuss the question that has arisen from my section about "Misuse of Money" that I posted some months ago. It was stated that there was a conflict of interests between "Jewish Life" and "Assimilation". I know that Israeli ultras are in a constant fight against assimilation and they even go as far as calling assimilation "Holocaust 2.0". This surely goes hand in hand with the concept of "Aliyah" and Taglit surely is a step into this direction. Sorry that this statement will be a little long, but I am afraid it cannot be made any shorter: Modern German history started in the mid-19th century with the demands for liberty and national unity that ended the period of Habsburg domination and political repression after the Congress of Vienna (1814/15). During the short-lived revolution of 1848/49 the questions were discussed what should be called and made part of a unified German state and what there was to be done about those people who lived in the border regions and who did not have German as their mother tongue (Danish and mostly Polish; the Czechs in Bohemia; the Italians and others under Habsburg rule). Parallel to that "Jews" were a topic on the agenda and from that moment on we had the question whether a "Jew" was or could be "German" or not. It was a simple matter that any demand for political liberty and equality would be harmed by making such a difference and consequently the ideas of liberty, justice and democracy would not allow such a segration. Unity finally came in 1871 under Prussian dominance and the German constitution did not make any difference between anybody living in Germany. That did not stop antisemitism as it did not stop hatred against the Polish and Danish minorities who had been engulfed into that state as they had lived in parts of Prussia and all of Prussia was now part of Germany. The greatest majority of Jewish people though did not want the status of an oppressed national minority, they wanted to be regarded as Germans as anybody else. And that had nothing to do with their religion which they practised freely. During the "Weimar Republic" from 1919 to 1933 Jewish life in Germany came under threat by growing antisemitism. The political agenda of the Nazi party stated that "citizenship demanded German blood" and hence "no Jew can be German" and we all know what happened once Hitler rose to power. After 1945 the circle of history seemed to have come back to the mid-19th century. Re-establishing a democratic state in Germany therefore was contradictory to excluding the remaining Jewish people in Germany and those who had come back from exile. And it is representatives of Jews in Germany who are very bitter and enraged when anybody calls them something like an "Israeli minority" whose loyalty is more to Israel than Germany. Please consider how much "Taglit" will be supported by anybody who would like to see "them go" before you utter nonsense such as "assimilation" and "Jewish life" do not mix. (E.C.) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.246.168.28 (talk) 07:02, 12 December 2013 (UTC)

Jerusalem, Israel

User:Cliftonian changed "Jerusalem, Israel" to "Jerusalem" with the edit summary "Jerusalem is not recognised as in Israel". Apart from the fact that that statement is POV in itself, on Wikipedia we should use Wikipedia policies and guidelines. User:Sean.hoyland pointed me on my talkpage to Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/Jerusalem, for which I thank him, and here is the ensuing discussion from my talkpage:

It says in that Rfc that there "There was no consensus for any phrasing of Jerusalem’s location in either Israel or Palestine." It does not say what to do instead. Also notice that the Rfc was about the Jerusalem article only, and is binding for 3 years only. A simple search of Wikipedia teaches that there are 438 instances of Jerusalem, Palestine on Wikipedia and 9,268 of Jerusalem, Israel. That in itself already makes a point in favor of "Jerusalem, Israel", but in any case shows that both alternatives are considered completely acceptable on Wikipedia. Also compare the Google search results, which are comparable: 331,000 to 5,950,000. So what should be done? The answer is simple : don't change anything without consensus. Since the article originally said "Jerusalem, Israel", there is no consensus for changing that. The conclusion is that your edit, as well as the edit of Cliftonian, changed a consensus version without showing consensus to do so, and should be reverted. If you want to insist on 1RR, I am willing to revert, but my argument is solid, and there is no reason to insist on formalities since it is clear the consensus version should and will be restored in the end.

I will also post on the talkpage, and propose to post here if you want me to revert the 1RR violation, but keep the substantial discussion on the talkpage. Debresser (talk) 08:05, 19 May 2016 (UTC)

I understand. My only concern is with constructions like Jerusalem, Israel or Jerusalem, Palestine because they are unambiguous NPOV violations. I think it's better to simply say Jerusalem and leave it at that. I'm going to be away in a forest for while so I'll leave it with you to consider and pick it up again next week. Sean.hoyland - talk 08:14, 19 May 2016 (UTC)

I understand your point. On the other hand, we have hundreds and thousands of them on Wikipedia, and nobody is proposing to change all of them. Especially since both Jerusalem, Israel and Jerusalem, Palestine redirect to the same Jerusalem article.

