Talk:Central Fund of Israel

Mondoweiss

"Questionable sources include websites and publications expressing views that are widely acknowledged as extremist, or promotional in nature, or which rely heavily on rumors and personal opinions. Questionable sources are generally unsuitable for citing contentious claims about third parties, which includes claims against institutions, persons living or dead, as well as more ill-defined entities. The proper uses of a questionable source are very limited." WP:SOURCES
Best Wishes AnkhMorpork (talk) 11:12, 15 March 2012 (UTC)

If you are going to contribute to the article please read the cited sources carefully before jumping to conclusions and making edits. The mondoweiss investigation into this organisation was cited by both Jpost and Haaretz (two national Israeli news organisations from opposite ends of the political spectrum) so clearly Mondoweiss views on this issue are not "extremist". If you bothered to read the inline citations you will see that the citations for the discussion of mondoweiss are Jpost and Haaretz. Dlv999 (talk) 11:43, 15 March 2012 (UTC)

Also could you explain what your exact issue is here regarding your deletion of the material discussing Od Yosef Chai Yeshiva? The payments from CFI to the Yeshiva are reported as fact by RS:-

• "In 2003, the head of the Od Yosef Chai yeshiva, Rabbi Yitzchak Ginsburgh, was charged by then-Attorney General Elyakim Rubinstein with incitement to racism for authoring a book calling Arabs a "cancer." In 2006-2007, the Israeli Ministry of Education gave about a quarter of a million dollars to the yeshiva, and in 2007-2008 the yeshiva received about $28,000 from the American nonprofit Central Fund of Israel."[1]

While the extremism of the Yeshiva is hard to deny given that the head of the Yeshiva has published a book, which among other things, justifies the killing of Palestinian Babies. Dlv999 (talk) 12:16, 15 March 2012 (UTC) "The fund has also been criticized for funding Im Tirtzu", where is this stated in the source
Best Wishes AnkhMorpork (talk) 12:33, 15 March 2012 (UTC)

The citations discussing funding from CFI to Im Tirzu are among others 9,10,11 and 12. Having reviewed the sources some of them are actually criticizing Im Tirzu for receiving funding from CFI not the other way around. so perhaps this sentence could be phrased better. But there is criticism of CIF for links funding Im Tirzu. e.g

• "Im Tirzu, which describes itself as "an extra-parliamentary movement to strengthen Zionist values", requests that supporters send contributions to the Central Fund of Israel (CFI), a non-profit which funds a number of right-wing Israeli groups."

""In terms of those that give their money to the CFI, I assume they think that the recipient of that money embodies their own values. If enough of them are sickened by this extremely mean-spirited attack and personal campaign, then perhaps they'll find another way of supporting the causes they think are important," said Paiss." [2]

• "as in the case of the Central Fund of Israel, directed by the Marcus family, which serves as the funding pipeline for the extremist groups Im Tirtzu and Women in Green" [3] Dlv999 (talk) 13:05, 15 March 2012 (UTC)

POV issues

The article appears to have been written in an overtly partisan manner. Most of the article consist of criticism of the group and there is little information about the positive charity the group undertakes. This must be resolved.--brewcrewer (yada, yada) 16:46, 15 March 2012 (UTC)

I searched for widely for RS on the fund and could not find any RS discussing positive charity work. If you have some RS that discuss this to bring to the table please include it in the article. For the NYT report how about this

"The organisation was among a number of US groups reported by the New York Times as using tax exempt status to help fund the Israeli settlement project in the occupied territories, effectively obstructing the foundation of a Palestinian state, which is generally accepted as a prerequisite for peace in the Middle East. The NYT report highlighted the anomaly of the American government working towards an end to the settlement enterprise and the establishment of a Palestinian state in the West Bank, while the treasury was helping to sustain settlements by giving tax breaks to those who support them."Dlv999 (talk) 16:58, 15 March 2012 (UTC)

Also the NYT reports the support for the poor as what is said by the fund's president - it is not asserted as fact by the RS. Similarly the Forward reports the funding of a group that opposes media bias is what is said by a donor, again not asserted as fact by the RS. Neither can be asserted as fact in the Wikipedia voice but must be attributed to what was said (by interested parties) as they are in the RS. Dlv999 (talk) 17:46, 15 March 2012 (UTC)

