Talk:Im Tirtzu/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Shining City Funding

A relevant paragraph about Im Tirtzu's funding from Shining City was added by MShabazz, as reported by Haaretz newspaper. However, in the first sentence, after the explanation of the funding, MShabazz adds an extraneous qualification of Im Tirtzu: "which "brands" other NGOs as foreign agents for receiving funds from overseas." This is problematic for two reasons: [1] As is widely known, Im Tirtzu's criticism is on foreign governments, not foreign donations in general [2] Even more important, this is immensely irrelevant for this section and does not belong here. There are numerous sections in the article dedicated to explaining Im Tirtzu's ideological view. This section is dedicated to information regarding its funding. By adding this sentence here, is as if to say "I don't care about everything that was written above, I am going to add a completely separate qualification of Im Tirtzu here."

So in addition to be knowingly misleading regarding Im Tirtzu's stance on foreign funding, this appears to be an attempt to overstep all the existing information that was written in the article and discredit the group using subjective qualification.

Also, MShabazz can you please explain why you referred to Shining city as a "front group?" I found no evidence in the source you cited that it was referred to as such.

Lastly, kindly refrain from derogatory language. There is no need to write "you are full of crap." We are both trying to improve the article for the benefit of all the readers. PasterofMuppets (talk) 06:29, 25 October 2017 (UTC)

The description given in the source matches the definition of "front group" perfectly. We could use the source's wording "'dark money' organization" instead. Zero^talk 07:48, 25 October 2017 (UTC)

Please read the source and stop shilling for this fascist organization. — MShabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 11:58, 25 October 2017 (UTC)

MShabazz, your comment on the latest revision ("read the source") does not address any of my points written above. Please explain your justification for including an out of place and misleading qualification of Im Tirtzu.

Secondly, can you at least pretend to be unbiased? I mean, at least put on a facade that all your edits are to maintain the integrity on this article and not simply because you hate Im Tirtzu and want to trash it. Because your comments like "stop shilling for this fascist organization" are very troubling to anyone who expects to be reading a NPOV article. PasterofMuppets (talk) 12:03, 30 October 2017 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but the fact that you don't like the facts doesn't mean you get to remove them. Read the source, which describes Im Tirtzu just the way I did in the edit you keep undoing.

And for somebody who has (mis)characterized my opinions and motives, you've got a lot of nerve complaining. You are a single-purpose account, and your edit history speaks for itself. All you do is shill for this fascist organization. — MShabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 13:15, 30 October 2017 (UTC)

As stated above, my grevience on this issue is not regarding the facts. It is about the relevance and the one sentence qualification of something that has been widely discussed in the article beforehand. In all candor, if you would just take to time to address my point rather than reverting my edit without explanation then it would not only save us time, but would help the article.

I do indeed edit other pages, and my focus here is because I've noticed how some editors claiming to be unbiased are simply focused here because they have a personal issue with this organization.

Lastly, I do not appreciate you putting that ARBPIA reminer on my page, as I have no violated any of the guidelines here. As I mentioned, my reverts are substantiated with an explanation why you have yet to provide me with an answer to my questions. PasterofMuppets (talk) 13:31, 30 October 2017 (UTC)

I do think the extra sentence on the end is not neutral, and is also an editorial of the sources. You can certainly link that IT received funding, but anything more than that is not acceptable in Wikipedia's voice. Sir Joseph ^(talk) 15:45, 30 October 2017 (UTC)

• I also think the reception section is undue toward opposition. There are four lines of support, a few in opposition and a huge section on calling IT a fascist organization, clearly undue. Sir Joseph ^(talk) 15:47, 30 October 2017 (UTC)

My impression before editing was that right down to funding, save for the section on New Israel Fund, this was basically a page written by Im Tirtzu people or fans, outlining all of the groups it targets and the problems it claims it finds in them, without any significant balancing in each section. It was a log of achievement. Imagine Patriot Prayer being written as a log of its achievements, all stated as its aims, while relegating murmurs of criticism to the end. Compared to this bulk, the reception/critical aspects are, given its repute as a dangerous ultra-nationalist activist body that cannot or will not distinguish the activities of human rights organizations from existential threats to Israel, actually minimal. This is a first impression, but the best way to get an empirical angle on this is to count words for pro and contra paragraphs, and see what the proportions are.Nishidani (talk) 17:25, 30 October 2017 (UTC)

The page was written and (more importantly) expanded by supporters of the organization, particularly by PasterofMuppets (under his previous name Eym174), which is why it reads like an advertisement for it instead of a neutral encyclopedia article. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 02:56, 31 October 2017 (UTC)

MShabazz, might I remind you that casting aspersions is unacceptable. I do not support the organization. I simply noticed how this article is being, in my opinion, unjustley edited and therefore I am trying to fix it.

I also think Sir Joseph makes a good point about the reception inbalance. Would love to hear others' thoughts PasterofMuppets (talk) 05:37, 1 November 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Im Tirtzu. 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/20140201214853/http://imti.org.il/docs/P188/?ThisPageID=809 to http://imti.org.il/docs/P188/?ThisPageID=809
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20111216125200/http://www.radiojai.com.ar/online/notiDetalle.asp?id_Noticia=55875 to http://www.radiojai.com.ar/online/notiDetalle.asp?id_Noticia=55875

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) 04:33, 12 November 2017 (UTC)

Jenin, Jenin campaign => "Campaigns against artists and the arts" - OR / SYNTH / POV

How is this can the campaign against the documentary (a film found to be, in court, defamatory ([1]), but not prosecutable as the defamed were a group of people and not an individual) - a campaign against "artists" and "the arts"? For starters - the plural (s) is clearly out of place. The use of art and artists in relation to a documentary is highly questionable, and the whole section heading reeks of NPOVPOV. This activity does however fit into "Support for IDF soldiers" (As Im Tirtzu was alleging defmation of soldiers) or alternatively - if we really want a separate heading - it could be something like campaign against defamation in the Jenin, Jenin documentary.Icewhiz (talk) 07:32, 6 December 2017 (UTC) Corrected errant N / missing non per Nishidani.Icewhiz (talk) 14:06, 6 December 2017 (UTC)

Agreed. Malik Shabazz, if you disagree please bring some substantive arguments instead of just reverting and telling people to stop "white-washing this fascist organization." That is not helpful and you can't use WP:SPADE for something that is your opinion. Clearly, the government of Israel and the majority of the people of Israel (as they voted the government in) disagree with you about Im Tirtzu (as did the Supreme Court which voided the lower court's ruling). You may think the government of Israel is also a fascist government, but again that is your opinion and is not sufficient for reverts. PasterofMuppets (talk) 09:10, 6 December 2017 (UTC)

Icewhiz. It is elementary English not to write:'the whole section heading reeks of NPOV,' because the meaning would be 'this whole section heading reeks of neutrality'. NPOV, means 'neutral point of view' and to charge that a section heading is 'reeking of objectivity' means you don't understand core wiki policies, let alone the simple meaning of the acronym.

PasterofMuppets. Your edit stated Im Tirtzu's view, and sidestepped mentioning the failure of its attempts to prove its libel suit or get the Palestinian actor banned from Israeli theatres, though they are an integral part of the record. In other words, you are simply adding material on Im Tirtzu's extreme positions and harassment, without, obligastory for NPOV, balancing the equation. You can't just pop in stuff that Im Tirtzu did this, said that, and ignore the details that would balance the picture, i.e., that in each case, nothing came of their yawping.

In writing:

Clearly, the government of Israel and the majority of the people of Israel (as they voted the government in) disagree with you about Im Tirtzu (as did the Supreme Court which voided the lower court's ruling).