We could open an Rfc and create a WP:JERUSALEM page, analogous to WP:WESTBANK. There are basically 3 options: 1. change all instances and remove both "Israel" and "Palestine", 2. keep all articles as they are, 3. decide that the rule is that there is no rule and local consensus will decide in all cases, which means keeping the present anarchy. IMHO the first alternative has no viable chance of being accepted` the third alternative is a non-solution, and is therefore not likely to be accepted, in addition to the fact that practically it will mostly come down to the same conclusion as the second, just after a lot of edit wars and discussions; the question therefore is if we want to make the second alternative, which is identical to what I argued above regarding the Birthright Israel article, into an official Wikipedia guideline? Debresser (talk) 08:29, 19 May 2016 (UTC)

Ah, perhaps you meant that "[[Jerusalem]], [[Israel]]" and [[Jerusalem]], [[Palestine]]" is worse than "[[Jerusalem, Israel]]" and "[[Jerusalem, Palestine]]". I agree with you. That opens a fourth alternative, change only "[[Jerusalem]], [[Israel]]" or [[Jerusalem]], [[Palestine]]" to "[[Jerusalem, Israel]]" and "[[Jerusalem, Palestine]]", and keeping all other cases as is. I would be fine with that proposal as well. Debresser (talk) 08:33, 19 May 2016 (UTC)

Please feel free to comment. Debresser (talk) 08:08, 19 May 2016 (UTC)

Edits regarding the location of Jerusalem would come under the remit of WP:ARBPIA, so best to stick within the 1RR rule.     ←   ZScarpia   17:23, 20 May 2016 (UTC)

I have made a comment quite a while ago on the Jerusalem page and one solution is to only use Jerusalem, but when an entry is for a part of Jerusalem that is pre-1967 Israel, then we can use Jerusalem, Israel (in two wikilinks) for ID purposes, Wiki is not determining final status, but a neighborhood that is clearly part of Israel and will be part of Israel should be labeled as such. I think this discussion should be continued at the Jerusalem talk page for more audience participation. Sir Joseph ^(talk) 14:16, 19 May 2016 (UTC)

The international viewpoint on the matter of Jerusalem's relationship to Israel hasn't changed since 1948. Today however, the ongoing idea is that the status of Jerusalem is something that needs to be resolved between Palestine and Israel before third-parties will change their viewpoint on the matter. To write Jerusalem, Israel is to push an idea that has been actively rejected even recently as seen in the US court case in regards to placing Jerusalem, Israel on a passport. Sepsis II (talk) 15:26, 20 May 2016 (UTC)

The most neutral approach, in my opionion, would be to list Jerusalem without associating it with any state (which happens to be the approach that the US and UK take in the passports of any of its citizens who were born in the city). Although up to 1967 West and East Jerusalem were not regarded internationally as being occupied by, respectively, Israel and Jordan, neither were the two parts of the city regarded as sovereign parts of those countries either, the proper status of the city within specified boundaries being viewed then as now as a corpus separatum. (ec) Although personally I wouldn't think it worthwhile getting into a dispute over the neutrality of associating West Jerusalem and Israel in an info box, I would think any editor advocating doing that who elsewhere objected to similarly associating East Jerusalem and Palestine a point of view pusher.     ←   ZScarpia   16:24, 20 May 2016 (UTC)

The passport case has nothing to do with it. It was a jurisdiction question on which department is in charge of passports and diplomacy. For the record, the US has the Jerusalem Law. Sir Joseph ^(talk) 16:27, 20 May 2016 (UTC)

You mean the Jerusalem Embassy Act: "Since passage, the law has never been implemented, because of opposition from Presidents Clinton, Bush, and Obama, who view it as a Congressional infringement on the executive branch's constitutional authority over foreign policy; they have consistently claimed the presidential waiver on national security interests."     ←   ZScarpia   16:40, 20 May 2016 (UTC)

That's the waiver of the embassy, but the other parts of the law remain law. As for labeling on Wikipedia, we're not the UN or the courts, we just label cities. I think my idea, especially for those neighborhoods clearly in Israel proper, should be Jerusalem, Israel in two Wikilinks, so we're not declaring Jerusalem to be part of Israel. Jerusalem, Israel shows that it is in Jerusalem without labeling Jerusalem as part of Israel. Sir Joseph ^(talk) 16:42, 20 May 2016 (UTC)

"As for labeling on Wikipedia, we're not the UN or the courts, we just label cities." Actually, this being Wikipedia, we only state things as facts if reliable sources agree on them. As far as sovereignty over parts of Jerusalem go (or at least those parts considered to be within the boundaries of the corpus separatum by the international community), reliable soures are not going to agree, so information regarding that can only be presented in the form of points of view. Which parts of Jerusalem do you regard as being in "Israel proper"? Are they west of the Green Line and outside the corpus separatum boundardies?     ←   ZScarpia   16:56, 20 May 2016 (UTC)

Anything that Israel held prior to 1967, and also will undoubtedly be part of Israel in any future plan. So parts of western Jerusalem which the PA never held, Jordan never held and is west of the Green Line and will be part of Israel when all is said and done. Sir Joseph ^(talk) 17:39, 20 May 2016 (UTC)