Problematic Sourcing

An unverified letter from the director of this organisation cannot be used as an RS for facts in the Wiki voice. At best it can be used as what has been said by the director - but this cannot be given undue weight over what has been reported as fact by multiple RS. Dlv999 (talk) 16:15, 18 March 2012 (UTC)

Why are the two contradictory? They are stating different things.
Best Wishes AnkhMorpork (talk) 17:37, 18 March 2012 (UTC)

I haven't referred to any contradiction. I have pointed out that it is unjustified to use a letter from the director of the organisation to the NYT as a citation for statements of facts in the Wiki voice without attribution. Similarly in your latest edit[4], it is unjustified to use an Op-Ed by a former vice president of the organisation as a citation for statements of fact in the Wiki voice without attribution. Dlv999 (talk) 18:19, 18 March 2012 (UTC)

Oh Ok. That's reasonable. You did write that sources "actually give a rather different account of the organisation", so I thought you were disputing the content.
Best Wishes AnkhMorpork (talk) 18:27, 18 March 2012 (UTC)

I think the statement is accurate. Thus far, we don't have a third party RS that reports the non-settler charity work. We have statements and now an Op-ed by various interested parties, which we can include with appropriate attribution, but not in the Wiki voice (unless we can find a suitable RS). Dlv999 (talk) 18:40, 18 March 2012 (UTC)

Descriptions of the Central fund of Israel in the current cited RS

• "the Central Fund for Israel, a clearinghouse for moneys directed to pro-settler groups" Jpost [5]
• "That group (CFI) has been identified as a key conduit for American donations to charities supporting Israeli settlements in the West Bank." Forward [6]
• "the Central Fund of Israel, a New York-based right-wing nonprofit association that donates to Israeli right-wing groups like Im Tirtzu and helps fund various activities in West Bank settlements." Haaretz [7]
• "the New York-based Central Fund of Israel, which provides financial support to a variety of right-wing organizations, such as Im Tirzu, as well as a range of activities in West Bank settlements." second Haaretz article [8]
• "A prominent clearinghouse is the Central Fund of Israel, operated from the Marcus Brothers Textiles offices in the Manhattan garment district. Dozens of West Bank groups seem to view the fund as little more than a vehicle for channeling donations back to themselves, instructing their supporters that if they want a tax break, they must direct their contributions there first." NYT [9]
• " the Central Fund of Israel (CFI), a non-profit which funds a number of right-wing Israeli groups.These include Amitz, which funds settler militias; Magen Yehuda, which assists with military training for settlers; and Women in Green, a right-wing group which opposes the return of land captured during the Six Day War of 1967 and promotes the "transfer" of Arabs to neighbouring countries." IPS [10]
• "the Central Fund of Israel is one of the important economic channels used by groups in the territories to underwrite their activity. Accordingly, the donation is tax-deductible in the United States. Tens of millions of dollars have been injected into ultra-Orthodox and pro-settlement movements in the past seven years by those who donate directly to Marcus" 3rd Haaretz article[11].

On top of that there are opinion pieces which I have not included. On the other hand, to describe the fund's charitable work we have:-

• "Klarman said in an interview with the Forward that the grants his group made through the Central Fund went not to a pro-settlement charity but to an Israel-based group that opposed media bias there. He also said that his foundation had since stopped making grants to the Israel-based group." Forward [12]
• "The fund’s president, Hadassah Marcus, acknowledged that it received many checks from donors “who want them to go to different programs in Israel,” but, she said, the fund retains ultimate discretion over the money. It also makes its own grants to needy Jewish families and monitors them, she said, adding that the fund, which collected $13 million in 2008, was audited and complies with I.R.S. rules. “We’re not a funnel. We’re trying to build a land,” she said, adding, “All we’re doing is going back to our home.”"
• Finally a letter from the director printed by the NYT in response to their report [13]

Note the difference in the sources. On the one hand we have what is being reported as FACT by multiple RS and on the other we have what is being reported as what is being SAID by a particular interested party. It is highly problematic to report what an RS reported as being said by a party as a fact in the wiki voice. It is also problematic to ascribe more weight to what has been said by interested parties than to what has been reported as fact by multiple RS. Dlv999 (talk) 16:58, 18 March 2012 (UTC)