This is inane. An institution (the Supreme Court) or a government makes decisions. Those decisions are not, for anyone literature in politics, thereby an expression of the people's will. Governments in particular, formed by a coalition of parties having a bare parliamentary majority do not reflect 'the people of the state' since half of the electorate may have voted the other way. The majority of Americans voted by some millions against the Trump chump, but your 'logic' would have it that because 40% of the public think him a net positive, 100% endorse him. Nishidani (talk) 13:51, 6 December 2017 (UTC)

I don't know what encyclopedia article you're editing, but the one I edited has a paragraph about (a) Im Tirzu organizing a campaign against a Palestinian-Israeli actor, (b) the chairman of Im Tirzu writing an op-ed column in which he called a film "an antisemitic blood libel 'unprecedented in its fierceness'" (hyperbole much?) and an actor a "sophisticated enemy", and (c) Im Tirzu opposing a production of a 1936 play in Tel Aviv by an Israeli theatre company. The only common thread is opposition to artists and the arts. Certainly Federico García Lorca, who wrote the play but died a dozen years before the establishment of the state of Israel, didn't defame Israeli soldiers. How can this possibly be construed as supporting the IDF? — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 02:52, 7 December 2017 (UTC)

a+b+c all are in relation to film director Bakri, whose film has been actually been determined to be in the Israeli high court to be libel (against an unspecified group people).Icewhiz (talk) 05:13, 7 December 2017 (UTC)

If this is all about their campaign against one person, as you say it is, it's probably undue to mention it at all. That wasn't at all clear from the text that was in the article before. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 03:13, 8 December 2017 (UTC)

The heading and text were.... yes making this appear as much more. It is not just one person, but a single demonstration in 2012 against Bakri (per the sources and text that was there). They might have done more on the same vector (would not rulee that out, just can not pull incidents from the top of my head) - but we would have to source that.Icewhiz (talk) 05:15, 8 December 2017 (UTC)

whose film has been actually been determined to be in the Israeli high court to be libel

This, like the demented idea that a minor film about the IDF in Jenin is 'an antisemitic blood libel 'unprecedented in its fierceness'" (unprecedented? whoever wrote that has zero knowledge of the vast history of blood libels) is meaningless. Israeli court judgments of this kind are not worth the paper they are written on, since courts, particularly on with an pro-ethnic remit like this, are not authoritative in determining historical facts or the truth of hypotheses. Oren Hazan recently said in the Knesset that all Palestinians were 'morons', which is a libelous defamation of an entire people, but of course, he, like scores of distinguished MPS and rabbis who state that they are imbeciles, scum, vermin, etc., aren't taken to court over their views, because they are exercising their rights to express hate of a collectivity under the freedom of opinion rule, something permitted of one group, but inveighed against if that same group is the object of hatred. Anti-Semitism is intolerable (true) but collective contempt for any other ethnicity is fair game. This is utterly, contemptuously trivial, but does show the stupidity of Im Tirtzu's persecutory mindset. Sometimes, while muckraking on behalf of idiotic causes, one should try to imagine how the average reader will take this (i.e., Im Tirtzu tries to destroy the careers of people who are critical of an army's actions, meaning it regards army's as sacred and above critique, a typical fascist notion). Nishidani (talk) 11:03, 8 December 2017 (UTC)

So you are basically saying that the Israeli judicial system is meaningless, when it goes against your worldview. Well, that's your opinion and you are free to have it, but that doesn't change the facts on the ground. According to your logic, anything you don't agree with (even the High Court!) is not valid. So how then can anyone disagree with you? PasterofMuppets (talk) 11:29, 10 December 2017 (UTC)

I was born and raised in functional democracies where the very idea that a different film version of what might have happened in a war between peoples would never be the object of a libel action in defense of the national army's integrity because those who were subject to its actions challenged some idiotic idea that any military body could behave according to 'purity of arms'. I imagine some evangelical messianic group in the US, were it to have brought an action against Mark Manning's The Road to Fallujah for defaming he 82nd Airborne soldiers, would be laughed out of court, unless it was presided over by a bunch of kangaroos. The next thing we'll have is government of Iran suing the director of 300 for defaming Persia. In any case, the point is that ridiculously dumb, moronically uninformed hyperbole like calling a minor resistance film an 'antisemitic blood libel 'unprecedented in its fierceness', i.e., worse than the trumped up crap behind the court case against Menahem Mendel Beilis or the use in Byelorussia recently of the historical paranoia investing the figure of Gabriel of Białystok, to name any one of hundreds of incidents, is so egregiously silly it doesn't merit mention in an encyclopedia, unless our remit is to document the follies of paranoid nescience. By all means plunk it on Ronen Shoval's page. Mind you, were I to be Machiavellian, I would support its retention here because it reflects so comically on Shoval.Nishidani (talk) 12:09, 10 December 2017 (UTC)

WP:NOTFORUM. The Israeli judicial rulings, regardless of any FORUMish marsupial claims, are relevant if we are to discuss actions related to this film in this article. Malik has placed an UNDUE tag on the whole section, and he might be right. was there a wider campaign against Bakri by Im Tirtzu than just the 2012 event?Icewhiz (talk) 12:22, 10 December 2017 (UTC)

And I was stating that as the tag suggests, it is undue as trivial.Nishidani (talk) 13:18, 10 December 2017 (UTC)

Far-right

It is clear that many Israelis consider Im Tirtzu a facist far-right group, and Jureslam court has said it is acceptable to refer to the group as a fascist (see e.g. https://972mag.com/jerusalem-court-okay-to-call-im-tirzu-a-fascist-group/78591/ http://m.jpost.com/Israel-News/Politics-And-Diplomacy/Im-Tirtzu-campaign-labeling-artists-foreign-agents-slammed-as-Israeli-McCarythism-443061 https://www.haaretz.com/opinion/.premium-1.692846) yet these views are not expressed faithfully in the article. These are reputable mainstream secondary sources. Based on NPOV I think they deserve to be mentioned in the article that the group is also considered a far-right fascist group by many Israelis. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 172.56.12.178 (talk) 03:53, 17 December 2017 (UTC)

Changing the Intro

I am very upset. Nishidani recently changed the intro and inserted information - which is okay - and then I reverted it and explained why this was not appropriate info for the intro. Then MShabazz reverted the edit without addressing any of my issues, but instead wrote "you don't have veto power to retain your preferred version of the article."

MShabazz, I respect your vast wiki knowledge and contributions - really - but I beleive that more junior editors like myself still deserve the right to receive an explanation. Since when did this become accepted Wiki practice to change things without explanation?

I will explain again my issues with this edit here: [1] Relevance - I don't see any relevance for the added sentence of what the organization's stated goals were in 2006 (that is more fitting for a background/history section). If people feel it's important to add the year it was establihed in the into, that can be done by simply adding "Established in 2006, ...." in front of the previous sentence. [2] Source - It is not accebtable to quote one book and use that book to say "according to critics". Also, please note one of the book's authors is Neve Gordon, a pro-BDS professor who has been the subject of Im Tirtzu's critisim. Giving this, a WP:INTEXT would certainly be needed. [3] Lastly, the previous version accurately summed up the two aspects of the organization (fascist/important Zionist). Adding this extra critism is WP:UNDUE. If you feel this is relevant, you can add it to the critism section with an in text explanation. PasterofMuppets (talk) 06:25, 1 November 2017 (UTC)

These objections do not warrant a revert. Many of them can be answered by a tweak. 'some critics' refers to two people, you missed Nicola Perugini. All you need do if unhappy is add 'some' = 'according to some critics', and, re the second point, such as Neve Gordon = According to some critics, such as Neve Gordon' etc. As to WP:Undue, a short pointer on waving policy flags. They are meaningless unless you can give a reasoned explanation as to why this or that policy applies.

Lastly the foundational goal is well sourced, and if that has undergone changes that can be documented as altering the original declaration, fine. I see no evidence that what it does is out of keeping with that charter's declared intent, however. Nishidani (talk) 20:29, 1 November 2017 (UTC)

Just because two authors from 1 book wrote something, that does not warrant a virtual copy and paste of their opinion in the intro as a generalized critism; that is surely undue weight. If it's important for you to include them, it should be moved to the Criticms section and prefaced with an WP:INTEXT Secondly, it is also undue weight, because as I wrote, the previous version presented two equal, diametrically opposed views of the organization (some view it... and some view it...). By adding adding this new criticsm, you are given more weight to the negative side. I think my new edit accurately conveys what you were trying to express while maintaing balance.