Nothing in 1967 occurred that affected the status of western Jerusalem in the eyes of the world. It was 1948 when Israel took control of western Jerusalem, and nobody at that time or any time since, has recognized as being in Israeli territory. We can't use a crystal ball to predict the outcome of negations which may take many more decades and we can't write Jerusalem, Israel based on Israel's sole support for that idea, we can't ignore 99% of the world just because they don't accept Israel's viewpoint. Sepsis II (talk) 19:16, 20 May 2016 (UTC)

Except that in any future settlement, we do know with 99% certainty that western Jerusalem will be part of Israel proper. Israel took control of Western Jerusalem same as the Palestinians took control of Eastern Jerusalem, or should I say Jordan. Israel has sovereignty over the western half and nobody claims that the western half will be part of the Palestinian state. Or are you suggesting that not only is pre-1967 lines not part of Israel but Israel should not exist at all? We're not a crystal ball but sometimes BLUE and IAR should come into play. Western Jerusalem is Israel and will remain Israel so it should not be a problem to label it as such. Sir Joseph ^(talk) 19:28, 20 May 2016 (UTC)

I'm sure some people in Israel do have the opinions you express, but we do not write articles based on opinions like "Western Jerusalem is Israel". Please try to keep your writings civil and stick to facts and not attacking other editors. Sepsis II (talk) 21:19, 20 May 2016 (UTC)

None of your arguments are based in policy, therefore they're completely irrelevant. Find a different venue if you want to soapbox your own opinions or push them as fact. And you might like to note that Israeli, Palestinian or Jordanian control of Jerusalem aren't or weren't the only options.     ←   ZScarpia   22:58, 20 May 2016 (UTC)

Notification: I opened an Rfc on this subject at Talk:Jerusalem#Is_Jerusalem_in_Israel_or_Palestine. Debresser (talk) 10:30, 24 May 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Birthright Israel. 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/20070928055115/http://cmjs.org/files/BRI%20REPORT2web.pdf to http://cmjs.org/files/BRI%20REPORT2web.pdf
• Added {{dead link}} tag to http://www.presentensemagazine.org/mag/?page_id=319
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110311132636/http://www.brandeis.edu:80/cmjs/researchareas/taglit-birthright.html to http://www.brandeis.edu/cmjs/researchareas/taglit-birthright.html

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) 05:25, 3 November 2016 (UTC)

Birthright Israel or birthright israel

I notice that there are both versions of the name. The logo shows that the title is in lowercase. Could someone confirm that and make the necessary changes? Thanks. Gadig 21:32, June 19, 2006 (UTC)

Our legal name is in lowercase letters, "birthright israel" and more fully, we also use our Hebrew name, "Taglit-birthright israel" — Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.105.21.60 (talk) 09:47, January 2, 2007 (UTC)

Regarding the capitalization. Just Google it and you'll see that everybody uses the capitalized version, including the Birthright Israel website itself. Debresser (talk) 08:50, 21 April 2017 (UTC)

Regarding the additional word "Taglit". It seems that most sources in English leave out that part, which per WP:COMMONNAME means we don't use it on Wikipeida. If you want to contest that fact, please feel free to do some research and make a rename proposal here in a separate section, using the process at WP:RM#CM, since this would be a contested move. Debresser (talk) 08:54, 21 April 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Birthright Israel. 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/20150403043459/http://www.birthrightisrael.com/Pages/Default.aspx to http://www.birthrightisrael.com/Pages/Default.aspx
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.brandeis.edu/cmjs/researchareas/taglit-birthright.html

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

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) 20:04, 19 May 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Birthright Israel. 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/20080501132738/http://www.columbia.edu/cu/current/articles/spring2008a/hey-big-jewish.html to http://www.columbia.edu/cu/current/articles/spring2008a/hey-big-jewish.html

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

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) 00:38, 21 July 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Birthright Israel. 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/20101217022621/http://www.birthrightisrael.com/site/DocServer/safetyandsecurityupdate.pdf?docID=121 to http://www.birthrightisrael.com/site/DocServer/safetyandsecurityupdate.pdf?docID=121

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

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) 14:31, 26 December 2017 (UTC)

Funding Questions

"The program also receives funding from the German government, through the Conference on Jewish Material Claims Against Germany.[7]"

1) How much German money, expressed in Euros, is used to fund this organization? Not as a percentage of Birthright Israel's budget, but expressed as a figure of what the Germans are paying?

2) Due to the high incidence of abuse, financial malfeasance, etc... when looking at non-profit corporations, it is standard practice to express any non-profit's income in terms of "Administrative Costs" vs. money that is actually used to fulfill their mission, so that the interested reader can then assess the non-profit's "legitimacy". How much of Birthright Israel's income is spent on Administrative costs. Also questions like "Who is the Chief Administrator?" (or whatever the correct title is) and "How much money does this person get paid each year?", with other facts such as who their Board of Directors, and how much money do they all make, both individually, and collectively, and what percentage of the total budget does this compensation represent?

