Jump to content

Talk:New Israel Fund/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1

Discussion moved here from my talk page

Sean.hoyland - talk 08:57, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

An exchange of accusations on a blog is not relevant to this article, no matter who wrote the blogs. There is plenty of the same in mainstream sources that address the issue properly and to the point, without getting into silly mud-slinging as in the material I have deleted, which is definitely WP:UNDUE. The article is developing nicely, but this stuff ruins it.--Gilabrand (talk) 08:30, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

I kind of agree but then we have to drop the Ma'ariv material sourced from the Pollak blog. We have to comply with NPOV or have nothing at all. The real problem is that I haven't really had time to look for sensible sourcing as it's a developing story hence the non-ideal sourcing. To be honest I was surprised the article wasn't swarming with people. What I thought was useful about the blogs was that they put the Ma'ariv article into context a bit and showed that it is quite notable given that the GPO are distributing it. This is clearly going to get a lot more coverage so I'm not sure what the best thing to is right now. We can't just present one side of the debate and plan to balance it with better sources later. That isn't an option. The article is in a pretty horrible state and your efforts to remove the near copyvio from NIF fluff help. Sean.hoyland - talk 08:40, 8 February 2010 (UTC)
Actually I didn't even want to cover this issue yet. It's just that another editor inserted something based on the Ma'ariv piece in Pollak's blog and I didn't want to be impolite by just deleting it. It sort of snowballed from there...I only have myself to blame. Sean.hoyland - talk 08:46, 8 February 2010 (UTC)
I think the focus should be on getting some basic factual material about the organization into the article from their mid year report. I started but I'm easily distracted. Perhaps someone else can pick it up. Sean.hoyland - talk 09:15, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

Seriously, This is NPOV? Look at the "controversy" section, every single "allegation" is concluded with the NIF explaining how things really are. --132.68.204.194 (talk) 21:27, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

It is obviously essential to note NIF's response to criticisms. Zerotalk 00:59, 9 July 2010 (UTC)
NPOV compliance requires that we either include the response to criticism or exclude the criticism altogether. We should also include praise if we are to include criticism so that we have a balanced picture of NIF's reception history. I guess the article isn't NPOV in the sense that an WP:UNDUE amount of article space is given over to criticism from organizations with fringe/minority views of NIF. Sean.hoyland - talk 01:17, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

Close paraphrasing

Close paraphrasing is another form of copyright violation. Please, if you cannot be bothered to put a news story into your own words, don't bother adding it. — Malik Shabazz Talk/Stalk 05:09, 9 April 2011 (UTC)

ZOA/Mossowa allegations

Check the source: http://www.jpost.com/Opinion/Op-EdContributors/Article.aspx?id=51392. This is not WP:IRS. Also the quote in the Wikipedia entry is not actually the words of NIF or of Mossowa or the Future Visions document. And once you correct for that, it seems like the whole section should be removed. Where's the beef beyond this rant of an op-ed? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Perplexed566 (talk • contribs) 20:19, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

It seems to me that an opinion column by the ZOA would be notable criticism. This, however, is by the "president of the Zionist Organization of America, Greater Philadelphia District". Is that a significant leadership position within ZOA? Does she speak for the group? Is her criticism notable criticism?
I think not. I think we give the column too much weight by including it in the article. Unless somebody can find notable criticism related to the funding of the Mossawa Center, I think the paragraph should go. — Malik Shabazz Talk/Stalk 21:01, 3 November 2011 (UTC)
[maybe this http://www.zoa.org/sitedocuments/pressrelease_view.asp?pressreleaseID=1970]: ZOA National President Morton A. Klein said, “It is clearer than ever that the New Israel Fund pursues an anti-Israel, anti-Zionist agenda of funding and supporting numerous organizations that are working hard to demonize Israel in the international arena and also working diligently within Israel to hamper Israel’s ability to defend its citizens and even to maintain itself as a Jewish state. Now it is even clearer than before that NIF does not exclude from funding groups that work for boycotting, divesting from and promoting the imposition of sanctions upon Israel. It says explicitly that it will give to groups doing these things as long as BDS is not their principle focus or area of activism – something that will be cold comfort for Israel, which is battling a hostile campaign of delegitimization. Put simply, NIF has shown it is on the side of Israel’s delegitimizers, not Israel.
“NIF raises money from American Jewry to support Israeli causes but often directs its funds to groups and individuals hostile to Israel’s existence. If NIF were honestly a pro-Israel organization, it would exclude groups that seek to boycott, divest from or promote imposing sanctions upon, Israel.
“Unfortunately, NIF misleads many sincere, liberal supporters of Israel into thinking that, in supporting NIF, they are supporting Israel, but this isn’t true. American Jews need to be aware of the actual causes that the NIF have been lavishly funding for years and might want to reconsider their support in light of these revelations. Those that the NIF support frequently have a very different agenda from the goal of building up and strengthening Israel as a Jewish, democratic state.” Soosim (talk) 11:41, 6 November 2011 (UTC)
I can't find any indication that ZOA's press release was ever published elsewhere, which is usually the threshold for adding criticism to an article. Here is a letter to the editor from Klein, as president of ZOA, that makes similar criticism. — Malik Shabazz Talk/Stalk 18:11, 6 November 2011 (UTC)
Again, there's nothing there about the Mossowa center or the "Future Visions" document. --Perplexed566 (talk) 14:55, 7 November 2011 (UTC)
Also, Haaretz published a piece claiming that these accusations were not made in good faith. [1]
"these organizations comprised only a miniscule part of the NIF’s activities, as everyone knows, including, I suspect, the NIF’s accusers..."
Given that charge from an independent party, shouldn't we hold the ZOA allegation to a higher standard? --Perplexed566 (talk) 15:01, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

2010 NIF funding of organizations which participate in some sort of BDS

zero - i am surprised that you call it a "phony report." why would you do that? here is the 2010 NIF financial report for all to see. it shows exactly what was reported on in the liebler piece. while i wouldn't quote the financial report directly since that goes towards original research, i certainly can quote the jpost reporting of it.

second issue: if "3 of the 4" organizations listed are participating in bds or not. it is referred to as 'anti-israel' in the article. if you wish, i can amend the entry to make it more clear.

(and one more thing - calling liebler's remarks a 'diatribe' could be interpreted as POV - maybe try a a more NPOV).

and malik - waiting to hear back from you about the use of the word 'report' in this section. was that what was bothering you? thanks, Soosim (talk) 12:25, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

BDS is a particular type of activity, it is not a general description of any activity that Leibler considers anti-Israeli. Many people who you would consider pro-Palestinian do not even agree with the BDS approach. In Leibler's article, only one of the four organizations you mention is accused of BDS activity. Moreover, Isi Leibler is not a third party source but a veteran official activist; it is not ok to quote him without identifying him. Zerotalk 12:52, 31 October 2011 (UTC)
Liebler doesn't "report", he writes opinion columns—which are never WP:RS with respect to facts. You've been around long enough to know that. — Malik Shabazz Talk/Stalk 15:48, 31 October 2011 (UTC)
ok, will change 'report' and only include the org in question, thanks for the advice. Soosim (talk) 16:00, 10 November 2011 (UTC)
I don't think you understand. Liebler doesn't "report" in the JPost, he doesn't "write" in the JPost; he offers his opinion there. If you want to write that in his opinion, NIF was funding NGOs involved with BDS in 2010, go ahead. You may not use his column as a source of fact. If you disagree, bring the matter to WP:RS/N. — Malik Shabazz Talk/Stalk 17:26, 10 November 2011 (UTC)
i understand quite well. you are not accepting a reliable source. so be it. i will use your wording (for now), even though you can see quite clearly from the financial report source that it is indeed the case.... silly, malik, silly. Soosim (talk) 18:44, 10 November 2011 (UTC)
I don't see how a 2010 financial report is really relevant. We have documented earlier in the section that the CWP got caught off in May 2011. Liebler's opinion, even backed up by financials, is besides the point. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Perplexed566 (talk • contribs) 19:44, 11 November 2011 (UTC)
I don't see where the financial report indicates that Coalition of Women for Peace is an advocate of BDS. I also think the paragraph should go. — Malik Shabazz Talk/Stalk 19:53, 11 November 2011 (UTC)

"listed as a 'foreign corporation'"

According to the article:

... in Israel [the New Israel Fund] is listed as a "foreign corporation" there, according to the Israel Registrar of Companies.[2][3]
  1. What makes the first source a reliable source?
  2. Can somebody with superior Hebrew skills verify whether the second source says any such thing?

