Talk:B'Tselem/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on B'Tselem. 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:

• Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20120915170517/http://fr.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?cid=1178708574884&pagename=JPost%2FJPArticle%2FPrinter to http://fr.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?cid=1178708574884&pagename=JPost%2FJPArticle%2FPrinter

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

Y An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

• 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 II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 15:24, 26 February 2016 (UTC)

article about B'tselem from newspaper

I am going to add this article: http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340,L-3601691,00.html according to wikipedia guideline: http://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/Wikipedia:EL#What_should_be_linked

1. Sites with other meaningful, relevant content that is not suitable for inclusion in an article, such as reviews and interviews. Oren.tal (talk) 17:16, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

Please see #1 under WP:EL#Links normally to be avoided: "Any site that does not provide a unique resource beyond what the article would contain if it became a Featured article." If the criticism in the Ynet article is significant, the criticism belongs in the article. If the criticism isn't significant, the link doesn't belong in the article. See WP:LINKFARM. — Malik Shabazz (talk · contribs) 17:25, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

according to this view then you don't add anything.I mean according to your view then you should always use it inside the article.The fact remain that it provide unique resource beyond what the article would contain.Until you use it to write criticism then it should be in the external link.As it provide something beyond.Oren.tal (talk) 17:29, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

There already is a paragraph dedicated to CAMERA's criticism. Can't this link be added there? -- Nudve (talk) 17:48, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

This was article that was published in Ynet.The most popular news website in Israel.That make it worth to be include.Since it such a long article it doesn't make sense to inject it in the wikipedia article.That why we need to enter it in the external linksOren.tal (talk) 17:51, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

Despite being published at Ynet, it's merely an opinion piece by CAMERA that echoes the criticism that's already in the article. Please re-read both the Ynet article and B'Tselem#Criticism and Response. — Malik Shabazz (talk · contribs) 17:57, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

it is opinion article of Ynet,written by Camera but integral part of the the opinion section of Ynet.The article is far more expand in this issue in a way that two long to the wikipedia article,Therefore it can not belong there.That why it should in the external link.Otherwise you can remove all external links and include them inside the wikipedia article.The fact that this article contiane information beyond what wikipedia talk about.wikipedia has its limit of how long it can talk about subject hence the external link.In the article inside Ynet it refer to a specific cases and expand point about them.We can not enter all those case into the wikipedia article.No room for it.But that is why we can put link in the external links.Oren.tal (talk) 18:05, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

Another way

This article has undergone 26 edits in the last six days. All of these edits have been by partisans of one or the other viewpoint of this very controversial topic. The edits have substantially changed the content of the article. Yet the article remains poorly written, unclear, and incomplete. A reader who isn't privy to the history and politics involved will have no clue what all the fuss is about.

The poor state of this article is, I believe, a characteristic failure of the collaborative editing model that is the basis of this encyclopedia. The model works great for articles about Arthur Sullivan and Gossamer Wump, but when it gets to hot political topics like this one, it breaks down.

I would like to make a radical suggestion: Let's all stop editing this article for a while. Let's discuss every change in the article on the talk page. Let's have editors suggest revisions, and even write versions on this talk page or in userspace. And let's try to reach some minimal agreement about what the article should be saying, before we bash ahead on the article.

Let's say, a three week moratorium on editing the article? Ravpapa (talk) 08:12, 6 January 2018 (UTC)

Well, that was a really popular suggestion! Ravpapa (talk) 03:59, 7 January 2018 (UTC)

Might be worthwhile to limit this suggestion to the lead... this I think (well, I did it) is a very DUE addition (and not POVish). Drmies board edit is also very much an improvement.Icewhiz (talk) 08:08, 7 January 2018 (UTC)

The arbitration sanctions slow down editing. Debresser has made the same revert 6 times in 7 days, safely meeting the arbitration requirement, while making two talk page edits that did not really engage other editors. Some of the other editing has tightened some content in the body or info box, but most of the editing has consisted of reverting Debresser, or trying different language to compromise with this editor. I'm not sure what to do next, but while I appreciate the sentiment behind the suggestion to pause editing, I am not convinced that it would be useful at this time. Jd2718 (talk) 14:38, 7 January 2018 (UTC)