Other non-profits list this type of information, and I am surprised that none of it is listed here. Also, I assume "non-profits" are registered with one, or possibly more governments, as a requisite for not having the income taxed by those governments, and Birthright Israel has an international mission, so I'm curious about how the finances are handled from an "international" perspective. Are they registered in multiple countries? If so, which ones? How is this non-profit's income broken down on a country-by-country basis? Which country contributes the most? Does Birthright Israel have separate Boards of Directors for each individual country? Are they all paid to operate within their home country? Is the Administrative Cost of operating each country's non-profit similar to all the others, or are some Administrators making disproportionately more income, in comparison to the others. Given that it seems the organization's mission is "international", is there some connection to the UN? Have their been any financial scandals in this organization's history? Etc... Non-profits are notorious for financial mismanagement, and the fact that there is no mention of this kind of thing in the article makes me suspicious. 2605:6000:6947:AB00:D16B:F4F4:1B1C:309E (talk) 19:12, 22 July 2018 (UTC)

This is all off-topic. You seem to forget that this is Wikipedia, not the IRS. Debresser (talk) 20:18, 22 July 2018 (UTC)

Scare quotes in source

When a source puts "security reasons" in quotes it is their way of indicating that they are reporting the official reason without necessarily agreeing with it. Repeating it here with the scare quotes removed is a simple case of source misrepresentation. Zero^talk 00:36, 5 October 2018 (UTC)

And since when exactly has there being a single reliable source for something been a reason to remove it? There is literally no reading of WP:UNDUE that justifies that. nableezy - 17:05, 5 October 2018 (UTC)

When you have a single, weak, source making a connection with a question mark (and various qualifications in their body) - and there are hardly any sources on this single bus trip - and this in an article with copious coverage - it is clearly UNDUE as well as rather dubious to claim they are similar. There are also PROMO concerns in placing this non notable single bus tour on a high traffic page.Icewhiz (talk) 17:13, 5 October 2018 (UTC)

How is the Daily Beast a weak source? Your PROMO concerns are laughable, we arent advertising or placing a press release on the page. The reliable source in question very specifically links the two. Ill take this to NPOV/N though and we can see how the wider community feels about this rather blatant distortion of our policies. nableezy - 18:06, 5 October 2018 (UTC)

Actually, that isnt even necessary as there are a number of other sources discussing this program within the context of a comparison to Birthright Israel. Eg this book published by Routeledge. Think that is a weak source too? Even talks about the same issue with getting in through TLV, hell it even includes the quotes around "security reasons". So, with this additional source, what exactly would the objection be? nableezy - 18:08, 5 October 2018 (UTC)

That is a brief summary of The Daily Beast article, which they reference. Rehash of the same 2013 coverage. The organization itself has gone no where - 9 years on, they have 270 alumni - or 30 per year - 1 bus per tear. And very little coverage.Icewhiz (talk) 18:20, 5 October 2018 (UTC)

So what? This is a solid RS, correct? It referencing the Daily Beast would demonstrate that the Daily Beast article is not in fact a "weak source", as you falsely claim above. The material is reliably sourced and directly related to the topic. Would you care to explain what in UNDUE or any other policy justifies its removal? nableezy - 18:23, 5 October 2018 (UTC)

The scant coverage is on KTH, not birthright. The connection to birthright is questionable per the scant sourcing. Coverage of KTH at large is negligible to almost non-existent - while birthright is widely covered. Clearly UNDUE. Beyond that we have strong WP:PROMO concerns - Wikipedia is not an advertising platform for insignificant tours.Icewhiz (talk) 18:43, 5 October 2018 (UTC)

Ok, Im taking this to NPOV/N. nableezy - 20:21, 5 October 2018 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view/Noticeboard#UNDUE_objection_at_Birthright_Israel Debresser (talk) 16:32, 6 October 2018 (UTC)

Whether it's a summary of the Daily Beast article or not seems irrelevant for WP:DUE issues, doesn't it? What matters is that it's being covered by a second reliable source, which increases the weight appropriate to it. Even objections to the Daily Beast as a source are answered by that sort of usage (because when a secondary source covers something in that manner, they are lending their weight, reliability, and fact-checking to whatever the first source said.) --Aquillion (talk) 21:34, 5 October 2018 (UTC)

Jewish Voice for Peace

Shrike, the ONUS rule does not say that you can delete anything you don't like from articles. Here, here and here are examples of mainstream media that consider it notable. Therefore, it is notable. Zero^talk 11:55, 3 October 2018 (UTC)