Thank you. — Malik Shabazz Talk/Stalk 20:47, 11 December 2011 (UTC)

The second one has an English version which doesn't seem to have that information. But I don't know what that site is and can't say if it is reliable or not. Most of the subpages (both in Hebrew and English) are empty or incomplete, so I'm dubious. Zerotalk 22:47, 11 December 2011 (UTC)
Both sources are saying חברת חו"ל: "foreign company", "foreign corporation" or "overseas company". Please see google translated versions: [4], [5] --ElComandanteChe (talk) 20:31, 12 December 2011 (UTC)
Thanks. I missed the phrase in the second source. I'm still not sure that either source is a reliable source. — Malik Shabazz Talk/Stalk 20:40, 12 December 2011 (UTC)
And the official registrar record (google translated) says the same. The addres has an IP instead of domain name, but that's how the registrar database is linked from justice.gov.il site, which, I guess, makes it official. --ElComandanteChe (talk) 20:42, 12 December 2011 (UTC)
That's great. Thank you. — Malik Shabazz Talk/Stalk 20:52, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

Now that we've got the sourcing straightened out, I have another question. What is the significance of this factoid? Are other US-based NGOs listed as "foreign companies" in Israel, or is that something unique about NIF? In other words, why does it belong in the article? — Malik Shabazz Talk/Stalk 21:36, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

May be there is nothing unique or interesting about that, but may be we shall keep it per wp:preserve or something like that. I guess this piece of information has something to do with the fund legal status and is or will somehow become important, taking into account the recent crackdown attempts on foreign NGOs in Israel. In a short, I think we shall keep it for the sake of completeness, but will not object removal if other editors feel the opposite. --ElComandanteChe (talk) 22:18, 13 December 2011 (UTC)
Looking deeper into the registrar database, I found another record saying "association deleted". Since the the previous record says the last financial report is for 1980, we can only guess if any of these is still valid, or may be NIF has registered as company in 1980, re-registered as association in 1988 and then cancelled the registration at some point. Conclusion: 1) no solid info here, 2) registrar website sucks, 3) let's delete it from the article. --ElComandanteChe (talk) 23:07, 13 December 2011 (UTC)
By the way, according to hewiki, NIF has cancelled its registration in Israel in 1995. --ElComandanteChe (talk)
actually, the NIF israeli registration as a foreign entity is still active. the registrar shows that. this is important info in that it is indeed very unique (that a foreign NGO runs an account here under the 'guise' of a non-profit, but is actually a corporation. this usually only happens - and happens frequently - in the same country of registration.). so, that is the significance of that factoid. therefore, i say leave it in. (you could even put in the oppposing info - it opened in 1980, last filed in 1980, closed in 1995 and closed in 1998, but is still active according to, etc.). Soosim (talk) 09:09, 16 December 2011 (UTC)
Yeah, this is probably correct, but we have no solid source saying it, only suggestions and particles of information. I don't care if we keep or delete "this factoid", but in the first case it shall be carefully worded to avoid OR. --ElComandanteChe (talk) 14:07, 16 December 2011 (UTC)
Malik, thanks for pointing me to the discussion. It's peculiar that there is a discussion here in the first place about adding facts (or as the attempt to dimish it here - factoid) to this article. This information is from a primary source (quite reliable though). For one of us to define it would be OR. Removing it is a case of WP:IDONTLIKE. --Shuki (talk) 18:54, 17 December 2011 (UTC)
No, removing it is an appropriate application of WP:UNDUE and WP:KITCHENSINK. Not every factoid that can be sourced belongs in an encyclopedia article. — Malik Shabazz Talk/Stalk 22:02, 17 December 2011 (UTC)

Gentlemen, this is being discussed for a week, let's try to close it this way or another, for WP:THIS and WP:THAT are starting to flow in the air which normally is a signal of no one is willing to compromise. Soosim and Shuki want it in, Malik wants it out, and I think it's ok both ways. Malik, can you live with this info(id) in the article and declare a happy harmonic consensus? --ElComandanteChe (talk) 22:12, 17 December 2011 (UTC)

I can live with it in the article if somebody can (a) explain what it means and (b) show that it's something unusual about NIF. Otherwise, it's nothing but well-poisoning. — Malik Shabazz Talk/Stalk 22:20, 17 December 2011 (UTC)
Just out of curiosity, if you have time to explain, why this is a well-poisoning? --ElComandanteChe (talk) 22:29, 17 December 2011 (UTC)
The New Israel Fund is a not-for-profit organization. In American English, a corporation is a profit-seeking enterprise. Calling NIF a foreign corporation is a sneaky way of casting doubt on what they do. In the context of that sentence, it sends a clear message: "They call themselves a not-for-profit, but we in Israel know they're not." — Malik Shabazz Talk/Stalk 02:32, 18 December 2011 (UTC)
Baloney. Check out Corporation for Public Broadcasting — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.204.165.25 (talk) 16:02, 18 December 2011 (UTC)
Malik, I hear a thick amount of OR in your attitude on this fact. I'm sure you know that in the US, a 'foreign agent' does not mean 'spy'. Since the NIF is not under any special restrictions in Israel, you should AGF that this is a common legal distinction and move on. --Shuki (talk) 06:17, 18 December 2011 (UTC)
Malik, you may be right, but I don't believe any reasonable reader will understand it this way. Anyway, we'd better to use the most recent record, where NIF appears as "עמותה" (association, fellowship), which lacks any commercial connotation. Will that be ok with everyone here? --ElComandanteChe (talk) 21:25, 18 December 2011 (UTC)
Shuki, OR is a concept that applies to articles, not Talk pages.
Che, your suggestion is fine with me. — Malik Shabazz Talk/Stalk 01:16, 19 December 2011 (UTC)
That information is fine as well but does not solve Malik's insistence to remove the other historical fact that IDONTLIKE. --Shuki (talk) 05:53, 19 December 2011 (UTC)
che - not really. i have reviewed all the ministry of justice files. if you look carefully, there are two different registrations. i think we need to list both. a) registered as a foreign corporation in 1980, and then registered as a non-profit in 1988 since which this file has been closed, but not the foreign corporation one. i am happy to call the NIF and ask.... (i know, OR, but at least we will have an idea of what this means, instead of guessing). Soosim (talk) 06:20, 19 December 2011 (UTC)
The 'factoid' is included as 'matter of fact' in the HE version and confirmed in a 2011 Maariv article written by Kalman Libeskind which he leads off with 'despite the common impression, the New Israel Fund is an American company, that operates through Shatil.' I think there is a lot in that Maariv article that can add good context to this article. --Shuki (talk) 06:50, 19 December 2011 (UTC)
That "article" is an editorial blog that doesn't qualify as a WP:RS under WP:NEWSBLOG. — Malik Shabazz Talk/Stalk 03:41, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

Apartheid poll

Soosim, what does the poll have to do with the New Israel Fund?