@Debresser, it looks like the language you are reinserting in the lede does not have support from those editing the page. If it ever had consensus support (I cannot locate an older discussion of it), it certainly does not now. Several editors have tried new language. Can you respond, or propose something else? Jd2718 (talk) 16:51, 7 January 2018 (UTC)

Excuse you? There are more than one editor pushing in one direction, and more than one pushing in the other. Do not try to make it look as though this is only my point of view. The matter of the fact is that this new edit has no consensus and per WP:BURDEN it can not stay. What do you want me to comment on? Can I stop editing the lead. Yes, if the last stable version is kept, the one that reflects that there is widespread and fierce criticism of this organization. If we can do that for a week, i am open to attempts to change it to a better sentence. Debresser (talk) 20:01, 7 January 2018 (UTC)

Old Revision shows the wording in question. Certainly, I think this needs to be discussed or RfC'd if necessary. The new wording is being supported by POV pushers too (i.e. Malik Shabazz (talk · contribs)), so I think the old wording should stay, as for a considerable stretch it was not contested, whereas the new wording has been contested from inception. ∰Bellezzasolo✡ Discuss 12:02, 8 January 2018 (UTC)

Debresser, you have been told over and over that BURDEN does not say what you claim it says. Why don't you listen? @Bellezzasolo: once an assumed consensus has been lost (which is now obvious) the longevity of it is irrelevant. Why don't you provide a reason why the sentence you just reinserted could possibly, within a light year or two, be in conformity with WP:NPOV? Zero^talk 01:21, 10 January 2018 (UTC)

Well, I quoted longevity because the new edit doesn't have consensus either, and has been challenged immediately, rather than the old edit which hasn't been challenged until now. Hence, it is my belief that the previous form should stay until consensus is reached on the talk page (i.e. here), as the new wording could just as easily violate NPOV. ∰Bellezzasolo✡ Discuss 01:31, 10 January 2018 (UTC)

Please give policy-based reasoning. Your "belief" and mine don't count. Explain how mention of criticism without mention of praise can possibly be in conformity to NPOV. It is a 100% black and white violation. Policy violations have to be removed, not kept until some time later. Zero^talk 01:37, 10 January 2018 (UTC)

(I never expected to find this.) Even the right-wing pro-Israel group HonestReporting calls B'tselem the most respected source of information on human rights issues in this context. What does that say about the slant of our lead? Zero^talk 01:48, 10 January 2018 (UTC)

it doesn't say that, it says "it has earned international recognition as ...". It does make a difference. However, there we have a source. ∰Bellezzasolo✡ Discuss 02:17, 10 January 2018 (UTC)

The point is the same. Search "B'tselem" with "highly respected" and you'll find plenty of RSs that report praise. I'm sure you know that, and since you have not provided any policy-based reasoning for keeping the criticism-only text I don't think your input here counts. Zero^talk 10:18, 10 January 2018 (UTC)

The Uvda investigative journalist piece on them (which included a B'Tselem field employee allegedly conspiring to have Palestinian land sellers killed & tortured), in 2016, changed the tone of coverage (in relation to the Honest reporting blurb from 2012). A number of additional recentish incidents (e.g. alleged holocaust dental by an employee in 2014 - [1], which B'Tselem acknowledged). Ilana Dayan (or the journalist who carried this out:[https://he.wikipedia.org/wiki/%D7%A2%D7%9E%D7%A8%D7%99_%D7%90%D7%A1%D7%A0%D7%94%D7%99%D7%99%D7%9D hewiki entry) is not right wing, to say the least. Agree the lede should be balanced to state the group has also been praised in the past.Icewhiz (talk) 10:34, 10 January 2018 (UTC)

Left/Right Criticism

B'tselem is not just criticized from the right, Zionist Union's Itzik Shmuli, as well as Yair Lapid, among others have criticized B'tselem. Sir Joseph ^(talk) 18:40, 10 January 2018 (UTC)

As did Rabin. And Uvda is far from the right. B'tselem (and more recently Shovrim Shtika) is the junior varsity of Meretz (with promotion beinb a Merefz MK), and is criticized by just about everyone to the right of Meretz.Icewhiz (talk) 19:03, 10 January 2018 (UTC)