Lastly, about the foundational goal - I don't think that the sentence is "is out of keeping with that charter's declared intent," it just simply adds bulk and irrelevance to the intro. All those quotes are very confusing for the readers and add unnecessary bulk to the lead. PasterofMuppets (talk) 12:18, 3 November 2017 (UTC)

You said you were inexperienced. It shows. Read WP:LEAD on the opening paragraphs summarizing the content. The lead notes criticism to summarize the later sections under that heading. As to undue, to repeat: reading this in earlier versions, down to the criticism section, sounded like a megaphone advertising Im Tirtzu's 'accomplishments'. It still does, to a large extent, and violates WP:NPOV and appears to exploit Wikipedia to further the name of an organization. As to Perugini and Gordon, they are just two of many notable critics, and my paraphrase did not name them for that reason: what they said is representative. When you speak of 'bulk' and 'irrelevance', that's a subjective personal judgement that does not square with the nature of the minor addition, and smacks of distaste (WP:IDONTLIKETHAT). In sum: you are not familiar with policies, even when nodding to them, break elementary rules, like reverting while a challenged text is under discussion, and appear to understand 'balance' as referring to the excision of anything but a vague note regarding criticism in the lead, while leaving the grossly imbalanced sections of 'achievedments' that follow 'uncluttered' with any contrastive content. Im Tirtzu's 'achievements' for many of its targeted victims, consist of a thorough-going officially endorsed attempt to silence democratic dissent, and that should be noted in each of those sections. Fix that, and your editing approach might gain some credibility.Nishidani (talk) 13:15, 3 November 2017 (UTC)

True, I admitted I was inexperianced - so why need to take a jab at me? I may have a lot to learn, but know that personal attacks should be avoided. Thanks.

Regarding the critism, why do you assume that your paraphrasing of their critism is representative? Perugini and Gordon's criticsm is a very specific one regarding the organization's strategy (i.e. "driving a wedge between them and their funding sources"). If you insist on adding another critism in the lead, it needs to be a more general explanation regarding the use of the organization's tactics. I suggest:

"Some have cricized Im Tirtzu's tactics as targeting left-wing organizations and have maintained that it bears similarities to fascist groups, while others have labelled it an important Zionist movement...etc" Thoughts? — Preceding unsigned comment added by PasterofMuppets (talk • contribs) 20:25, 3 November 2017 (UTC)

Nope. Everyone on the planet knows Tirtzu targets all human rights organizations (16 in 2011 alone) in that area. 'Leftist' is a moronic pseudo-synonym sweeping up under one empty umbrella term anything in the diapason from classical liberalism, civil society movements to militant political activism of Marxist groupuscules. The antithesis 'left-wing' vs 'Zionist' is historically ignorant. Zionism drew breath from communist and socialist ideologies, and down to the Likudification of politics, this tradition remained important. Though it is increasingly rare, Zionists exist who are concerned with human rights. 'Zionism' is many things, and not patented by one extremist movement like Im Tirtzu.Nishidani (talk) 11:41, 4 November 2017 (UTC)

[1] "Everyone on the plans knows" - seriously? I mean, there are clearly many people in Israel who do not think that Im Tirtzu does that. [2] "Human rights" is just as a generic term than "lefitst." [3] Who are you to say that it is "increasingly rare" that Zionists care for human rights. Please stop smearing millions of people based on your personal perception.

But more importantly, why did you completely ignore my above points? Instead, all you did was go on a tangent about the philosophy behind the word left-wing and add a source that did by no way sunstantiate the specific critism that you wrote about them driving a wedge between them and their funding sources. Once again, if you insist on adding another critism in the lead, it needs to be a more general explanation regarding the use of the organization's tactics. I have no problem substituting "human rights" for "left wing":

"Some have cricized Im Tirtzu's tactics as targeting human rights organizations and have maintained that it bears similarities to fascist groups, while others have labelled it an important Zionist movement...etc". If we are really being honest with eachother, this is the most unbiased sentence for the lead that best sums up the critism and support for the organization.

Lastly, I don't understand how your addition about the meaning of "Im Tirtzu" contributes anything but confusion to the article. If you are concerned about the technical difference, then let's just change the word "phrase" to "aphorism." Why add a confusing explanation in the opening paragraph when it is largely irrelevent and does not contribute to the explanation about the organization itself? PasterofMuppets (talk) 03:34, 5 November 2017 (UTC)

Im Tirtzu criticizes left wing groups who use the nomenclature human rights organizations (as well as some that don't - e.g. Shovrim Shtika or V15). It does not target human rights organizations that are not identified with the left - such as Honenu or Human Rights Organization of Judea and Samaria. So no - they do not target all HROs.Icewhiz (talk) 07:26, 5 November 2017 (UTC)

Just a simple reminder of the meaning of 'human rights' for those who, raised thoroughly within milieux of Zionist-types of indoctrination who might be following this, cannot grasp the fundamentals of what words and expressions of generic import mean in international and democratic legal systems. It refers to the rights of all people within the category of homo sapiens, and is well summarized neatly in our article on the topic:

Human rights are moral principles or norms that describe certain standards of human behaviour, and are regularly protected as legal rights in municipal and international law. They are commonly understood as inalienable fundamental rights "to which a person is inherently entitled simply because she or he is a human being", and which are "inherent in all human beings" regardless of their nation, location, language, religion, ethnic origin or any other status.

This translates, if one has trouble grasping it, that if anyone makes a claim that he has a right, as a human, then automatically she is acknowledging that all other humans have an entitlement to the same right. Honenu, the preposterously titled Human Rights Organization of Judea and Samaria, and Im Tirtzu hijack this phrase but use it to denote the diametrically opposed concept, i.e. that 'Jews' in certain geopolitical contexts, such as West Bank colonization, etc., can claim to be unjustly treated, to have had their natural 'rights' infringed because they are hampered in usurping another people's rights. Human Rights organizations, by definition and logical entailment, cannot tolerate discriminations on the basis of a prioritarian claim to exclusive ethnic interests that trump, erase, or ignore competing claims by other groups of a different ethnicity or nationality. All of those organizations are ideologically opposed to the idea that, for example, Palestinians or more broadly, goyim have exactly the same rights as those their respective constituencies have. Fudging concepts, twisting in Orwellian fashion simple definitions related to universal propositions, and tramping on the principles outlined in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights is what these associations do. Their 'human rights' abolish those of others, and therefore using the term in their regard is a misnomer, an oxymoron, a piece of verbal sleight-of-hand to further an ethnic supremacy. It is like having a concept of the 'rights of the proletariat' in communism, meaning anyone not defined as a worker has lesser rights than factory and farm hands, or basing entitlements in a nation-state on the privileges accorded one ethnicity as in the classic cases of 20th century fascism. No different (unless of course, as Zionists do, you subscribe to the idea of an ethnic Ausnahmezustand), as outlined in the works of Giorgio Agamben and many others. Nishidani (talk) 09:50, 5 November 2017 (UTC)

Honenu as a human rights organization! Now I've heard everything. Zero^talk 10:02, 5 November 2017 (UTC)

Thank you for the thesis regarding the meaning of human rights, but I am more interested about the substantive points that I made about the article and that you ignored now three times. If you have nothing else to add regarding the points I raised (re: the foundational goal, criticism and explanation of aphorism im tirtzu) then I'll just will assume that you agree with what I wrote and will edit it accordingly. PasterofMuppets (talk) 11:34, 5 November 2017 (UTC)

It is difficult to reason unless the terms we are using are defined. You are not defining key terms in your argument, indeed it appears to me that, like Icewhiz, that you use them in a way that is nonsensical in English. What I wrote is not 'my thesis', but a clarification meanings. As to your last point, I have answered the points you raised, objecting to them. I agree with nothing you have written. You find everything I write 'confusing' even when I indicate what words like Im Tirtzu actually mean or where they come from? What do you mean by 'confusing'? That word is not a synonym for clarity.Nishidani (talk) 12:03, 5 November 2017 (UTC)