The sources don't connect the NIF to the controversy, which seems to be based on how the questions were worded and how the results were summarized by Haaretz. Even the text you wrote about the poll says that the group that sponsored the poll was independent and not connected to the NIF.

I think this is a case of over-reach. This is a section for criticism or controversies involving the NIF, not those unrelated to it. — Malik Shabazz Talk/Stalk 03:28, 9 November 2012 (UTC)

i appreciate your thoughts, but the NIF was directly named in many RS and then had to deal with the "backlash" of how one RS (haaretz and its writer gidon levy) chose to spin it. the NIF issued statements, and others have commented on it as well. Soosim (talk) 06:29, 9 November 2012 (UTC)
Haaretz withdrew NIF's name from the web version of the article, that is, it corrected a factual error by removing the mention of NIF from the article. Show me a reliable source that discusses NIF's involvement, except to say that NIF "denies" involvement. Of course it denies involvement—it wasn't involved! — Malik Shabazz Talk/Stalk 03:05, 10 November 2012 (UTC)

Bias

This article seems to me as extremely bias and filled with irrelevant, unreferenced and sometimes incorrect data. I've noticed most of the recent changes were made by an NIF IP which might explain some of this.
The article is also missing information about funding, other information about controversies and external links. דני-ויקי (talk) 15:42, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

Seems like most of the article is a re-hashing of blog posts or op-eds critical of the group.

It needs more info on what the group does/ has done. --Perplexed566 (talk) 21:57, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

The section on criticisms illustrates the bias of this article. It consists of a statement of criticism followed by a lengthy rebuttal of the criticism. In addition, the rebuttal is bolstered with apt quotes and illustrations.

If the narrative were FACT-based, it would be more impartial.

This article needs major revision. [ssalb1] — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ssalb1 (talk • contribs) 04:17, 26 October 2012 (UTC)

I disagree. Over half the article is taken up by the criticism section. With such a extensive criticism section it is right that rebuttals to the criticism is also fully explained where it has been published in RS. Dlv999 (talk) 08:16, 26 October 2012 (UTC)
dlv - i am quite shocked that you reverted my editing. i did nothing to change anything said by anyone. all content was there. i simply did copy editing. i will try again, and if there is a problem, please discuss it here. really. Soosim (talk) 08:58, 26 October 2012 (UTC)
I don't understand the reason for gutting substantive points that are supported by RS. I don't think a justification has been established to trim rebuttal comments while leaving the criticism in full. If you were working through the section impartially trimming it then I wouldn't have a problem, but it seems you are trimming only one particular viewpoint, I think first you must establish that this viewpoint is overrepresented in the article. Dlv999 (talk) 09:22, 26 October 2012 (UTC)
obviously you don't understand. the material is very very repetitive and repeats itself. why not make it more readable. but you know what, there's the 'methinks the lady protests too much' theory which says that the more rebuttals the NIF need the more suspicious that something is indeed going on. but i do think that wikipedia the encyclopedia should be made readable. nothing i took out changed the content at all. at all. (ooops, being repetitive again.). and yes, i know: The lady doth protest too much, methinks. Soosim (talk) 11:23, 26 October 2012 (UTC)
If anyone is protesting too much its NGO Monitor and Im Tirtzu. In any case, your edit summary stated: "too much rebuttal in criticism section!" and later "we will need to add a sentence or two to the ngo monitor criticism". I don't think that case has been made in talk, which is why I reverted. The article contains an extensive criticism section, taking up something like half the article body -where all the various criticisms are explained at length. I think in this context it is balanced and appropriate to also explain the opposite viewpoint that has been published in RS. As such I appose any selective trimming of the criticism section. I would also say that in my view substantive points supported by RS were removed not merely repetitions. Dlv999 (talk) 12:51, 26 October 2012 (UTC)

Im Tirtzu

I want to re-open this question. I was just looking at the extensive section in the article about Im Tirtzu, and it seems to me to be giving Undo Weight to the topic. We're spending about a third of the article describing the charges and the de-bunking of the charges. All of it seems tangential to NIF itself. I recently tried to make a small edit to give background about the source of the criticism (the fact that leading political scientists consider Im Tirtzu to be a fascist organization). That edit was reversed, and perhaps wisely -- it's not about NIF. But it begs the question: why are we spending all this space on this tangent? And if you agree with me that we shouldn't be devoting so much space to this, what do we do about it? Perplexed566 (talk) 15:43, 31 May 2013 (UTC)

I agree that we're giving undue weight to the Im Tirtzu incident. That sometimes happens when an event is in the news: everybody tries to get the latest information into the article, resulting in this sort of bloat. Would you care to make the section more concise? — Malik Shabazz Talk/Stalk 21:39, 31 May 2013 (UTC)
Ok. I've been waiting to see if anybody else chimes in about this before I give it a whirl. If there are no other comments I'll get to it in the next few days.Perplexed566 (talk) 15:10, 3 June 2013 (UTC)
I had a few minutes and thinned it out. Feedback?--Perplexed566 (talk) 14:04, 4 June 2013 (UTC)
Looks good. I made a few minor changes, the most significant of which was changing the description of Im Tirtzu back from "controversial group" to "Zionist extra-parliamentary group". In Israel, every group—including New Israel Fund—seems to be controversial to somebody, so describing the group as "controversial" doesn't really say very much about them. If you don't like my change, consider removing the description altogether; Im Tirtzu has a Wikipedia article for readers who want to learn more about the group. — Malik Shabazz Talk/Stalk 02:32, 5 June 2013 (UTC)
Yeah. Something seems wrong about the description as "Zionist." Despite their appropriation of Herzl's image and some quotes, I don't think they would classify as classical Zionists. Perhaps neo-Zionists, but that would be too much of a digression and I'd have to hunt for those sources (It's not OR -- I'm not that smart... I've seen that analysis somewhere). I also don't think that "Zionist" (or not) is the most significant thing about them. They're agitators. They seek out conflict to push their views. They're trying to redefine who is in and who is out in terms of being full-fledged members of the Israeli nation state. They're in court trying to prove that they're not fascists (and the evidence submitted to the court that they are fascists is really quite dramatic). Calling them "controversial" seemed to be the most neutral way of phrasing that. But I see your point that it might go beyond being a neutral term to being an utterly generic term. I'll take it out. Perplexed566 (talk) 14:57, 6 June 2013 (UTC)

Deletion of wikileaks, etc

How is this content non-notable when it has coverage in mainstream sources? It conforms to WP:GNG guidelines for notability. Whether you (or I) think it is nonsense is surely not relevant to whether it should be on the article (any interested readers will read the sources and the discussions for themselves). We already had this issue a few weeks ago when Chemi Shalev's response to the criticisms was placed confusingly at the beginning of the section, because the section listing the criticisms that he was actually responding to had been edited out. The fact that Chemi Shalev is writing articles on those criticisms is an indication that they are notable enough to be included.

The Wikileaks sentence was considered notable enough for the New Israel Fund to release a very official statement about it, and the source itself (US diplomatic cables released by Wikileaks) has plenty of coverage. Perhaps it is undue because it was only a single statement, but I only added a single sentence on it in the article. Even this week, years later, that statement from Wikileaks is being mentioned during Knesset interior committees (albeit by Im Tirtzu), which are reported by mainstream news sources.