The walkouts were also covered very widely by mainstream media and therefore satisfy WEIGHT easily. Zero^talk 12:20, 3 October 2018 (UTC)

A comparison of the huge criticism section at Jewish Voice for Peace with the near non-existence of criticism here shows very clearly what counts as neutrality around here. Zero^talk 12:11, 3 October 2018 (UTC)

JVP is an organisation on (or beyond) the far-left edge of the American Jewish community,[5] or a "controversial pro-Palestinian advocacy group".[6] The widespread criticism of JVP is covered by mainstream media. Not every JVP stmt is DUE - those with RS coverage might be due - but they should be sourced to a RS with balance according to that present in the sources. I am not opposed to returning the content, sourced to Haaretz, and with the description, per the cited source, that JVP is a "controversial pro-Palestinian advocacy group". Icewhiz (talk) 12:28, 3 October 2018 (UTC)

If the walkouts are reported by WP:RS that you don't need the JVP source. --Shrike (talk) 13:20, 3 October 2018 (UTC)

Since the argued reason for removal was UNDUE and the need for a third party source, I will restore the material with those sources. As far as including "controversial pro-Palestinian group", unless you would like to include a disclaimer every time say the JCPA or hell Karsh is sourced that is a non-starter. nableezy - 16:08, 4 October 2018 (UTC)

@Nableezy: There is no consensus for this. The source explicitly describe the group as pro-Palestinian and controversial or maybe you like to remove all the labels in the Wikipedia like "pro-Israeli,right-wing and etc"? --10:47, 6 October 2018 (UTC)

I will add that without the qualification pro-Palestinian, use of the organization's name - "Jewish Voice for Peace" is misleading to the casual reader who may not be aware of the nature of this Palestinian advocacy group.Icewhiz (talk) 18:30, 6 October 2018 (UTC)

Yes, it does, and that is appropriate for the article on JVP. However we dont use value labels every time somebody is mentioned. My position is not such labels cannot be used on Wikipedia, they should be, attributed to who uses them, in the article on that organization or person. But when just saying XYZ says that, a wikilink to XYZ is the most neutral way of presenting the material. Calling JVP "controversial", even with a source, violates NPOV. Having a section in the article on JVP say who considers them controversial and why is how that information should be presented. If you see me write "the controversial pro-Israel historian Efraim Karsh said" if a single source says that about his comments then you have a point about me "removing all the labels in Wikipedia". nableezy - 18:46, 7 October 2018 (UTC)

Saying JVP is pro-Palestinian is rather straightforward and something that not even JVP would contest.Icewhiz (talk) 18:54, 7 October 2018 (UTC)

In view of the argument explained by Icewhiz, nl. the name being misleading, the qualifier "pro-Palestinian" is necessary in this article. The qualifier "controversial" should be avoided, IMHO, unless it were defining and sourced, like at Elazar Shach, but not here. Debresser (talk) 17:42, 8 October 2018 (UTC)

• "The pro-Palestinian Jewish Voice for Peace..." sounds like a pejorative in the context of the article. For example, there are no corresponding "pro-Israel" or "pro-Jewish" descriptors in the article. K.e.coffman (talk) 20:38, 13 October 2018 (UTC)

I don't think "pro-Palestinian" sounds as a pejorative. If it does, then that in itself is interesting. In any case, as argued above, the qualification is needed to avoid confusion, in view of the name of the organization sounding pro-Israeli. Debresser (talk) 18:55, 14 October 2018 (UTC)

The lead of the article does not describe the org as "pro-Palestinian". In this page, it comes across a pejorative. How about: "Jewish Voice for Peace, an organisation that advocates for Palestinian self-determination..." or something similar? --K.e.coffman (talk) 21:50, 14 October 2018 (UTC)

I see what you mean. Sure, good idea. Debresser (talk) 05:40, 15 October 2018 (UTC)

I don't agree (pro-Palestinian is shorter and more accurate (supported by the citation, as well as JVP advocating for a bit more than just self-determination), I fail to see how this is pejorative, and the proposed text is somewhat peacocky) - however as any qualifier clarifying their pro-Palestinian stance is due to avoid misleading our readers - I won't contest the particular language. Icewhiz (talk) 06:05, 15 October 2018 (UTC)

"Pro-Palestinian" is a correct statement designed to sound pejorative. Compare to "anti-occupation" which would be more precise and more relevant. Zero^talk 08:36, 15 October 2018 (UTC)

That what the source use and we should stick to it.Per WP:DUE and WP:RS --Shrike (talk) 14:55, 15 October 2018 (UTC)