I have not endorsed Honenu's claim, they do however claim to be such - see for instance here (Hebrew) - [2] (according to this piece Im Tirtzu actually hands out an annual "human rights" award). Returning to this issue - many of the leftist human rights organizations in Israel have a decidedly leftist mission stmt - this begins with B'Tselem and continues through the newer ones (e.g. RHR) - who have "ending the occupation" as part of their mission stmt, and usually don't deal with the human rights of Jewish residents of the west bank. IIRC Association for Civil Rights in Israel and Public Committee Against Torture in Israel (which also acted recently against the torture of Jewish suspects) don't have an as biased mission stmt. The political lean of said orgs should be stated,as those that are targeted are the left leaning ones.Icewhiz (talk) 12:00, 5 November 2017 (UTC)

To clarify what I wrote above. Whenever I see editors, or people generally, confusing the words 'human rights activists' with 'leftists' I tend to switch off mentally. Human rights have nothing to do with the outworn 'left'/'right' parliamentary distinction. The fact that Israeli newspapers trot out 'leftist' every time someone supports Palestinian human rights does not make that branding acceptable. B'tselem is not a partisan political push, except to people who, submerged under tidal waves of rhetorical confusion, have come to defend the idea that standing up for anyone shot, dispossessed, or thrashed to an inch of her life for having the wrong ethnicity and being in the wrong place, means one is a 'communist' or 'leftist'. I grew up in the heyday of McCarthyism when it became fashionable to call human rights activists 'liberals' (which appears now to mean 'socialists'), with such efficacy that if you read selected passages of the American Declaration of the Rights and Duties of Man out to many people and ask them to identify the authors, half of the population will suggest they were commies.Nishidani (talk) 12:13, 5 November 2017 (UTC)

In the abstract you are correct. However, in practice when an organization only or primarily is engaged in the human rights of one group, while ignoring those of another, it is operating with political bias. B'tselem's mission statement is ending the Israeli occupation - this is, in Israeli politics, a highly political stmt with a particular slant. Most of the founders were functionaries in Mapam and Ratz (present day Meretz) and Peace Now. The current Meretz head, Zehava Gal-On, was a founder and the first general secretary of B'Tselem (concurrent to a position in Ratz - an assistant to David Zucker (politician)). So to say this particular human right's org does not have a political affiliation would be stretching it.Icewhiz (talk) 12:53, 5 November 2017 (UTC)

In practice, Israeli settlers come under Israeli law, which guarantees in theory, and as often as not in practice, the application of identical principles to Palestinian citizens of Israel and Jewish citizens of Israel. The overwhelming focus of B'tselem's reports deal primarily with Palestinian human rights for a very simple reason. Not because of disattention to Israeli/Jewish rights but because Palestinians are regulated minutely by the Israeli Civil Administration which applies to them military court rules and procedures as an occupying power, and in the exercise of those powers, systematically violates the obligations of a belligerent to the occupied people. It is obvious that people under the jurisdiction of a civil authority in a democratic nation have redress that people under the jurisdiction of a hostile military authority do not have. Technically in international law, Israel is obliged to end what the Israeli High Court itself recognized as a state of occupation, and B'tselem's aim is a reflection of both international law, and the democratic concern to put an end to what the court itself admits to be a belligerent occupation of another people and their land. In properly constituted democracies, the law is blindfolded, and ignores ethnicity. It therefore acts according to a universal principle, on behalf of its perception of what Israel must be (a democracy where the rule of law is supra partes). In short, if a HR NGO has as its fundamental terms of reference a universal principle it is not 'leftist'/'rightest'. If an NGO has a particularistic principle (ethnic self-interest) it is politicized to the bone. American Civil Rights movements that militate to redress the flaws in their legal system will find themselves dealing more with Afro-Americans than 'whites' because the system is overwhelmingly biased against the former. That doesn't mean that the organizations are 'leftist', except in rightwing or supremacist rhetoric.Nishidani (talk) 13:32, 5 November 2017 (UTC)

By the same line of reasoning we could claim Honenu is an a-political human rights organization. Neither claim holds water.Icewhiz (talk) 13:41, 5 November 2017 (UTC)

Please try to reason in your responses, rather than making off-hand remarks devoid of intelligible content. Otherwise, it is impossible to evaluate the merits of your assertions. Just to illustrate, you say by my definition, B'tselem and Honenu are equally a-political human rights organizations and thus fit the one category. In practical terms this means that you are insinuating that B'tselem mirrors what Honenu does, just with a different constituency. That means you are implying that B'tselem would be providing, 24/7, a hotline for Palestinians who want legal assistance after they assaulted, or were accused of assaulting, injuring, or killing Jews. For that is one of Honenu's primary functions, assisting with legal advice any Jew accused of beating up, injuring or killing Palestinians, even if they were to do so while soldering with the IDF. Nishidani (talk) 14:13, 5 November 2017 (UTC)

I did not state equivalence between the two. Ben-Gvir and Honenu are probably similar to Gabi Laski hewiki or Michael Sfard in terms of legal assistance. Human Rights Organization of Judea and Samaria would be similar to B'Tselem. And all have a political slant. For instance it is easy to ascertain Human Rights Organization of Judea and Samaria's slant when you see that Orit Strook (a former MK for Jewish Home and other activities) founded it - just as B'Tselem was founded by Meretz party bosses (with some Peace Now) and run by the Meretz junior team (with the first general manager going on to become Meretz's chairman). In any event, all of these (to the right and left) are routinely referred to as organizations with a right or left slant.Icewhiz (talk) 14:38, 5 November 2017 (UTC)

Michael Sfard is an individual lawyer, Honenu an organization. The simplistic historical reductionism over several grounds you are making is pointless. I may as well argue Likud is a party founded on terrorist-criminal principles because Menachem Begin and Ariel Sharon played key roles in its foundation, and one was a terrorist, the other a criminal slaughterer. To get back to the point, w don't say Im Tirtzu is an ultranationalist or fascist group in wiki's neutral voice, no more than we can say B'tselem is a leftist group. These terms can only be used in summing up attributed opinions.Nishidani (talk) 16:36, 5 November 2017 (UTC)

Human Rights Organization of Judea and Samaria would be similar to B'Tselem

Again, if you cannot understand the elementary distinction between universal human rights and claims to ethnic-exclusive rights, then arguing further is pointless. B'tselem subscribes to the former, and duly lists and condemns all attacks by Palestinians on Israelis/Jews. The other ethnic-exclusivist organizations you mention are silent about the obverse. B'tselem is a human rights organization, therefore, whereas the rest subscribe to rights only if they refer to the right people.Nishidani (talk) 16:46, 5 November 2017 (UTC)

Getting back to the point here (although this discussion is interesting and I agree with Icewhiz), Nishandi you claim to have addressed my points yet I don't see anywhere above that you have done so. So once again I write them, and expect a substantive answer and not a tangent long-winded explanation about a completely unrelated issue.

[1] You cannot make a claim that "according to critics" Im Tirtzu tries to drive a wedge betweeen left wing/human rights orgs and their funding sources" based on one source (the second source you cited does not support this claim). That is certainly undue weight. The lead should present an accurate summary of the general critism, which as you wrote is about its tactics targeting left-wing/human rights groups. I propose: Some have cricized Im Tirtzu's tactics as targeting left-wing human rights organizations and have maintained that it bears similarities to fascist groups, while others have labelled it an important Zionist movement... That is certainly an unbiased and accurate summary of the support and critism, without getting into specifics raised by one source which needs an in text attribution anyway.

[2] Regarding your added sentence abut the organization's foundational goal - this adds no substance to the article. It detracts from the clarity of the article because you write two seemingly different stated goal one after another. There is no need for them both, only one.