In the second sub-section, the criticisms (by the group NGO-monitor) were considered notable enough to prompt an op-ed by two former directors of the New Israel Fund. If the criticisms are notable enough for former directors to write articles responding to them, they warrant at least a sentence on here. They got a lot of mainstream media coverage, and the criticisms generated responses in notable sources (e.g. being mentioned by the NIF grant director in article she writes for Maariv).

Secondly, why revert all my edits at once? Some of them are making the section (that is being kept after the reversion) more clear, and introducing more neutral wording, and that was done in separate edits. Avaya1 (talk) 05:01, 22 January 2014 (UTC)

Please review the history of the article. The Wikileaks material had been removed already, as had the NGO Monitor material; there is a discussion higher up on this page about the undue weight being given to Im Tirzu.
Also, please review your 0RR restriction, which does not permit you to restore material that other editors have deleted before building consensus on the article's Talk page. — Malik Shabazz Talk/Stalk 18:03, 22 January 2014 (UTC)
I made a mistake with the re-introduction of material that violates the 0RR. Aside from that, you haven't answered the points above. The material was removed, with a vague mention above about it being undue, but no discussion. However, a large proportion of the mainstream media coverage of this organization discusses that material. This is an organization centered on Israel, and almost the majority of the Israeli media coverage is based around that material (even if the coverage is sensationalism, it touches on an issue with notable political and legal implications in Israel, with NGO laws currently proposed). And material such as the wikileaks quote is being mentioned years later during Knesset committees and evoking editorial responses from the directors of the organization (this is surely more than enough justification for including it - most of the content in this article, has far less notability than that). So it doesn't look to be undue to include a section about it -- feel free to explain your reasoning.
You also reverted a lot of changes which have nothing to do with the re-introduction of those two sections. Avaya1 (talk) 02:54, 4 February 2014 (UTC)


Still waiting for a reply Avaya1 (talk) 21:52, 10 September 2014 (UTC)


RfC: Can we include press coverage on Wikileaks which includes Knesset discussions of the organization

The mainstream press-coverage of this organization in Israel and abroad includes substantial coverage of Wikileaks as well as Knesset discussions of the group. Can we include this material in the article? Avaya1 (talk) 15:15, 12 September 2014 (UTC)

  • comment This RFC would be more productive and valuable if you start over again with a more specific proposal. Which specific text do you propose for the article, and what sources back that text. Gaijin42 (talk) 01:04, 15 September 2014 (UTC)
Please comment below. Avaya1 (talk) 19:59, 22 September 2014 (UTC)

RfC: Can we include press coverage on Wikileaks and criticism by NGO monitor

Official Knesset press releases and Maariv coverage are sufficient to support the disputed material. - Cwobeel (talk) 21:12, 19 October 2014 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The mainstream press-coverage of this organization in Israel and abroad includes substantial coverage of Wikileaks as well as Knesset discussions of the group, including criticisms by NGO monitor. Can we include this material (quoted below) in the article? And if not, why not? I refer to the to this edit to remove the two subsections. Avaya1 (talk) 17:57, 22 September 2014 (UTC)

From Wikipedia:Requests for comment: "Statement should be neutral and brief". Crying 'censorship' is definitely not neutral - and actually does nothing to establish the encyclopaedic merits of the material concerned. AndyTheGrump (talk) 20:05, 22 September 2014 (UTC)
Do I have resubmit this RFC for a third time? If you want to nitpick about wording, then please answer the first RFC above. Avaya1 (talk) 22:50, 22 September 2014 (UTC)
Also, per the comment in the previous RFC, you did not make any specific suggestion of sources or content to include, making evaluation of your request difficult, if not impossible. Gaijin42 (talk) 20:22, 22 September 2014 (UTC)
The edit is linked in the opening paragraph. I refer to this edit to remove the two subsections. To make it clearer I can copy my discussion that accompanied the edit, which includes supporting sources for the sections.

The Wikileaks sentence was considered notable enough for the New Israel Fund to release an official statement about it, and the source itself (US diplomatic cables released by Wikileaks) has plenty of coverage. Perhaps it is undue because it was only a single statement, but I only added a single sentence on it in the article. Even years later, that statement from Wikileaks is being mentioned during Knesset interior committees which are reported by mainstream news sources. In the second sub-section, the criticisms (by the group NGO-monitor) were considered notable enough to prompt an op-ed by two former directors of the New Israel Fund. If the criticisms are notable enough for former directors to write articles responding to them, I argue that they warrant at least a sentence on here. They got a lot of mainstream media coverage, and the criticisms generated responses in notable sources (e.g. being mentioned by the NIF grant director in article she writes for Maariv).

Avaya1 (talk) 22:50, 22 September 2014 (UTC)
Whether it is a fringe-group, the claims are given a lot of coverage in non-fringe sources (mainstream media) and in Knesset committees (so a non-fringe committee). Avaya1 (talk) 18:37, 24 September 2014 (UTC)
@Avaya1 and Malik Shabazz: - re "Whether it is a fringe-group, the claims are given a lot of coverage in non-fringe sources" - I'd tend to agree. Though I'd probably characterize the coverage as "some" rather than "a lot". Malik may well be right that the initial addition of the material was POV pushing from a "fringe group", but the material does appear to have support in non-fringe sources. I don't feel strongly about it, but at the moment I'd weak support inclusion of the material in question. NickCT (talk) 19:32, 24 September 2014 (UTC)
I'm changing my opinion here. Rationale below. NickCT (talk) 14:48, 25 September 2014 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

There have been dozens of articles on New Israel over the last few months condemning them. Are we free to add them? criticism has been non stop from Likud, from Israel's economic minister and from voices in america including president clinton former advisor. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 201.193.63.2 (talk) 23:40, 19 March 2015 (UTC)

RfC: New Israel Fund - Whitewash of Criticism

New Israel Fund has come under intense scrutiny in recent months. Will there be disagreement on adding said criticism of Likud Party and senior government officials in Israel. Richie1921 (talk) 03:40, 3 April 2015 (UTC)

Yes, there will be disagreement if you continue to use garbage sources such as opinion columns and WND. Please read WP:Identifying reliable sources. — Malik Shabazz Talk/Stalk 03:44, 3 April 2015 (UTC)
Sir, please watch your inappropriate tone and language. If we are citing "garbage sources" then surely you will not challenge the fact that New Israel Fund own website must be removed as a source. Furthermore, noted on opinion and will remove opinion per your comments. Richie1921 (talk) 03:54, 3 April 2015 (UTC)
Added commentary from Israel government officials with multiple sources. The sources for NIF now are largely much less worthy than WND. Please read WP:Identifying reliable sources. Richie1921 (talk) 04:01, 3 April 2015 (UTC)
Actually Richie1921, you removed material cited to opinion pieces and then immediately added material cited to other opinion pieces. I couldn't verify the PLO testifying to any reliable source or see the relevence to the article. -- haminoon (talk) 04:22, 3 April 2015 (UTC)

Sorely Needed Updates

Seems that this page is in major need of a re-write. Will continue to work on it over coming days, weeks and months. Still seems to be missing a central summary, rather jumps from issues to issues - some more detailed than others. 31.168.164.210 (talk) 18:50, 29 August 2015 (UTC)

Responding to POV pushing

I made a number of changes tonight to try to correct for the significant, recent POV pushing. If any of those edits seem to be wrong (or an overreach), please note them here and let's discuss them. Perplexed566 (talk) 03:40, 6 September 2015 (UTC)

Some of my edits have already been reverted. Let me explain some of the specifics here:

Birthright: (1) The JPost article quotes somebody (who is not related to Birthright or Birthright NEXT). This would be more credible if we could find any confirmation from Birthright or Birthright NEXT. Without such a report, we need to write this far more carefully. (2) the source says that Birthright NEXT will no longer work with NIF. I know it may seem like inside baseball (and it probably is), but Birthright and Birthright NEXT are not the same organization. (3) If this is to be included in the article, we would also need to acknowledge the explanation for why Birthright NEXT reportedly changed its approach. Otherwise the reader is likely left with the unfounded impression that Birthright NEXT disagrees with NIF. (I say unfounded not only because it's not in the story but also because I see some overlapping directorate between Birthright, Birthright NEXT, and NIF. That makes me very dubious of this whole story. Don't get me wrong, i see the Jerusalem Post as a RLS. But even a reliable source can make a mistake...)
Likud and the "Boycott." See above section.
Other charges around BDS and the back-and-forth over Im Tirtzu allegations: If we're going to get into every notable person who said something negative or positive about NIF, this article would be ridiculously long. Just because somebody said something, even if that somebody might be important, doesn't make it relevant to an encyclopedic article. what is relevant is what this organization does, has done, and what it's impact has been. There also needs to be some space for the criticism of course, but not a laundry list of slams and counter punches. --Perplexed566 (talk) 04:20, 6 September 2015 (UTC)
This is the approach we discussed (and had previously implemented) as per the Im Tirtzu attacks. See the conversation under "Bias" above in this Talk Page.Perplexed566 (talk) 04:25, 6 September 2015 (UTC)

Rethinking structure of material under "History"

There is a mix of stuff here that doesn't all make sense to me as fitting under the same heading. Broadly speaking, it falls under three categories:

(1) History: The first paragraph. Gender Segregation. Social Justice protests. Response to mosque arson. Torture ban.

(2) NIF's activities: Grantmaking, Law Program, New Initiatives for Democracy,

(3) Other: Birthright, Wikileaks, BDS

I'd like to propose that we divide this into two categories: "History" and "Activities." Since I'm not sure what to do with the items in the third category, I propose they be left in History. Both categories will be re-organized so that the items are in chronological order. Any thoughts on this? Alternative proposals? Perplexed566 (talk) 13:58, 8 September 2015 (UTC)

What to do about the calls to boycott NIF

Over the past week, first an IP address and then AttilaTotalWar have inserted language about calls for the NIF to be boycotted. Here's the latest text inserted in the article:

"The ruling Likud Party of Israel has called the NIF an “anti-Zionist organization,” and said the organization is devoted to harming Israel. Both the Likud and Israel's Education Minister has urged a boycott of NIF due to what the education minister described as "...an anti-Zionist organization that invests all its time and money in harming IDF soldiers and the State of Israel as a Jewish State is involved." [35] [36]"

There are three issues with this text that I think should be discussed on the talk page:

(1) I see some factual issues here, including for instance that the source materials do not show that the Likud "has urged a boycott of NIF" but rather that an anonymous Likud spokesperson said some nasty things about the group. Moreover, it would be the wrong impression to leave a reader with the sense that the Likud is united in disdaining the group when a number of its most senior members (including no less than the President of Israel) have spoken in defense of NIF and/or have defied these calls for a "boycott."

(2) If this text is to be included, it strikes me that it would need to include this context (that Likud and other right-wing figures embrace NIF). It would also need to include some reporting of who else (outside of the Likud) rejected this boycott call. To put it in informal short-hand, it would have to be something like: Some right wing Israeli political figures have said mean things about NIF and have even boycotted the group. Other Israeli leaders -- including representatives of the political right as well as other significant Israeli leaders (including showing some examples) -- have rejected these criticisms, have praised the organization, and refuse to boycott the organization.

(3) Undue Weight: In my analysis -- for whatever it's worth -- this was election-campaign posturing by a few candidates seeking a few headlines. If (as I believe) including this in the article would require adding in context about the electoral context, who took part in the boycott, and who rejected the boycotters, then we'd end up with a very long explanation about what is not a very significant event.

I welcome feedback about whether and, if so, how this should be included in the article. My approach would be to remove it. --Perplexed566 (talk) 13:38, 1 September 2015 (UTC)

President of Israel (Likud) in fact at the end refused to be honored by NIF - and there's surely no example of any right-winger embracing NIF? Even left-wing in Israel is staying away from NIF.
In fact, Breaking the silence - which is closely linked to and funded by NIF - is continuing to be boycotted by the government, well after the election. If anything this article remains VERY pro NIF - and should have significantly more criticism.
31.168.164.210 (talk) 16:53, 2 September 2015 (UTC)
I agree it is undue. I have fixed the factual errors. -- haminoon (talk) 19:58, 2 September 2015 (UTC)
Haimoon -- Thank you for the edits on the factual errors. I think that these charges (if we keep them) need further context, including the fact that no less than President Rivlin defied the "boycott." (Despite the claims of 31.168.164.210, he did. Here's video footage in Hebrew. Plenty of other sources are available if we need further verification: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d4K3q6Qz8Vs&list=PL-Vdol4enWQ520pw03lZlX04vYL_epWmq ). And then there are all those who rallied to support NIF in light of Bennet's call. (Beyond the many political figures, there were also folks like Haaretz publisher Amos Schoken). But it still adds up to WP:FART, and hence I still believe that removing the episode is the wise move.
Also, 31.168.164.210, let's beware of POV pushing. We all have opinions. Just because a person doesn't like NIF doesn't mean this article should be the catalog for every mean thing ever voiced against the organization. In that vein, I don't understand the relevance of how the Israeli government is, or is not, relating to Breaking the Silence. (And I think you are generally right on the facts there, less so vis-a-vis NIF). Arguably, that would be relevant for Breaking the Silence's article.
I intend to take this paragraph out as undue weight. If others disagree, let's continue the conversation here. Perplexed566 (talk) 12:55, 3 September 2015 (UTC)
IP editor(s) have re-added the factual errors twice now without discussing on talk page. -- haminoon (talk) 09:43, 4 September 2015 (UTC)
I do not thin that it is right to take out entire paragraph. The opinion of Israeli leading political party about an Israeli political organization is important issue, certainly not WP:UNDUE.--Tritomex (talk) 17:50, 3 September 2015 (UTC)
The New Israel Fund is a far left wing extremist organization. The Israeli government - and Education Minister saying they are illegimiate is completely relevant. Why not allow the KKK article to be about how great they believe that they are. This piece must be revised to reflect reality - not the NIF version of reality. 31.168.164.210 (talk) 05:59, 4 September 2015 (UTC)
Tritomex: The unfounded assertions of the IP editor aside, part of the question is whether this is in fact "the opinion of Israeli leading political party." On the one hand, we have an unnamed "spokesperson" slamming the group and calling for a boycott. On the other hand, we have the PRESIDENT OF ISRAEL who comes from that same party showing up at the conference that was supposed to be boycotted.Perplexed566 (talk) 13:24, 4 September 2015 (UTC)
In fact Rivlin made sure to note he was not being honored by NIF.

http://www.israelnationalnews.com/News/News.aspx/195836#.VemwiBFViko

Would like to add this article on NIF appearing to testify for the PLO in a landmark NY trial - that should be undeniable source right.

http://observer.com/2015/02/new-israel-fund-should-be-shunned-for-siding-with-terrorists-in-new-york-trial/ http://www.jewishpress.com/news/breaking-news/president-rivlin-denies-he-is-being-honored-by-leftist-new-israel-fund/2015/05/26/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by 31.168.164.210 (talk) 14:54, 4 September 2015 (UTC)

Please, IP editor, let's be firm about the facts: (1) The text you inserted, that this thread is about, has to do with the calls to boycott the NIF-sponsored Haaertz conference. (2) The article from the Jewish Press is about something that happened months later, and where, once again, Rivlin in fact refused to cave to the extremists who wanted him to not show up. (I'm not sure whether the Jewish Press would be a reliable source. I need to look into it a bit more.) But: Nobody can credibly say that Rivlin, the most senior Likud figure in Israel, is boycotting NIF. Hence, it's misleading for the article to include the call for Boycott as if that was some sort of party policy.
NIF testifying for the PLO is a new one for me. I'm dubious. I'd look for other sources. News articles, not opinion. Perplexed566 (talk) 18:45, 4 September 2015 (UTC)
Sir am unconcerned with "what is a new one for you." These are well-sourced articles in major news outlets. You continue to attempt to whitewash criticism of a radical extremist organization. Rivlin is no longer a member of Likud - and is a ceremonial leader of the State. And yes it is a Party policy calling to boycott Likud.