Just as an observational comment: the Jewish and Israeli media sources are the ones that are vague - there's a lot of indeterminate language (passives that avoid attribution to a particular source, for example), so I might be inclined to look at those as potential opinion pieces more so than the direct quote sources underneath. Are the editors here sure that the JPost/Haaretz/Forward articles are neutral fact-based pieces and not editorials espousing an opinion? MSJapan (talk) 17:36, 18 March 2012 (UTC)

The Forward article and the NYTs article that the quotes come from are in both the top and bottom lists. The difference in my view, is what they report as fact, and what they report as being said by interested parties. Dlv999 (talk) 17:44, 18 March 2012 (UTC)

Irrelevancies

Criticism of US tax and foreign policy is not not relevant to an article on the CFI. The following sections appear to be gratuitously shoehorned into the article.

"The NYT report highlighted the anomaly of the American government working towards an end to the settlement enterprise and the establishment of a Palestinian state in the West Bank, while the treasury was helping to sustain settlements by giving tax breaks to those who support them."

"In a 2010 press release, the committee's National Executive Director Kareem Shora said, "The United States should work to enforce its stated policy on illegal settlements and not provide tax incentives for organizations that jeopardize our national interests and peace and security in the Middle East."
Best Wishes AnkhMorpork (talk) 19:38, 18 March 2012 (UTC)

The two aspects you have highlighted are among the main reasons this topic is notable for inclusion in the encyclopedia in the first place. The New York Times only included the fund in its report because of this issue. It seems absurd to totally ignore the issue that makes this subject notable to RS in the first place. These issues are not "shoe horned in". The RS discusses CFI in relation to these these issues and they are integral to the respective Jpost and NYT coverage of the fund. There is no Synth here because the RS categorically make the connections. I think what is at issue here is that you personally do not think the issues are relevant, but your own personal agenda is not relevant here. We should be reporting all aspects of the subject that are reported by RS and these clearly fall within that category. You have included information that was not reported by RS, but was written in a letter by the director. You have also included material that has no source. It is totally undue to now try to remove information that was considered important by RS while adding information that you obviously feel is important, but was not reported by RS. If I was you I would concentrate on sorting out the unsourced information that you have introduced into the article rather than trying to look for reasons to delete well sourced material that other have added. Dlv999 (talk) 20:20, 18 March 2012 (UTC)

The sources are not devoted to discussing CFI; in fact, many of them are actually discussing governmental policy and merely include CFI as an example. Obviously, they therefore mention other details that are not relevant to CFI. The ambit of the the Wiki article is not the same as that of the sources. The content should be about the charity and a discursive meander into a detailed critique of US policies should be avoided. An example:

The American-Arab Anti-Discrimination Committee has filed a number of complaints with the US Treasury Department and Internal Revenue Service over organizations, such as the central fund of Israel, that fund settlement development in the West Bank. In a 2010 press release, the committee's National Executive Director Kareem Shora said, "The United States should work to enforce its stated policy on illegal settlements and not provide tax incentives for organizations that jeopardize our national interests and peace and security in the Middle East."

The CFI is tangentially alluded to but the focal point is the American-Arab Anti-Discrimination Committee's views on US Treasury decisions. The fact that CFI is cited as an example (which is certainly relevant and should be included) is not entitlement to interpose an extensive polemic on this issue in the article.

Best Wishes AnkhMorpork (talk) 23:14, 18 March 2012 (UTC)

The CFI is the only example given in the article of such organisations the AAAD committee is complaining about. This is clearly relevant to the article. The ambit of the Wiki article is to discuss all aspects of the subject that are reported by RS. These two aspects that you have raised are clearly relevant per RS. This is not a "discursive meander", the RS clearly link the issues to CFI, thus there is no Synth and they are clearly relevant. CFI is not "tangentially alluded to", it is the only example given in the article for the complaint being made. There is no "polemic" here, the passage is an accurate reflection of the cited source. If you want to reword the passage please make a suggestion in talk, making sure that your suggestion accurately reflects the source and your reasons for changes. Meanwhile the article is now full of totally unsourced information (partially due to your own contributions) and still you concentrate on removing the well sourced material. Dlv999 (talk) 07:44, 19 March 2012 (UTC)