[3] I think it's important to explain the origin of the words "Im Tirtzu" - an aphorism coined by Im Tirtzu - but not to go into it linguistic detail. By the way, you did not source your assertion, which you would need to do if you want to keep it in. PasterofMuppets (talk) 22:47, 5 November 2017 (UTC)

PasterofMuppets, you keep repeating yourself. It is clear you haven't understood a word of what Nishidani has written, or WP:NPOV, for that matter. It is neither unbiased nor accurate to say "Some have cricized Im Tirtzu's tactics as targeting left-wing human rights organizations and have maintained that it bears similarities to fascist groups, while others have labelled it an important Zionist movement". To say that is to accept as truthful the assertion that its targets are left-wing HROs. To say that is to assert that only some critics describe that as what Im Tirtzu does, when that's all it does. Please, delete that text from the clipboard where you have it stored and start fresh. That description is unacceptable unless it's preceded by "According to Im Tirtzu's publicity department". — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 03:24, 6 November 2017 (UTC)

You are also under the impression that im tirtzu is an aphorism coined by that organization. (a) it is not an aphorism, it was not coined by Im Tirtzu but is a phrase lifted from the conditional clause in an aphorism coined by Herzl. (b) Truisms don't need sources (I have several, including Carl Emil Schorske's wonderful book on Fin-de-Siècle Vienna), and if you insist it be sourced, then I suggest you go to the Hebrew wiki sister or mother page, where precisely what I wrote here is noted without references, and fix that before worrying this page. Im Tirtzu states there it got the phrase from Herzl, though you don't need to read Herzl to pick it up, since it has been common currency in Zionist discourse in Hebrew since 1903. Still, I'll meet your 'concern' by giving the page a note on the phrase's origin.Nishidani (talk) 11:53, 6 November 2017 (UTC)

MShabbaz, I keep repeating myself because, as is evident from your comment, my point is not understood nor addressed. I don't care too much about writing left-wing or human rights organizations (although I think combining the two is correct). I combined the two as a compromise following the lengthy discussion between Nishandi and Icewhiz. As to your second point, clearly I haven't written the sentence enough times because you have failed to understand it. "To say that is to assert that only some critics describe that as what Im Tirtzu does, when that's all it does." - How is that exactly? I wrote "Some have criticzed..." Not "Some critics have criticized...", which means that some (i.e. the critics) say one thing, and the others (i.e. the supporters) say another thing. It doesn't mean that only a part of the critics say something, it means all the critics. Please explain exactly how that is not WP:NPOV, and how citing a very specific criticm (driving a wedge between funders) that is co-written by a pro-BDS professor is.

By the way, it's nice for you to chime in here. In this regard, kindly read the first post of this section. PasterofMuppets (talk) 12:34, 6 November 2017 (UTC)

I'll let you in on a little secret. One of the hallmarks of many adversarial meatpuppets or socks or IPS in my regard is to refer to me always by the identical misspelling, Nishandi. The coincidence is curious, because there are numerous ways of writing Nishidani incorrectly, but only this one is recurrent in IP posters of a certain POV.Nishidani (talk) 14:20, 6 November 2017 (UTC)

And for the record, 'driving a wedge' is not patented by a pro-BDS professor. It is a term used by one of the organizations targeted by Im Tirtzu. See here It happens to be one of the standard idioms within discourse regarding events in Israel ([Bibi has only succeeded in driving a wedge between Israel and its sole partner, the USA. (Rabbi Jerrold Goldstein, Sherman Oaks]Nishidani (talk) 14:32, 6 November 2017 (UTC)

Haha you really are living in a fantasy world if you think this is all some ruse to create more "adversarial meatpuppets." I can assure you that this account is my only account. Regarding the driving a wedge terminology - the term isn't the issue, rather the assertion that they are driving a wedge "between them [human rights orgs] and their funding sources." That is a specific, not general, claim (and I don't see how you can deny that) that should not be in the lead. If you want, feel free to add it to critism with intext attribution, but not the lead. PasterofMuppets (talk) 20:02, 6 November 2017 (UTC)

I noted a coincidence, and drew no conclusion. You misread the remark and made an unwarranted inference. Here's another. You adopted a spoonerism for your (recent?) handle, playing on Master of Puppets, and thereby inveigling perhaps wiki editors to get stirred by the natural implication of a lord of meatpuppetry. Only a gudgeon would swallow that limp bait. That indeed, is laughable, but one should always assume responsibility for what one's use of language means. Now to serious things. Your cant about Im Tirtzu and 'leftist organizations' flops for many reasons, not least because J Street, unless that's another commie subterfuge, wrote, in response to Im Tirtzu's branding of people like the head of B'tselem as 'terrorist moles' for their pursuit of respect for human rights:

'In a statement, the liberal American lobby group J Street called on American Jews to tell Im Tirtzu that it has “crossed every conceivable line of decency and acceptance in the Jewish community.” “Whether we personally agree with the work of Breaking the Silence or the other NGOs targeted or not, we hope there can be near unanimous consensus across the political spectrum that this behavior is outside the bounds of our community’s values and standards,” J Street said. “We call on all Jewish funders, individual and communal, to cease immediately their support for 'this organization which depends heavily on American funding to pursue its work undercutting Israeli democracy and undermining Jewish values.”

I.e. liberal American middle of the way Jewish organizations argue that Im Tirtzu's activities threaten both Jewish values and Israeli democracy. Aside from torpedoing the attempt to forge a gross caricature (smearing hyperbole seems to be its trademark) of Im Tirtzu's critics as 'leftists', this press release begs registration on the page. Any ideas in which section to put it?Nishidani (talk) 20:53, 6 November 2017 (UTC)

Seriously man (or woman), how does any of what you wrote address my point!?! Once again, I said that writing that Im Tirtzu drives a wedge "between them [human rights orgs] and their funding sources" is a specific claim and should [1] should go in the criticsm section and not the lead [2] needs an intext attribution and cannot be used to describe a general criticism (i.e. "According the critics...") Please address this point.

And I also have to comment about your J Street point (and again - please don't go on to a tangent about them, rather focus on my above point), they are by in no means a "liberal American middle of the way" organization. They are very much a left-wing organization that is obsessively critical of Israel (but again, I don't want to have an argument about J Street so please do not delve into this). PasterofMuppets (talk) 02:25, 7 November 2017 (UTC)

(a) You never respond to what I write, and demand I answer what you think cogent, which it ain't. It's a common tactic, but not persuasive. Anyhow, you just claim, 'driving a wedge' is not what Im Tirtzu does. Had you checked the context of the J Street quote you would have noted that it coincided with a bill, supported by Im Tirtzu, to hobble foreign funding, of the type Im Tirtzu itself receives, from reaching Israeli NGOs that care for human rights, as opposed to those advocating their suppression. So your argument collapses. It is not 'specific,' but one of its primary poiposes. (b) As I said, I grew up with McCarthyism in the air. McCarthyism imposed a black/white, we/them template where all those who opposed their toxic paranoia and pugnacious push for ideological Gleichschaltung were 'commies'. The argument you make on behalf of Im Tirtzu is McCarthyist, figuring ultra-Zionism as the good cause they embody and any group opposing their politics 'left-wing'. It is pointless arguing with people who adopt this approach.Nishidani (talk) 08:29, 7 November 2017 (UTC)

[A] I always respond to your comments on the point being discussed; true, I do not respond to your long-winded tangents that are irrelevent to the article. Regarding the bill you mentioned, that is your interpretation (as others, like myself, would disagree) and there are still no other sources other than the Neve Gordon book that supports your claim. What you have is simply WP:OR

[B] Once again you have delvled into a tangent that honestly I have no idea what you are even referring to.

Don't you realize that you are combing the internet to find sources that fit your point, and in the end all you have is original research? Your intransegence is not only wasting both of our time, but simply not contributing to the article. I proposed a very simple solution (to include critism on Im Tirtzu's tactics targeting human rights groups, and adding the specific "driving wedge between funding source" critism in the critism section with an in text attribution). THAT is an NPOV lead. What you are proposing is not NPOV, plain and simple. It seems that you are hellbent in including information in there that should not belong because of your disdain for Im Tirtzu (as you have mentioned above). — Preceding unsigned comment added by PasterofMuppets (talk • contribs) 11:44, 8 November 2017 (UTC)

'Regarding the bill you mentioned, that is your interpretation (as others, like myself, would disagree).' Disagree by all means, but the nexus is not my interpretation. Apart from being obvious, it is explicitly stated in numerous sources that Im Tirtzu militates to get legislation passed to cause difficulties for human rights NGOs in Israel: I.e.