Here are many more sources. Lets not live in an alternative reality: http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340,L-3850957,00.html Danny Danon – likud leader – NIF is anti-Israel

http://www.timesofisrael.com/jewish-home-revives-bill-limiting-foreign-funds-for-left-wing-groups/ Education Minister Naftali Bennett said that the 2015 UN report comes from NIF grantees – and harm Israel worldwide. http://www.nybooks.com/articles/archives/2010/jun/10/failure-american-jewish-establishment/ As Peter Beinart noted, a Knesset member from Likud charged NIF with treason. 31.168.164.210 (talk) 19:44, 4 September 2015 (UTC)

Perplexed566 - no reason to be dubious... NIF themselves admitted it. here is five sources on the subject:

[1] [2] [3] [4] [5]

Here is more mainstream sources. It seems like this is a desire to ignore a radical organization:

http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340,L-3850957,00.html Danny Danon – likud leader – NIF is anti-Israel

http://www.timesofisrael.com/jewish-home-revives-bill-limiting-foreign-funds-for-left-wing-groups/ Education Minister Naftali Bennett said that the 2015 UN report comes from NIF grantees – and harm Israel worldwide. http://www.nybooks.com/articles/archives/2010/jun/10/failure-american-jewish-establishment/ As Peter Beinart noted, a Knesset member from Likud charged NIF with treason.

Please let us not try to whitewash major media coverage 31.168.164.210 (talk) 19:57, 4 September 2015 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ http://www.jpost.com/Opinion/NGO-silence-on-PLO-terror-verdict-392098
  2. ^ http://observer.com/2015/02/new-israel-fund-should-be-shunned-for-siding-with-terrorists-in-new-york-trial/
  3. ^ http://www.nrg.co.il/online/1/ART2/674/588.html
  4. ^ http://www.ngo-monitor.org/article/michael_sfard_ngos_and_government_funding
  5. ^ http://www.nif.org/news-media/press-releases/michael-sfard-condemned-terrorist-attacks-as-crime-against-humanity-statement-from-the-new-israel-fund/

More stories would like to incorporate. The current page is largely marketing materials from NIF website, along with lengthier descriptions of why they are not bad then actual descriptions of criticism. Here are more legit sources to add. https://www.commentarymagazine.com/2010/02/03/exposing-the-new-israel-fund/

http://www.jweekly.com/article/full/41324/the-tiff-over-nif-new-israel-funds-friends-are-a-danger-to-jewish-state/ Leading Israeli journalist for Maariv, large Israeli paper says NIF cooperated with Goldstone Report, and noted it is legitimate to do so - — Preceding unsigned comment added by 31.168.164.210 (talk) 06:03, 5 September 2015 (UTC)

Anon, your edits to this page so far indicate that you have not absorbed the policy WP:NPOV, which is a cornerstone of Wikipedia. It is simply not ok for you to come here and make the article as negative as possible. It is your responsibility to report reliable sources objectively, to seek and insert responses to criticism and not just the criticism, and to avoid writing criticisms in Wikipedia's voice (eg. using "noted" to indicate agreement with an opinion). Zerotalk 10:49, 5 September 2015 (UTC)
Perplexed566 You asserted here few times that Reuven Rivlin is " the most senior Likud figure in Israel" In fact Rivlin is just a Likud member without having any official position that could influence political decissions regarding this political party. He is not part of Likud decision making infrastructure and he does not have any executive function in this party. Unlike the President of the State of Israel, who as I said had no role in Likud party, the Likud spokesperson represent the official political position of biggest political party in Israel.--Tritomex (talk) 09:30, 11 September 2015 (UTC)
I see your point Tritomex. It's a valid distinction. By that logic it seems that the actions of nearly all Likud Knesset members (unless they also happened to be secretary of the party, of something similar) would be irrelevant. That makes some sense to me. At the same time, I'm not really sure that the media is so careful when it attributes titles like "spokesman" to unnamed sources. More to the point, if the Likud "decision making infrastructure" makes a decision, but the most prominent Likud member ignores it, is it really significant? Or does it start to look a lot like the examples at WP:FART? Perplexed566 (talk) 15:48, 11 September 2015 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 6 external links on New Israel Fund. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

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

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

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

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 12:16, 22 March 2016 (UTC)

Claim that NIF was "pivotal in the early establishment of the international anti-Israel boycott"

This claim is being introduced into the article. Currently it is only backed up by primary sources (i.e. op-eds). These op-eds are not by individuals with expertise in the issue. As per the policy, primary sources need to be used rarely, and care must be taken to make sure that we are not introducing novel interpretations. Not every opinion about the organization ever published is worthy of being included in the article. Are there any secondary sources that can help establish notability for this claim and can make sure that we are not engaging in original research by introducing the claim? [[PPX]] (talk) 13:27, 14 October 2016 (UTC)

Origin of the fundings ?

Does someone know where they get their funds from ? 20-30,000,000 us$ per year is a huge amount of money. I didn't see anywhere in the article where it was coming from (maybe I missed it) ?

Pluto2012 (talk) 22:01, 20 July 2017 (UTC)

The donors are listed in PDF documents on their website. [[PPX]] (talk) 15:13, 1 September 2017 (UTC)

Accusations of supporting terrorists

I added a section about accusations against the NIF supporting terrorists, and it was reverted by Zero0000 because "not even the least attempt at balance." Firstly, I reject that assertion. Secondly, I believe you will find that everything I added was properly sourced and reliable. Instead of completely undoing the revision, perhaps it would behoove you to "balance" the section? I think it's important to include especially seeing as these accusations are not a one time thing. If you think otherwise, kindly explain. PasterofMuppets (talk) 18:26, 19 July 2017 (UTC)