Further Reading

First timer learning to edit Wikipedia. There are sources that should be considered and added.LB wonder (talk) 00:27, 25 October 2018 (UTC)

birthright and more

here in spain we also are jews and we have birthright with a slight difference.. we promote aliya and birthright as a first step. we promote tsahal BEFORE harvard university or before med school. We paint an image of jewish life not as law school or israel. its not if i serve in tsahal ill lose 3 years.. We teach that its the norm to serve tsahal then live in israel or ok to return to spain and go to college. a jew here who finishes the university in madrid murcia or barcelona at 22 is probably going to tsahal after college.in the usa its more like doing the israeli military interferes with law med school so it becomes one or the other. american jews have to teach their kids that its tsahal either after high school or after college.in fact harvard has an excellent reception for our kids who serve in tsahal. its like adding points to your SAT MCAT.birthright should not seen as a cultural connection but as a step to aliya..theres more antisemitism in spain than in the usa but the usa is pretty close. jews live in ghettos and dare not go to brooksville florida or verano wisconsin.anti semitism is a personal thing in the usa while in europe its a political govt thing.so lets make birthright a step towards aliya and tsahal.say it right on the package.. dont be afraid it might be scary and repel some. serving in tsahal should be the worlds only certificate to say one is a jew.not a rabbi not ones parents.a new definition of jew and birthright is the first step. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.32.210.226 (talk) 17:59, 10 December 2019 (UTC)

Black and White in the source: Sharon Darack, Birthright Israel, Orthodox Union/OU

I was surprised at the first revert, but I'm really amazed at the second.

From the article:

Overcoming Addiction THE COURAGE TO SUCCEED Jewish Action speaks with Sharon Darack, North American director of the OU’s Israel Free Spirit: Birthright Israel, for which she oversees trips to Israel for thousands of Jewish college kids and young professionals annually. In 2018, Israel Free Spirit arranged sixty-four trips to Israel, including a trip for young people in recovery from addiction.

participated in the OU’s Birthright Israel trips for ...

(The Birthright Israel article's #Trip Organizers begins:

Trips are organized by different organizations

... and that's where I added what was reverted.

More from the article:

SD: I knew about Birthright, so I approached the OU and asked if the organization would run a trip for young Jewish addicts in recovery. The OU was the only Birthright trip operator that understood the benefit of offering such a trip

The article says that the OU is a trip operator.

The first revert's summary says

Article is about something else entirely.

??? The Word search count for "Birthright" is 28 hits. ENTIRELY? Pi314m (talk) 03:19, 27 January 2020 (UTC)

What you are trying to source is the statement "Trips are organized by different organizations". That is not a statement that is supported by this article. And yes, since that article is about overcoming addiction, that would qualify as being an article about something else entirely. Debresser (talk) 20:01, 27 January 2020 (UTC)

Aha... but since the sentence that includes the phrase "participants who identify with a particular stream of Judaism" has a self-sourced citation (birthrightisrael.com), would you see the OU citation as possibly a strengthening? Pi314m (talk) 00:11, 28 January 2020 (UTC)

IfNotNow

This contribution of mine was removed: "During the summer of 2018, members of IfNotNow, a youth movement seeking to end American Jewish support of the Israeli occupation, organized a series of "highly publicized walkouts on Birthright tours to protest what they described as the very one-sided approach of the program to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict." By the following winter, Birthright contractors reported that Birthright participation has dropped up to fifty percent."

IfNotNow has launched a campaign against Birthright that received international media attention (NBC, LA Times, Ha'aretz, The Intercept, The Independent, The Times of Israel to name just a few sources), and has had a major historical impact on Birthright ("Birthright has experienced drops in numbers before ... But it seems a downturn of this magnitude, unrelated to the security situation, is unprecedented."). Please don't delete. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mrmalabi (talk • contribs) 20:32, 11 December 2018 (UTC) Mrmalabi (talk) 20:36, 11 December 2018 (UTC)

The connection to the drop is SYNTH - and the source advances other reasons - e.g. holiday timing vs. the academic year. We already cover walkout demos in the previous paragraph - no need for separate IfNotNow and JVP paragraphs when this is the same activity.Icewhiz (talk) 21:06, 11 December 2018 (UTC)

No, walkouts are not mentioned in the article. Also, you haven't responded to historical point, i.e. INN campaign leading to unprecedented drop in BR participation.Mrmalabi (talk) 21:21, 11 December 2018 (UTC)

There are two separate groups organizing walk outs, why wouldnt one of them be covered? nableezy - 21:18, 11 December 2018 (UTC)

This is not an article on those groups. Covering walkout demos is NOTNEWSy to begin with, and in this case - JVP and INN are intermeshed.[7] Might make sense to add an "and INN" to the previous paragraph.Icewhiz (talk) 21:27, 11 December 2018 (UTC)

Yeah, its an article on what those groups protest. Whats the sourcing for JVP and IfNotNow being "intermeshed"? nableezy - 22:01, 11 December 2018 (UTC)