The rightist organization Im Tirtzu plans to distribute Tuesday to Knesset members a document it recently compiled with a list of “findings” about the 25 non-profit organizations the Justice Ministry says will be affected by the NGO bill if it is passed by the Knesset . .The document is intended to bolster the arguments of the right-wing parties promoting the bill.The letters are a continuation of Im Tirtzu's campaign supporting legislation that would label organizations that receive funding from foreign governments as foreign agents

Combing the internet for sources', rather than air-brushing the page, is what good editorial practice on Wikipedia consists of. I'm far too busy to waste time doing this for this Im Tirtzu page. I don't 'disdain' Im Tirtzu. It is, rather, below contempt for any one raised to respect simple principles of human decency. A pathologist doesn't have disdain for a neurological disease. Students of nationalism should dissuade themselves from following Sir Julian Freke's example. Despite his scientific credentials, 'he can't bear opposition even in his work, which is where any first-class man is most sane and open-minded.'(Dorothy Sayers, Whose Body?, 1923 p.158).Nishidani (talk) 14:07, 8 November 2017 (UTC)

Thank you for your enthralling analysis. Back to the issue - how does Im Tirtzu supporting the NGO bill mean that it "driving a wedge between them and their funding sources." The NGO Bill, as I'm sure you know, aimed at increasing transparency and made orgs that receive lots of money from foreign govs report it. It didn't aim to "driving a wedge between them and their funding sources." The bottom line is that you are using original research to determine what or what not the organization does.

My solution, which I have written many times above and you have not once stated what your issues are with it, is a NPOV lead. It states the criticsm - that Im Tirtzu targets human rights groups and that's it - and does not include any contenstable original research. PasterofMuppets (talk) 21:19, 8 November 2017 (UTC)

Google 'grey matter' and search it, while checking and rechecking what was written above. At this point you are talking to yourself. Consensus is not solipsistic.Nishidani (talk) 21:30, 8 November 2017 (UTC)

Again, you have failed to address my points and instead opted to change the subject to something unrelated. Seeing as we are getting nowhere, and you are refusing to engage my points. I will ask for a third opinion. Unless, of course, you wish to actually answer me instead of going off on tangents. Let me know. PasterofMuppets (talk) 11:17, 12 November 2017 (UTC)

 Note: Greetings everyone. A request for a third opinion has been declined, as there are more than two editors involved in this discussion already (four, in fact). I would recommend that you pursue another path such as dispute resolution, or perhaps a Request for Comment. Thank you, and good luck. CThomas³ (talk) 19:09, 22 November 2017 (UTC)

Nishidani, what do you recommend? My attempts at dispute resolution thusfar have not worked out, mainly because there have been other editors here although the dispute seems to really boil down to me and you. I understand you are content with the current set-up because all your edits are still there, but as you can understand I still believe that the "creating a wedge" sentence is not appropriate for the lead section for the reasons cited above. I am glad to start discussing this again. Looking forward to your comments how to proceed. PasterofMuppets (talk) 11:00, 30 November 2017 (UTC)

90% of the work I've done in a decade on I/P articles, got or gets challenged, reverted, and has led tore pointless argufying. That Im Tirtzu strongly backs attempts to legislate that would dry up foreign funding of Israeli human rights NGOs is all over the internet, so taking exception to the sourced language 'drive a wedge' , which is what it essentially tries to do, seems pointless. One cuts off water to Palestinians to impede their development - one cuts out funding (while lining one's own institutional pockets fromn funding from abroad) from foreign sources to NGOs to make them wilt. There's nothing strange, exceptional, odd, weird about stating the obvious, and to nitpick at a phrasing that sharply illuminates the process seems to be a waste of time. Nishidani (talk) 11:53, 30 November 2017 (UTC)

But it is not pointless, or else you wouldn't mind. I believe that opting to use specific language from a source that deserves an in-text attribution over a general criticism is a reason for further discussion.

Surely you can understand where I am coming from. Myself, MShabazz and other editors spent a long time crafting a lead that was as neutral as possible and acceptable to everyone (you can see the discussion in the archives), and then you make significant changes to the lead and make it essentially untouchable because it's under discussion and you don't agree to change it in any way. So basically all the changes you want are in and can't be changed because you don't want them to be. To me, that isn't how things should work and we should be able to arrive at a compromise like was previously done.

But if you really don't have the energy to continue and believe it's pointless, I can just change it to the general criticism and put the specific criticism in the criticism section. PasterofMuppets (talk) 12:18, 3 December 2017 (UTC)

I see no evidence that the lead as you want it was crafted consensually. But then I happen to be ill at the moment. If you wish to alter it, provide your version and see what other editors think.Nishidani (talk) 16:37, 3 December 2017 (UTC)

I meant the previous lead was crafted consensually, you can see it in the archived talk page. Regarding my suggestion, it is as follows (I left out the sources for clarity):

Im Tirtzu (Hebrew: אם תרצו, lit. 'If you will it') is a Zionist non-governmental organization based in Israel. Its name is derived from an epigraph appended to the frontespiece of Theodor Herzl's novel Altneuland, 'if you wish it, it is no fairy-tale,' rendered into modern Hebrew in Nahum Sokolow's translation in 1903, as Im tirtzu ein zo agadah. ("If you will it, it is no dream.")

The organization's stated mission is to "strengthen and advance the values of Zionism in Israel" and to combat the "campaign of de-legitimization against the State of Israel and to [provide] responses to Post-Zionist and Anti-Zionist phenomena."

Im Tirtzu operates fifteen branches at universities and colleges throughout the country[1] and runs the largest Zionist academic extra-curricular program in Israel.[7] Im Tirtzu is mostly known for its campaigns against the New Israel Fund, foreign government-funded NGOs, and alleged bias in university curriculum.

Some have criticized Im Tirtzu's tactics as targeting human rights organizations and have maintained that it bears similarities to fascist groups, while others have labelled it an important Zionist movement. Im Tirtzu has received wide support from the Israeli government.

I honestly think this is as clear and NPOV as it gets. Then, we would add the specific criticism from Gordon to the criticism section. PasterofMuppets (talk) 06:39, 5 December 2017 (UTC)

@PasterofMuppets: I want to weigh in, but with these long walls of text it is not clear to me what is currently under contention. What is wrong specifically, and concisely, with the current version? What are you proposing to alter (with clear refs - not a copy pasted text [1])? The current second paragraph of the lead does seem overly long and cumbersome.Icewhiz (talk) 07:00, 5 December 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for your input Icewhiz. I believe there are two issues with the current version: [1] like you said, the second paragraph is overly long and cumbersome. [2] The criticism mentioned about "driving a wedge between funding sources" is very specific and was taken from a source that needs in text attributions as one of the authors is pro-BDS and is in conflict with Im Tirtzu.

Therefore, I would like to [1] reduce the second paragraph and [2] write the general criticism that some accuse Im Tirtzu of targeting human rights organizations and move the specific criticism to the criticism section with an in text attribution. In my previous comment I wrote my suggestion of how it should be, which touches upon these two issues. PasterofMuppets (talk) 07:21, 5 December 2017 (UTC)

I agree. The second paragraph should be reduced. Criticism (including the fascist bit in paragraph 3) should be separate, in the lead, from the mission statement. We should mention criticism of course, but in a balanced manner. I also think the mission statement, activities, leadership, etc. that are described in quite some length in the body are missing in the lead. Currently the lead is etymology in paragraph 1, quite a bit of criticism in paragraph 2 (+some of 3), and an itty-bitty bit about what they do - "On its establishment in 2006, the organization stated that its mission was to renew "Zionist discourse, Zionist thinking and Zionist ideology to ensure the future of the Jewish nation and the State of Israel." + "Im Tirtzu operates fifteen branches at universities and colleges throughout the country[1] and runs the largest Zionist academic extra-curricular program in Israel.[11]". So the whole lead on this rather significant organization describes what they do in 2 short sentences.Icewhiz (talk) 07:27, 5 December 2017 (UTC)

I take it there are no objections to para 1, and in the balancing statement of para 3 'Some have maintained that Im Tirtzu bears similarities to fascist groups,[12][13] and others have labelled it an important Zionist movement', you dislike the fact that numerous sources state it is fascist, balancing its own vierw that it is an 'important Zionist movement'.