Proper sourcing is not enough; anyway Im Tirtzu is not a proper source but a highly unreliable extremist organization. You also need to read up on core policies. WP:NPOV is incumbent on you personally. You can't just add unbalanced material with the assertion that someone else can do the work of balancing it. Zerotalk 19:07, 19 July 2017 (UTC)
The material consisted of three paragraphs: The first presented the latest smears of Im Tirzu, which is only a reliable source about its own opinion (which is to say, not a reliable source for statements about others). The second paragraph was about Adalah and how NIF didn't condemn them. Sorry, but we don't write about what people don't do. (Nothing in Begin's article about him not flying to the moon on Apollo 13, and nothing in Bibi's article about him not denouncing George Zimmerman's shooting of Trayvon Martin.) The third paragraph was about the latest member of Bibi's cabinet to complain about NIF and don't you have anything better to do with your time? — Malik Shabazz Talk/Stalk 01:02, 20 July 2017 (UTC)
Perhaps you are both right, and I should gather more information to create a more general criticism section; I'll work on that. Thanks! And, Malik Shabazz, as per your question of "don't you have anything better to do with your time," that is an interesting question seeing as you commented on a talk page post - that you weren't tagged in - a mere several hours after it was posted.
The way I see it there are a few options: [1] You are friends with Zero0000 who informed you about the post [2] You and Zero0000 are the same person [3] You have nothing better to do with your time and therefore stalk the talk page of the New Israel Fund. I honestly am not sure which one is correct, but you can feel free to enlighten me. PasterofMuppets (talk) 08:45, 20 July 2017 (UTC)
You never heard of watchlists? Zerotalk 08:53, 20 July 2017 (UTC)
I was thinking about writing about this episode: http://www.haaretz.com/israel-news/.premium-1.801671 on the grounds that it's significant because Netanyahu said it. But I'm not sure, in the sense of writing about something that didn't happen (assuming, of course, that Netanyahu got it wrong). Thoughts? [[PPX]] (talk) 17:28, 20 July 2017 (UTC)
Perhaps there are other times that Netanyahu spoke out against the NIF? If I am not mistaken, this is not the first time. I think then it would be more relevant as part of a larger section. And Zero, regarding the watchlists, that would mean the answer to my above question to be #3. Thank you for clearing that up on MShabazz's behalf. 19:32, 20 July 2017 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by PasterofMuppets (talk • contribs)
Perplexed566: In the Israeli context this is a little bit of ephemeral noise. Something similar happens every week and getting it past WP:WEIGHT would be a stretch. Mind you, even though I don't think it belongs at all, adding it without NIF's response would be a major NPOV violation. PasterofMuppets: Personal attacks are a fine way to get blocked, so please keep it up. Zerotalk 20:52, 20 July 2017 (UTC)
NPoV is something that has to be achieved by each of us alone, not by all of us together. When somebody edits wikipedia, he is expected -alone by himself- to look for all points of view on a matter and to introdure all of them as fairly and as accurately as possible. He is not expected just to add those who comply with his own feeling, hoping (or on the contrary, not hoping...) that another editor will come to balance them.
Edits that do not comply with this can be reverted. Pluto2012 (talk) 21:56, 20 July 2017 (UTC)

There have been entire sections added in recent weeks about statements made by Miri Regev and Benjamin Netanyahu. Based on the input above, we chose not to include similar statements. As Zero said, it amounts to "a little bit of ephemeral noise. Something similar happens every week and getting it past WP:WEIGHT would be a stretch." Should that same standard be applied to these additions? [[PPX]] (talk) 15:06, 1 September 2017 (UTC)

P.S. The Regev item was already removed and had been the basis for this section of the talk page. I believe that it should not have been re-inserted without more discussion.[[PPX]] (talk) 15:12, 1 September 2017 (UTC)
Claiming stmts from the Israeli PM and a significant minister lack WEIGHT - is.... perplexing. As far as these are routine stmts (they are on a lower level, not sure that so high up) - the routiness of the condemnation of the NIF should clearly be in the article (e.g. "condemned many times by X,Y,Z" - of course with proper sourcing of such a claim), before removing specific examples. FWIW from what I see (and follow ongoing) - condemnations by low-level people and/or political organizations/think-tanks - is routine (and probably should be in the article a bit more - it much wider than Im Tirzu), whereas condemnations on the ministerial level or the PM level - are far from routine.Icewhiz (talk) 05:34, 6 September 2017 (UTC)
Hmmm... I had the similar impulse: that a well-reported comment by the PM is significant, which is why I earlier proposed writing about a different comment by the PM. At the same time, I took Zero's comment to heart in three sense: (1) The prominence of the messenger is not the only factor to weight. The primary issue, rather, is fair representation of significant viewpoints. (2) There is also the risk that we fall into WP:KITCHENSINK mode. (3) Not everything that Netanyahu says belongs in Wikipedia. I've probably fallen into that trap myself. But WP:NOTADIARY is the policy.
As for comments by "low-level people and/or political organizations/think-tanks" let's be sure that we are citing people who are experts in the field. Remarks by politicians may make news, op-eds by pundits might fill newspapers and Facebook streams, but that's exactly why WP:NOTNEWS exists, to keep us encyclopedic.
With all of that said, I agree that the article could better reflect that this is an organization that is often criticized/slammed/slandered. And I also agree that who is doing the criticism is of encyclopedic value. Can we find some top notch RS's who have published on this (keeping in mind that scholarly sources are better than news accounts)? With all of the strong POVs on this issue, we'd be far better off if we start with good sources that mitigate the need for any synthesis. I know that's a high bar -- and if we need to settle for media accounts, I'm not saying that we rule those out -- but it's the best place to start.
On a less substantive but still important note, WP:ONUS is clear that the content should be removed until consensus is reached. [[PPX]] (talk) 18:10, 6 September 2017 (UTC)
Coverage of the delegitmisation of the NIF is to a large extent in Hebrew, often PRIMARY (covering some itty bitty aspect) or opinion, and almost always highly partisan (with Haaretz supporting NIF, right wing outlets attacking it). Much of it is on social media and blogs and not in proper sources. It is a far left \ right slugfest, with the middle being silent most of the time. I do not think we have to include everything Bibi says on anything, but when he says something on a medium-small org operating in Israel, that is definitely of note. It is well sourced. The low level slugfest is more difficult.Icewhiz (talk) 18:27, 6 September 2017 (UTC)
Actually, Perplexed566, I think the appropriate guidance is WP:Fart. And Icewhiz, you've mistaken attempts to delegitimize the NIF with coverage of the attempts at delegitmization, but I agree that most of that nonsense takes place in Hebrew (but give Caroline Glick her due). — Malik Shabazz Talk/Stalk 02:04, 7 September 2017 (UTC)
Something does not satisfy WP:WEIGHT just because a prime minister says it. Especially when it is the same boring predictable sort of inanity that they say all the time. Zerotalk 12:33, 7 September 2017 (UTC)
Perhaps - but at present we don't cover the "boring predictable sort of inanity that they say all the time" of the NIF being regarded by many Israelis as a negative or even an illegitimate organization (e.g. a poll [6] in which 53% support legislation outlawing the NIF (to 24% opposed, 23% no opinion). The NIF (and variations of its name, usually retaining "fund") has become a recurring trope. If you read the current article you'd think criticism is limited to Geller and Im Tirtzu.Icewhiz (talk) 12:48, 7 September 2017 (UTC) I'll note that the NIF itself notes the scope of the attacks, though it attempts to limit it to the right (i.e. the right needs an enemy), while it is somewhat wider (e.g. reaching the center) - [7]. Icewhiz (talk) 12:54, 7 September 2017 (UTC)
While I have concerns about the POV implications of the frame suggested by Icewhiz (to suggest that Israelis see it as illegitimate because of a poll published by a source affiliated with the hard right takes too many leaps of faith), I do agree with the general point that the article could better reflect that the organization is frequently attacked, and it's not just Pamela Geller and Im Tirtzu. It's also their allies in elected office (and those folks' children as has been lately in the news). [[PPX]] (talk) 18:41, 14 September 2017 (UTC)
The poll was performed by a reputable pollster, though I agree that a better source relating to it would be desirable (which is why I mentioned it here, but have not attempted to insert into the article). Critcism of NIF is rampant throught the entire right wing half of IL politics, and is also present in the center left. Some hard left orgs, eg Molad: The Center for the Renewal of Israeli Democracy, have stopped taking nif funds -- not because they disagree all that much, but because they do not want to be associated under the same umbrella (ie being ignored/discredited as yet another nif suborg). Sourcing what high ranking pols say is easy (from good rs). Some of the more grassroot stuff is really problematic for inclusion, and I have not been able to find much polling beyond the poll mentioned above. But this is way beyond Geller (a complete non factor in IL) and Im Tirzu.Icewhiz (talk) 19:13, 14 September 2017 (UTC)

Inclusion of PM and Regev's comments in criticism section

This was removed with the argument rv per WP:Fart. The comment by PM's Office was over a year ago. Regev's comment is more recent. These comments are more notable than the others in the section, in my opinion, since these represent the cabinet. On the other hand, the PM Office's comment was not directly related to the New Israel Fund, but related to a story criticizing Sara Netanyahu, so it could be considered less notable due to that context. However, the PM Office's comments have a lot of weight, by virtue of representing the most important and powerful politician in the country.