The NYT article remit is how "Tax-Exempt Funds Aid Settlements in West Bank". It cites examples including: Free Gaza Movement, Peace Now, HaYovel, One Israel Fund, Christian Friends of Israeli Communities, Friends of Zo Artzeinu/Manhigut Yehudit, Kollel Ohel Tiferet, Amitz Rescue & Security. The CFI is one of many charities that serve to exemplify this issue. It is incorrect to give undue weight to this issue by expounding on the CFI Wiki page, which is about the charity itself , the various general criticisms of US tax policy that are not specifically related to this charity. It warrants a mention but you have shoehorned in extraneous detail.
Best Wishes AnkhMorpork (talk) 12:34, 19 March 2012 (UTC)

the tax issue is the only reason why CFI was included in the article and is thus the only reason the fund recieved national coverage in the US at all. This is one of the main justifications for the topic's notability for inclusion in the encyclopedia and is certainly relevant.

I agree that mention of the tax issue is relevant but I object to expounding on the CFI Wiki page, which is about the charity itself , the various general criticisms of US tax policy that are not specifically related to this charity. You are aware that the same criticisms could equally be cited regarding Free Gaza Movement and Peace Now?
Best Wishes AnkhMorpork (talk) 13:18, 19 March 2012 (UTC)

I would ask you to turn your attention to the copious amount of unsourced material that you have been involved in including, instead of looking for reasons to delete more sourced content. Dlv999 (talk) 12:51, 19 March 2012 (UTC)

American-Arab Anti-Discrimination Committee

the article currently says "The American-Arab Anti-Discrimination Committee has filed a number of complaints with the US Treasury Department and Internal Revenue Service over organizations, such as the Central Fund of Israel, that fund settlement development in the West Bank" and uses the jpost as the source. however, the jpost does not say this. it does talk about cfi. and it does talk about aa-adc. but it does not say that the aa-adc filed a complaint about the cfi. editor sean.hoyland has suggested checking the US treasury website. i'm guessing that this might be OR, or a better souce than the jpost article. sean? Soosim (talk) 09:30, 22 March 2013 (UTC)

No, sorry, to clarify I said, "i think this was an error. search for "US Treasury Department" in http://www.jpost.com/Israel/Article.aspx?id=165579, see that sentence and the ones that precede it." i.e. the jpost source cited. It says, for example,

• "According to investigative reporter Philip Weiss, on his Web site, mondoweiss.net, the yeshiva received $27,000 from the New York-based Central Fund of Israel in 2007 and 2008. In 2006, CFI raised $8m. The American-Arab Anti-Discrimination Committee has filed multiple complaints with the US Treasury Department and Internal Revenue Service over organizations that fund settlement development in the West Bank."

The yeshiva is in the Yitzhar settlement. Sean.hoyland - talk 09:40, 22 March 2013 (UTC)

Sorry to be so blunt, but this these edits are an example of problematic POV editing. Attributing the statement that CFI funds settlement organisations to Politico is a nonsense considering that almost all of the RS that discuss the topic say that they fund settlement groups. See e.g.

• "the Central Fund for Israel, a clearinghouse for moneys directed to pro-settler groups" Jpost [14]
• "That group (CFI) has been identified as a key conduit for American donations to charities supporting Israeli settlements in the West Bank." Forward [15]
• "the Central Fund of Israel, a New York-based right-wing nonprofit association that donates to Israeli right-wing groups like Im Tirtzu and helps fund various activities in West Bank settlements." Haaretz [16]
• "the New York-based Central Fund of Israel, which provides financial support to a variety of right-wing organizations, such as Im Tirzu, as well as a range of activities in West Bank settlements." second Haaretz article [17]
• "A prominent clearinghouse is the Central Fund of Israel, operated from the Marcus Brothers Textiles offices in the Manhattan garment district. Dozens of West Bank groups seem to view the fund as little more than a vehicle for channeling donations back to themselves, instructing their supporters that if they want a tax break, they must direct their contributions there first." NYT [18]
• " the Central Fund of Israel (CFI), a non-profit which funds a number of right-wing Israeli groups.These include Amitz, which funds settler militias; Magen Yehuda, which assists with military training for settlers; and Women in Green, a right-wing group which opposes the return of land captured during the Six Day War of 1967 and promotes the "transfer" of Arabs to neighbouring countries." IPS [19]
• "the Central Fund of Israel is one of the important economic channels used by groups in the territories to underwrite their activity. Accordingly, the donation is tax-deductible in the United States. Tens of millions of dollars have been injected into ultra-Orthodox and pro-settlement movements in the past seven years by those who donate directly to Marcus" 3rd Haaretz article[20]