"NOTNEWS"? Tell that to all of the news outlets I cited and many others, including NYMag. You just said it was already covered, but it's not, so it should be added. Also, INN and JVP are not intermeshed, they have specific tactical and strategic differences. Overlap in membership, as shown in the one subjective example you cite, does not make them the same organization. That said, option of editing walkout info into previous paragraph sounds valid to me. You still haven't responded to news of the dramatic drop in Birthright participation.Mrmalabi (talk) 01:35, 12 December 2018 (UTC)

"Following a series of highly publicized walkouts on Taglit-Birthright trips this summer, the organization has revised the contract participants on its 10-day, free tours of Israel are required to sign." [8] It was already quite clear that Icewhiz's attempt to censor mention of the walkouts had no policy basis. Here is a reliable source that not only verifies that the events were significant but proves Birthright itself considers them significant. Zero^talk 22:06, 20 December 2018 (UTC)

To be precise - Birthright - "When asked if the new clause in the contract was prompted by the walkouts this past summer, a spokeswoman for Birthright refused to comment" - so no - it is not certain Birthright considers this significant.Icewhiz (talk) 06:57, 21 December 2018 (UTC)

It's not WP:SYNTH; the source on the drop-off unambiguously mentions it in a context that implies a connection: Last summer, left-wing activists organized several highly publicized walkouts on Birthright tours to protest what they described as the very one-sided approach of the program to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. I would perhaps also mention the petition from The petition was organized by J Street U, the campus affiliate of the pro-Israel, anti-occupation advocacy group. Hillel, the largest Jewish student organization in the world, is a major recruiter for Birthright if we don't already, and would be cautious to avoid explicitly stating a causal link, but the source does connect them by bringing them up in that context, so it's reasonable for us to do so too. It might be more valuable for us to paraphrase the source more directly and have a sentence about Trip providers have also speculated that the downturn could reflect the well-documented fact that young American Jews are growing increasingly disengaged from Israel, and have less and less interest in visiting the country – even when the trips are free, which would warrant briefly mentioning of the issues above and the downturn in a context that makes it clear that the connection is that they're part of the same topic with regards to views of Birthright Israel (and Israel more generally) among the younger generation of American Jews, rather than necessarily implying a causal link. Also, we could probably find additional sources discussing that shift in more depth. (I would like to take apart the Criticism section in general and integrate it to the article - criticism sections are usually a bad way of organizing things per WP:CSECTION. A section on views about Birthright Israel, rather than just for criticism, seems appropriate and could discuss things like the above and existing reactions, generational shifts in views, and the drop-off in more neutral terms.) --Aquillion (talk) 02:41, 21 December 2018 (UTC)

They are also enumerating a number of other possible reasons, such as: "Birthright acknowledged that its numbers were down this season and blamed the decline on the fact that the first registration days for the winter season coincided with the Jewish High Holy Days." and "One explanation was that because eligibility requirements have been loosened in recent years, young Jews feel less of a sense of urgency nowadays to register for the program. In the past, the program was open only to participants aged 18 to 26. In a bid to expand the applicant pool, Birthright announced a few years ago that anyone up to the age of 32 would be eligible.". Icewhiz (talk) 06:57, 21 December 2018 (UTC)

Now that Icewhiz was indefinitely blocked for sabotaging numerous articles (including this one), could this paragraph be reinserted? "During the summer of 2018, members of IfNotNow, a youth movement seeking to end American Jewish support of the Israeli occupation, organized a series of "highly publicized walkouts on Birthright tours to protest what they described as the very one-sided approach of the program to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict." By the following winter, Birthright contractors reported that Birthright participation has dropped up to fifty percent."Mrmalabi (talk) 06:48, 14 June 2020 (UTC)

It should never have been removed. Searching for more recent reports would be good but not essential. Zero^talk 08:20, 14 June 2020 (UTC)

I agree at least a little bit with Icewhiz who said that this was a violation of WP:NOTNEWS. In addition, the second sentence as it is written is no more than insinuation, or what we call here original research, and as such is unacceptable. Debresser (talk) 23:54, 14 June 2020 (UTC)

The sentences should cover more than these incidents. For example, this, this and plenty of other sources show that the argument between IfNotNow and Birthright is a continuing fact. Zero^talk 01:35, 15 June 2020 (UTC)

Would you like to make a suggestion here? Debresser (talk) 10:19, 15 June 2020 (UTC)

References

New Logo

File:Taglit 2020.png

please Add Maxix (talk) 10:16, 21 August 2020 (UTC)

Maxix, not done. The image was copied from the website, and not released into the public domain. Sir Joseph ^(talk) 14:10, 21 August 2020 (UTC)

"to israel"

It is a NPOV violation to describe trips to sites in East Jerusalem, including the Western Wall, as being "to Israel". That clarification is necessary. nableezy - 21:41, 14 January 2021 (UTC)

RS says Birthright is for trips to Israel. I'm sure I don't need to remind you that Wikipedia reports on what RS says. Sir Joseph ^(talk) 22:10, 14 January 2021 (UTC)