This is the second para you both complain is too long.

On its establishment in 2006, the organization stated that its mission was to renew "Zionist discourse, Zionist thinking and Zionist ideology to ensure the future of the Jewish nation and the State of Israel."[9] Claiming to "strengthen and advance the values of Zionism in Israel", it sees itself as dedicated to combating a "campaign of de-legitimization against the State of Israel and to [provide] responses to Post-Zionist and Anti-Zionist phenomena".[1] Im Tirtzu is mostly known for its campaigns against the New Israel Fund, foreign government-funded NGOs, and alleged bias in the curricula of Israeli universities. According to critics, Im Tirtzu's strategies focus on delegitimizing Israeli left and human-rights groups and driving a wedge between them and their funding sources.[9][10]

That is 119 words, of which 94 describe what Im Tirtzu says of itself. Nota bene. The description of what its aim is comes from a secondary source, not from its self-promotional pages.

So the complain is about 24 words appended to the second paragraph. I.e.20% that mentions the fact it is subject to criticism.

Why is mentioning, after the self-promotional statement of what Im Tirtzu says it does (80% of the text), that these aims are contested (20%), too long?Nishidani (talk) 09:06, 5 December 2017 (UTC)

The lead should be a summary of the body. The first paragraph is etymology - not POV. The 2nd and 3rd paragraphs are 184 words, of which I count 104 are from a criticism standpoint. Several of the group's activities which are described in the body are not in the lead. Paragraph 2 is also cumbersome and long - coatracking off of the purported mission statement (and purposefully phrasing it as a claim) to criticism. The organization has its critics - we should place their views in a separate paragraph, followed by an Im Tirtzu short rebuttal.Icewhiz (talk) 09:39, 5 December 2017 (UTC)

Agreed, which is why I think the layout should be Paragraph 1 - etymology; P2 - mission statement (only the one statement, not the double statement that is currently written) ; P3 - general activities (we could expand it, but shouldn't be more than a sentence in my opinion) ; P4 - criticism and support. PasterofMuppets (talk) 10:52, 5 December 2017 (UTC)

That would make sense - treating the reception of the organization in a single paragraph.Icewhiz (talk) 11:09, 5 December 2017 (UTC)

This is not a lockstep numbers game. Argue rationally in terms of policy, not according to opinion. Let's take this line by line.

(a)I stated the numbers for paragraph 2 are 119 words, of which 94 describe what Im Tirtzu says of itself. I.e. Im Tirtzu is allowed 80% of the paragraph to describe its declared purpose, and 20% 'balances' those claims with what critics say. Why is that 'unbalanced' against Im Tirtzu?

(b) You want to get rid of Im Tirtzu's statement of its purpose. This is what we have:-

On its establishment in 2006, the organization stated that its mission was to renew "Zionist discourse, Zionist thinking and Zionist ideology to ensure the future of the Jewish nation and the State of Israel."

That means the 2 para. description of Im Tirtzu's aims is cited from the Im Tirtzu web page, and backed by 3 secondary academic RS. Why should this explicit policy declaration, up on Im Tirtzu's page from 2006 to the present day, and widely attested in the specialist literature not be cited in that precise form in the lead? Nishidani (talk) 11:50, 5 December 2017 (UTC)

per MOS:INTRO - The lead section should briefly summarize the most important points covered in an article in such a way that it can stand on its own as a concise version of the article. - the current lead fails to reflect the article body.Icewhiz (talk) 13:09, 5 December 2017 (UTC)

I asked you to respond to specific points. Answer them. The lead must by definition cover the description of the aims and purposes of an organization. PasterofMuppets wants to elide the definition of the organization given by the organization itself. The definition of what an organization is covers one of the 'most important points', and the citation I provided for its aims is amply documented in the body of the text. Don't waffle, dodge or wave policy statements. Address the specific points I ask be addressed.Nishidani (talk) 14:42, 5 December 2017 (UTC)

The lead should be a summary of the body. There is over emphasis of a mission stmt from 2006 (with a following coatracky attack). And we are missing quite a bit of material in the lead of important activities the groups is engaged in, e.g. countering politicization in academia, supporting IDF soliders, promoting minorities, zionist thought, tours of Hebron.Icewhiz (talk) 14:50, 5 December 2017 (UTC)

I said stick to the point.

You must show why, uniquely, when we have in the leads of World Jewish Congress

According to its mission statement,[1] the World Jewish Congress' main purpose is to act as "the diplomatic arm of the Jewish people."

And in the lead of Anti-Defamation League

Describing itself as "the nation's premier civil rights/human relations agency", the ADL states that it "fights anti-Semitism and all forms of bigotry, defends democratic ideals, and protects civil rights for all", doing so through "information, education, legislation, and advocacy

And the lead of Hamas:-

Co-founder Sheik Ahmed Yassin stated in 1987, and the Hamas Charter affirmed in 1988, that Hamas was founded to liberate Palestine, including modern-day Israel, from Israeli occupation and to establish an Islamic state in the area that is now Israel, the West Bank and the Gaza Strip.[19][20]

what is the problem with using the foundational definition, as per the above analogies, in regard to Im Tirtzu. Focus (and forget WP:OTHERSTUFF EXISTS.Nishidani (talk) 15:03, 5 December 2017 (UTC)

(edit conflict) WP:OSE - there are plenty of other articles in which the lead doesn't conform to MOS:INTRO, particularly when there is a POV battleground edit war on the lead (in fact, there are some articles out there where the lead contradicts the body as the battleground on the lead skipped over the body all together). Articles should be built from the ground up. In this case - there is over emphasis on criticism and the mission stmt (as it was in 2006) and the complete omission of other notable activities. Should the group's current mission stmt be in the lead? yes, probably, but in a concise manner.Icewhiz (talk) 15:11, 5 December 2017 (UTC)

I gave the statistics, which are objective, showing that the lead 'not only does not overemphasize criticism but underestimates it by a 80+% discursive wadding giving Im Tirtzu's view, and a -20% counterpart noting criticism. You have yet to respond to this, but are just talking policy in the abstract. The body of the article has a significant amount of criticism (not enough) that is reflected in that -20% criticism content in para 2. So it perfectly fits WP:LEDE summary style. Read the article.Nishidani (talk) 14:03, 6 December 2017 (UTC)

It's foundational definition, while interesting, does not accurately reflect the content of the body of the article nor really adds any substantive information. I think its current mission statement is much more relevant (and if you feel it's foundational definition is important to be included then I would not object to a new "History" section).

It is one of the most basic rules of rudimentary English usage that 'it's' is not synonymous with 'its'. The former is an abbreviation for 'it is', the latter a possessive pronoun.

Following that, it makes sense that the lead should then describe its most notable activity, followed by a concluding paragraph with criticism and support. It seems pretty standard to me. PasterofMuppets (talk) 16:09, 5 December 2017 (UTC)

You are inventing things. The use of a formal definition of an organization's stated aims had nothing to do with some invented necessity that it must reflect the content of the body of the article. You can't object with any persuasive power by inventing connections that do not exist. I showed you it is standard practice in wiki articles to mention in the lead an organization's stated aims, and what we have is Im Tirtzu's stated aims.Nishidani (talk) 14:03, 6 December 2017 (UTC)

So you agree that we should mention Im Tirtzu's aims as currently stated? Great. So what's the problem? We have that sentence, followed by what they are most known for, followed by last paragraph of criticism/support. PasterofMuppets (talk) 13:02, 7 December 2017 (UTC)

Nishidani if you don't have anything more to add then I will go ahead and update it to the format as described above. PasterofMuppets (talk) 12:16, 12 December 2017 (UTC)

No.It's not clear what you want to do, so you should propose the edit you wish to make here, and we can analyse it. There is no agreement so far.Nishidani (talk) 13:30, 12 December 2017 (UTC)

Here it is. This follows the framing that we were discussing above:

Im Tirtzu (Hebrew: אם תרצו, lit. 'If you will it') is a Zionist non-governmental organization based in Israel. Its name is derived from an epigraph appended to the frontespiece of Theodor Herzl's novel Altneuland, 'if you wish it, it is no fairy-tale,' rendered into modern Hebrew in Nahum Sokolow's translation in 1903, as Im tirtzu ein zo agadah. ("If you will it, it is no dream.")