I would say the views of the current government are notable in a long-term way, in light of legislation going through the Knesset related to NGO funding and the regular discussions about NGO funding in the media. And also the fact the director of the fund is often replying to these comments. It's quite a central topic culturally and far more central and reported on than most other facts mentioned in the article. It might be better to work it into the body of article though, instead of having a separate criticism section. Avaya1 (talk) 23:20, 14 October 2017 (UTC)

I agree, however it might be best to RfC this - it was discussed above. Or alternatively work in a section covering mainstream Israeli criticism of the fund.Icewhiz (talk) 07:14, 15 October 2017 (UTC)

Request for comment

There seems to be rough consensus to include them in some form, but the opposition argument (which is essentially an issue of direct-quoting affecting impartiality) may also be valid and should be considered going forward (something the extended discussion seems to mirror in its concerns about quotefarming) --slakr\ talk / 19:43, 27 December 2017 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Should we, or should we not, include in the article (either within the criticism section, or in another part of the article), the comments made by the Israeli Prime Minister's Office and the Israeli Minister of Culture on the organization, that were removed in this edit? Avaya1 (talk) 05:00, 24 October 2017 (UTC)

  • Yes. These are not trivial statements, made by a senior figure towards a rather small (media coverage aside - monetary wise) fund. On a wider note, the article doesn't reflect the degree of hostility in Israeli public discourse towards the NIF.Icewhiz (talk) 05:47, 24 October 2017 (UTC)
  • Yes In my opinion, the comments are from notable figures, and widely covered in notable sources - they have more notability than most of the material included. I would also agree with the comment above that the article does not currently cover proportionately the Israeli perspective towards the group, but focuses much more on US media coverage of the group. But perhaps we should open another discussion or Rfc about that? Avaya1 (talk) 19:14, 24 October 2017 (UTC)
  • Yes, absolutely. Especially since they are in the "Criticism" section. See also the arguments made by Icewhiz and Avaya1. — Mr. Guye (talk) (contribs)  04:31, 6 November 2017 (UTC) (Summoned by bot)
  • No. At least not as such. Just because somebody famous or powerful said something doesn't mean it belongs in this article, especially if what they said is just an ad hominem insult shot from the hip (as is the case with the Bibi comment) or a fringe theory with respect to Regev's comment. See here for the details of Yisrael Hayom's blunder that she apparently repeated. While the article needs to better demonstrate that Bibi and Regev hate NIF, we can't ignore Weight and NPOV concerns (as has been discussed in detail above). [[PPX]] (talk) 22:04, 7 November 2017 (UTC)
  • Qualified no. There is no purpose served by adding sound-bytes from figures who are (unsurprisingly) hostile to the fund. What we do need is a summary of various groups' views of this. If Bibi is presented as representing the Israeli right-wing, then okay. By itself, the comment does not add much to the page. Furthermore, the same holds true of the criticism from Pamela Geller, which at this point is heavily WP:UNDUE weight. Since when did Geller become such a heavyweight that he views require a whole paragraph? Vanamonde (talk) 14:23, 11 November 2017 (UTC)
  • Yes: Given that this is an article about a political organization, a discussion of political points of view is relevant here. And the view points of governmental leadership about the organization (if any are given) would be particularly relevant. Since the prime minister's office did make statements specifically about the New Israel Fund, these should definitely be included. OtterAM (talk) 20:04, 3 December 2017 (UTC)
  • Yes: This is a very political organization with very political activities so it is not only logical, but necessary to include this criticism. PasterofMuppets (talk) 15:57, 17 December 2017 (UTC)

Extended Discussion

Comment I am only commenting here to note that this article is quickly heading into that territory where it is becoming a quote farm of a criticism section.It is not a good way to write articles. This is an essay that is helpful WP:NOCRIT. Unlike Pamela Gellar, Deborah Lipstadt is a scholar, why is her comment a criticism of Pamela Gellar's criticism? This could also be presented as 'Deborah Lipstadt has criticized Pamela Gellar for ..." Seraphim System (talk) 04:38, 12 November 2017 (UTC)

Clearly this needs work. I'm not sure on the best way to proceed. I would love somebody to do a Bold edit, but don't have the capacity for that myself. So, without that Bold rewrite, what is the best path forward? Do we pull all of the material in the existing "criticism" section? Do we try to fold those items into the history section? Do we re-work the "criticism" section into a "reception" section and make it balanced? (It actually seems clear that the Ford subsection belongs in history, but what about the rest, including the high profile ones discussed above?) [[PPX]] (talk) 16:07, 17 November 2017 (UTC)
I think all this needs to be integrated into the body of the article, rather than as a separate criticism section? It all is surely note-worthy content, but the separate criticism sections are generally not considered a fair way to treat it Avaya1 (talk) 21:37, 20 November 2017 (UTC)
That is an interesting idea that could work if done correctly. As long as the criticism section maintains the underlying theme that the Fund has been under fire by much of the Israeli Right and politicians then there is no reason why other criticism shouldn't be integrated into the body of the article. PasterofMuppets (talk) 15:57, 17 December 2017 (UTC)

I just finished watching HaMakor's two-part series (in Hebrew) on the NIF, and the program sheds light onto the vast criticism against the organization. (For those who don't know, HaMakor is not a right-wing program and it's host Raviv Druker, is even pro-Breaking the Silence). It talks about the Fund is attacked by right wing politicians, how some of the Fund's board members are pro-BDS and don't like the idea of Israel as a Jewish state, and also profiles organizations that the Fund currently supports that doesn't recognize Israel as the Jewish state. Over the next week or so I will try to write something about this and add it. PasterofMuppets (talk) 10:34, 18 December 2017 (UTC)

Knock yourself out. Just keep in mind that accusations like that need to be supported by reliable secondary sources and without them, may be BLP violations. And don't forget about WP:NOR. — Malik Shabazz Talk/Stalk 03:33, 19 December 2017 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Response to mosque arson

This seems to me very irrelevant, especially for the "history" section. Surely this incident is an irrelevant pin drop in the rich history of the NIF as there are surely dozens of such incidents that could be written. Does anyone disagree? If so, kindly explain. PasterofMuppets (talk) 09:46, 23 January 2018 (UTC)

If no one has any input I will be removing the section. PasterofMuppets (talk) 10:47, 25 January 2018 (UTC)
I think I was the one who added that section, so I'll pipe up. At the time I wrote it, I had noted that the article had become (to borrow from the RFP comment above) "a quote farm of a criticism section" and I felt the need to add in some of the, as you say, rich history of the organization, which was utterly missing. I picked this incident because it was well documented by the media, indicating some significance.
I still believe that this article does not do enough to document what this organization does. [[PPX]] (talk) 18:31, 26 February 2018 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:New_Israel_Fund/Archive_1&oldid=1079499207"