Sir Joseph, Birthright Israel say on their webpage that they visit Old Jerusalem and Golan Heights: [9] --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 06:04, 15 January 2021 (UTC)

Um, we have a NPOV policy. You dont get to ignore that when it suits you. nableezy - 01:24, 15 January 2021 (UTC)

Not only that, the word "Israel" is clear enough. The fact that the trips also includes some sites that are not considered Israel by some, obviously not the organizers of the Birthright trips, is simply wp:undue in the context of those sentences. Debresser (talk) 23:30, 14 January 2021 (UTC)

Debresser, you are right that the organizers of Birthright trips do see occupied areas as being part of Israel. But Wikipedia should present things from a neutral point of view. Not from the point of view of one side. This is supposed to be an encyclopedia, not an official Birthright Israel advertisement. --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 06:08, 15 January 2021 (UTC)

East Jerusalem is not in Israel. You may not violate NPOV in this way. I'm tagging the lead and the section. nableezy - 01:10, 15 January 2021 (UTC)

As far as sources calling the fact that Birthright includes sites in East Jerusalem out, here ya go:

• ToI: Groups will also visit the City of David, a Jewish archaeological site and community in a Palestinian neighborhood in East Jerusalem, over Israel’s pre-1967 border. Palestinians condemn the site’s presence as an illegal settlement.

nableezy - 01:23, 15 January 2021 (UTC)

It is copiously clear from the context of this article and those paragraphs themselves, that "Israel" here is including the Golan Heights and the Old City of Jerusalem and the Western Wall. These articles are all linked in the article, and their respective status is discussed at the link targets. Nobody is hiding anything. In the context of this article, "Israel" is the natural and simplest designator of all those places. Anything else would be a WP:UNDUE violation and would unnecessarily and detrimentally politicize this article. Debresser (talk) 11:53, 15 January 2021 (UTC)

And we all know that there's nothing political about Birthright... Nomoskedasticity (talk) 13:13, 15 January 2021 (UTC)

Uh, yes, that is clear. And that is the problem. You may not use Wikipedia's voice to make the claim that Israel includ[es] the Golan Heights and the Old City of Jerusalem and the Western Wall. That is a straightforward NPOV violation. The article Israel doesnt do that. The article Western Wall doesnt do that. The article Jerusalem does not do that. This game in which editors make us have the same damn argument on these satellite pages like it has not already been settled is tendentious and disruptive. Please stop editing in such a manner. nableezy - 14:06, 15 January 2021 (UTC)

Debresser, explain why you continue to knowingly violate NPOV while edit-warring please? nableezy - 14:48, 15 January 2021 (UTC)

[Important] Update - introduction part

Hello, I work with Birthright Israel and I would like to request the following edits to the introduction part of this extended confirmed-protected page :

Taglit-Birthright Israel (Hebrew: תגלית‎), also known as Birthright Israel or simply Birthright, is a not-for-profit educational organization that sponsors free ten-day heritage trips to Israel for young adults of Jewish heritage, aged 18–32.Birthright_Israel#cite_note-1Birthright_Israel#cite_note-2 Taglit is the Hebrew word for 'discovery'. During their trip, participants, most of whom are visiting Israel for the first time, are encouraged to discover new meaning in their personal Jewish identity and connection to Jewish history and culture.Birthright_Israel#cite_note-3 Since trips began in the winter of 1999, more than 750,000 young people from 68 countries have participated in the program.Birthright_Israel#cite_note-4Birthright_Israel#cite_note-5 About 75% of participants are from the United States and Canada. As many as nearly 48,000 participants have attended trips annually.

Declined, your suggestion does not mention that BI trips also involves Jerusalem and the Golan Heights.--Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 14:17, 11 April 2021 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 5 January 2023

Please change "...and the Golan Heights for young adults of Jewish heritage, aged 18–32" to "...and the Golan Heights for young adults of Jewish heritage, aged 18-26" per this Jerusalem Post article. Andria ay (talk) 17:54, 5 January 2023 (UTC)

 Done Lightoil (talk) 06:19, 13 January 2023 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 5 January 2023 (2)

Please change "Since trips began in the winter of 1999 through 2017, more than 600,000 young people from 67 countries have participated in the program," to "Since trips began in the winter of 1999 through today, more than 800,000 young people from 68 countries have participated in the program" per this Jerusalem Post article. Andria ay (talk) 17:58, 5 January 2023 (UTC)

 Done Lightoil (talk) 06:23, 13 January 2023 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 10 January 2023

Change the old group picture from 2012 to the new updated photo from 2022 that has been added to the sources section. Onionorganizor27 (talk) 05:13, 10 January 2023 (UTC)

 Not done: Not clear which source has the updated photo. Lightoil (talk) 06:26, 13 January 2023 (UTC)