No explanation was given for deleting sourced information about Itamir Marcus which is discussed as relevant to the topic by RS covering the topic. Describing activities in Israel as "including" settler groups operating in the West Bank is a POV opinion of the editor, not supported by any of the sources in the article. "edited content for tighter article and for less POV" is not an appropriate explanation for deleting material that is cited to RS discussing the topic. Our WP:NPOV policy essentially says that neutrality is about accurately representing what RS says about the topic. Deleting content which accurately represents what RS say on the topic is not consistent with the policy. NPOV is not about individual editors making articles fit there own perception of what the topic is about, it is about accurately representing what RS says. Dlv999 (talk) 10:59, 22 March 2013 (UTC)

dlv - what are you referring to:

a) the RS cited quotes politico. it is not its own research. since you have other sources for info about cfi, use those. but remember, this is not an article about 'what critics say about cfi', so keep 'weight' in mind. it is pretty clear that all the critics say the same thing, and that this is listed in the article.

b) itamar marcus is still in the article. what was deleted about him?

c) as for the lead, then let's try again. please give me an example of an NPOV lede in your opinion. Soosim (talk) 12:19, 22 March 2013 (UTC)

and sean - the RS does NOT say anything about cfi being investigated or complained about.Soosim (talk) 12:33, 22 March 2013 (UTC)

I believe you have misinterpreted the Jpost article. It attributes to Politico the reporting that Aubrey and Joyce Chernick contibuted contributed towards the groups. I don't think Jpost is attributing the description it uses for identification of CAMERA, MEMRI, CFI ect to politico. I think that is a fairly odd interpretation of what the source says. Nevertheless, Jpost is only one of 7 sources (see above) discussing CFI funding of settlements and groups operating in the WB so attributing Politico is a nonsense.

If you want to talk about WP:WEIGHT, you have to produce reliable sources and discuss what they say. So far you haven't produced any. Your edits are based on your own POV and contradict what the cited RS in the article actually say. Your comment on Itamir Marcus it does not address what I said: "No explanation was given for deleting sourced information about Itamir Marcus which is discussed as relevant to the topic by RS covering the topic."

I would ask you to go out and read what RS say on the topic. If there are viewpoints in RS not covered by the article please bring them to the table, but deleting sourced information, and making claims about NPOV and WEIGHT that is not based in source evidence is not helpful. Dlv999 (talk) 13:17, 22 March 2013 (UTC)

dlv - if the jpost article needs interpretation to be accurate, then let's use a different article. ok? and i never removed the 'fact' that cfi funds those groups. maybe, as i said, write a lead sentence, and we can knock it around. shouldn't be too hard, right?

weight - my point about weight was that the article needs to be mostly 'x' with some 'y'.

itamar marcus - what was deleted about him? please. Soosim (talk) 13:53, 22 March 2013 (UTC)

The Jpost article does not need interpreting it states: "the Central Fund for Israel, a clearinghouse for moneys directed to pro-settler groups". But as already discussed this is irrelevant as there are 6 other RS cited in the article which attest to the same fact. There are no sources which cast any doubt on this fact. The simple solution to this problem is to revert your recent attribution of Politico. We could also cite the other six sources in the lead, but I don't think it is necessary as they all already appear in the article. Similarly your recent edit introduced an assertion that settlement activity in the West Bank is included in activities in Israel. The West Bank is not in Israel, your edit is not supported by any sources and needs to be reverted.

Regarding weight your point was meaningless because you did not cite any sources. Weight says we accurately represent what sources say. You are not discussing sources, its all based on your personal opinions. ou should know the content of your own edits. It is not for me to explain them to you.Dlv999 (talk) 14:22, 22 March 2013 (UTC)

dlv - good. now i understand your issue with the 'west bank is not in israel' comment. ok, so put in both. fine. but isn't there a policyh about the lead reflecting certain things and not others? and the same for weight? Soosim (talk) 18:58, 23 March 2013 (UTC)

Israel Land Fund / Sheikh Jarrah

This May 2021 article by The Intercept, denoted as WP:RS, asserts that CFI has given funds to the Israel Land Fund. Apparently, in 2017, Israel Land Fund was involved with eviction of Palestinians in Sheikh Jarrah. --Jayingeneva (talk) 22:31, 2 June 2021 (UTC)