The organization's stated mission is to "strengthen and advance the values of Zionism in Israel" and to combat the "campaign of de-legitimization against the State of Israel and to [provide] responses to Post-Zionist and Anti-Zionist phenomena."

Im Tirtzu operates fifteen branches at universities and colleges throughout the country and runs the largest Zionist academic extra-curricular program in Israel. Im Tirtzu is mostly known for its campaigns against the New Israel Fund, foreign government-funded NGOs, and alleged bias in university curriculum.

Some have criticized Im Tirtzu's tactics as targeting human rights organizations and have maintained that it bears similarities to fascist groups, while others have labelled it an important Zionist movement. Im Tirtzu has received wide support from the Israeli government.PasterofMuppets (talk) 10:21, 17 December 2017 (UTC)

The following is the text as it now stands. Editors should scrutinize both, and comment of the varying merits:

Im Tirtzu (Hebrew: אם תרצו, lit. 'If you will it') is a Zionist non-governmental organization based in Israel. Its name is derived from an epigraph appended to the frontespiece of Theodor Herzl's novel Altneuland, 'if you wish it, it is no fairy-tale,' rendered into modern Hebrew in Nahum Sokolow's translation in 1903, as Im tirtzu ein zo agadah. ("If you will it, it is no dream.")

On its establishment in 2006, the organization stated that its mission was to renew "Zionist discourse, Zionist thinking and Zionist ideology to ensure the future of the Jewish nation and the State of Israel." Claiming to "strengthen and advance the values of Zionism in Israel", it sees itself as dedicated to combating a "campaign of de-legitimization against the State of Israel and to [provide] responses to Post-Zionist and Anti-Zionist phenomena". Im Tirtzu is mostly known for its campaigns against the New Israel Fund, foreign government-funded NGOs, and alleged bias in the curricula of Israeli universities. According to critics, Im Tirtzu's strategies focus on delegitimizing Israeli left and human-rights groups and driving a wedge between them and their funding sources.

Im Tirtzu operates fifteen branches at universities and colleges throughout the country and runs the largest Zionist academic extra-curricular program in Israel. Some have maintained that Im Tirtzu bears similarities to fascist groups, and others have labelled it an important Zionist movement. Im Tirtzu has received wide support from the Israeli government.

• The problems therefore begin with paragraph 2.

(PoM)The organization's stated mission is to "strengthen and advance the values of Zionism in Israel" and to combat the "campaign of de-legitimization against the State of Israel and to [provide] responses to Post-Zionist and Anti-Zionist phenomena."

(B, adjusted per talk below)Established in 2006, the organization stated that its mission was to renew "Zionist discourse, Zionist thinking and Zionist ideology to ensure the future of the Jewish nation and the State of Israel. It sees itself as dedicated to combating a "campaign of de-legitimization against the State of Israel and to [provide] responses to Post-Zionist and Anti-Zionist phenomena".

As exhaustively argued, there is no reason why you wish to replace the documented fact that the stated mission of the organization, from 2006 to this day, namely renewing ' "Zionist discourse, Zionist thinking and Zionist ideology to ensure the future of the Jewish nation and the State of Israel," is better put as to "strengthen and advance the values of Zionism in Israel".

Your suggested abbreviation makes out Im Tirtzu aims to strengthen Zionism in Israel. Yet the sourced mission statement is far larger in its implications, embracing 'The Jewish nation' (reaching out to promote an ideology concerning Jews everywhere),etc. Your rewrite would have it Im Tirtzu's just a matter of activism within Israel, having nothing to do with 'abroad', be that the diaspora or the occupied territories. In short, it doesn't cover IT's stated mission.Nishidani (talk) 12:19, 17 December 2017 (UTC)

(b) taking out ' it sees itself as dedicated to combating a "campaign of de-legitimization against the State of Israel' so that everything in Im Tirtzu's sights is branded as objectively 'delegitimization of Israel' is again, to put it over that human rights movements or critics delegitimize Israel, which is crap.Nishidani (talk) 13:19, 17 December 2017 (UTC)

Alright alright, for the sake of moving on - how about replacing the second paragraph with this:

Established in 2006, the organization stated that its mission was to renew "Zionist discourse, Zionist thinking and Zionist ideology to ensure the future of the Jewish nation and the State of Israel."

I prefer to just have just the above sentence and not both the above sentence + "The organization's stated mission..." because it is just too long. How does that sound? PasterofMuppets (talk) 15:32, 17 December 2017 (UTC)

Accepted. Moving on, I have taken out 'Claiming to "strengthen and advance the values of Zionism in Israel", as reduplicative. So far so good.Nishidani (talk) 15:53, 17 December 2017 (UTC)

Sound good, so we are good with the rest?

And I just wanted to make a point - really with all due respect and asking your thoughts, but in general when someone makes an edit to an existing text (especially one that hasn't been changed in a long time), the onus of justifying the edit and achieving consensus is on him/her. But here it seems that you have made significant changes to the lead, and yet the onus of achieving consensus somehow has fallen on those who don't wish those changes to occur. Meaning, despite that myself and Icewhiz believe that it should be a certain way as it was, somehow we are the ones that need to justify ourselves to you who made the change in the first place. Now, I am all for discussion as we are having now, but it seems a bit ironic how this has somehow flip-flopped. PasterofMuppets (talk) 10:12, 18 December 2017 (UTC)

Not quite. You made some controversial edits to the lead, eliding sources, and the rewrite was in favour of the Im Tirtzu claim, described as objective. You were reverted by Malik Shabazz, and I intervened to improve the sourcing. Icewhiz backed you, but it was a 2/2 split. We are all obliged to thrash this out, which is what we are doing.

So far we have the first para and the first part of para 2 agreed on. So we have to proceed, sentence by sentenced, to finish the review towards some consensus. The next sentence you question runs:

It sees itself as dedicated to combating a "campaign of de-legitimization against the State of Israel and to [provide] responses to Post-Zionist and Anti-Zionist phenomena".<ref name="Im Tirtzu movement" /

What is wrong with that, in your view. 'It sees itself..' seems obligatory.Nishidani (talk) 11:02, 18 December 2017 (UTC)

@PasterofMuppets: - I suggest you be WP:BOLD and make an edit - the discussion here has become quite long-winded, and we are agreed there are significant issues in the current, recently changed, lede.Icewhiz (talk) 11:11, 18 December 2017 (UTC)

That is an openb invitation to edit-war in the midst of a consensus-forming process. And therefore quite inappropriate, as the consequence, reintroducing a revert battle, is foreseeable, with you, by your suggestion, simply endorsing PoM's whatever text whatever. You should know better.Nishidani (talk) 11:24, 18 December 2017 (UTC)

I agree that this has become quite long-winded (and mentally exhausting), but at least now we agree that there are issues with the new lead that need to be fixed. Just for the sake of speeding up this process, I think the next sentences should be as follows:

A large portion of its activities are dedicated to what it sees as a "campaign of de-legitimization against the State of Israel and to [provide] responses to Post-Zionist and Anti-Zionist phenomena." (1. 'it sees itself' seemed like odd working to me so I changed it to 'what it sees as'; 2. the quote here was taken from this source, because I just checked what is sourced now and it's something else completely. I think it was an old mistake that was never noticed)

Im Tirtzu operates fifteen branches at universities and colleges throughout the country and runs the largest Zionist academic extra-curricular program in Israel. Im Tirtzu is mostly known for its campaigns against the New Israel Fund, foreign government-funded NGOs, and alleged bias in university curriculum.

Some have criticized Im Tirtzu's tactics as targeting human rights organizations and have maintained that it bears similarities to fascist groups, while others have praised its work and labelled it an important Zionist movement. Im Tirtzu has received wide support from the Israeli government.

Thoughts? PasterofMuppets (talk) 12:21, 19 December 2017 (UTC)