Logo

Commons version was tagged for copyright issues by me (and @MShabazz: has made local), but there is a new textmark that does meet commons criteria. I think the article should be updated to use that, however an admin at commons insists that it must be uploaded under a different name, instead of an inplace change ∰Bellezzasolo✡ Discuss 20:20, 10 January 2018 (UTC)

What is a "textmark"? Could you please link to the image you're discussing? Thank you. — MShabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 20:42, 10 January 2018 (UTC)

The current logo is woefully out of date. The one in the infobox on hewiki [2] is current (square Hebrew / Englisn / Arabic).Icewhiz (talk) 20:45, 10 January 2018 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Are you referring to the tri-lingual text logo in the top left corner of the B'Tselem website? I agree that is likely to be free. It looks like he wiki uses that as well,but it looks like they have a local version instead of using Commons. — MShabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 20:53, 10 January 2018 (UTC)

That's the one, yes. Pure text, so {{PD-textlogo}} ∰Bellezzasolo✡ Discuss 20:58, 10 January 2018 (UTC)

Maybe it's a matter of Israel's copyright laws, but I don't understand why he.wiki appears to describe the logo as subject to copyright: he:קובץ:B'tselem logo.svg Maybe somebody who is much more proficient in Hebrew than I am can make some sense of the templates and language on that page. — MShabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 21:16, 10 January 2018 (UTC)

@Sokuya: screengrabbed this off their facebook page. Could be a claim to copyright/trademark due to choice of fonts, particularly for the tri language combo. If you were to reproduce this with any odd font then probably not. But fair use ahould be OK here, and they will probably release (if it is not anyway on their site) with cc by sa if anyone asks.Icewhiz (talk) 21:24, 10 January 2018 (UTC)

No need, Commons:Threshold_of_originality#Israel. They've gone from UK to US style, but this would be OK even in the UK I believe. It's justt the standard non-free logo spiel, probably in error ∰Bellezzasolo✡ Discuss 21:26, 10 January 2018 (UTC)

It is not just text here. The coca cola logo is copyrightable I believe. In this B'Tselem have a Cantillation mark in Hebrew as well as a few other graphic bits.Icewhiz (talk) 21:30, 10 January 2018 (UTC)

Criticism in/of the lead

For the past several days, opposing editors have been fighting over the inclusion of a sentence in the lead of this article about criticism of B'Tselem. It has been a rather sultry edit war, with everyone tiptoeing about because of the discretionary sanctions applying to this article. But it is an edit war nonetheless, and it is time the discussion moved from the article to the talk page.

So the question is: should the lead include a reference to the criticisms of B'Tselem?

Here is a summary of the arguments, as they appear in the edit summaries of the talk page:

Pro:

• @Debresser:: The lead section is a summary of the article
• @Sir Joseph:: regardless of the size of the lead, it is more than appropriate to say that B'Tzelem has come under criticism

Con:

• @Jd2718:: Criticism of B'Tselem is represented adequately in the "Overview" section, and does not comprise a major part of the article. Certainly making it one of four sentences in the lead gives it grossly undue weight.

Neither pro nor con, but suggesting a revision:

• @Zero0000:: Btselem is also extensively praised, which has just as much right to be in the lead. Propose balanced wording or nothing
• @Nishidani:: It's not continually under fire. Most of these criticisms are episodic

So, friends, now is the time to lay your arguments before the editors like a lush Persian carpet before the Sultan, and let the Council of Elders decide. To kick off the discussion, I will present my view of the matter, to wit:

I think that the controversy - intense controversy would be an appropriate description - is a key element in B'Tselem's notability. Were it not for the fact that government spokesmen vituperate against it, that members of parliament have introduced bills aimed specifically at cobbling it, and that right wing nonprofit organizations have been created with the specific objective of discrediting it, B'Tselem would be far less notable than it is today. I think that Zero is right in insisting that a lead sentence include support as well as criticism. I think that Nishidani is wrong that the criticisms are episodic - living here in Israel and reading the Israeli press, I think that hardly a week goes by without someone aiming their darts at this organization.

So I would like to see a sentence in the lead that says something like, "B'Tselem is the subject of intense controversy in Israel, with " (these guys condemning, these guys supporting, yada yada yada).

Respectfully, Ravpapa (talk) 06:00, 2 January 2018 (UTC)

Thank you, Ravpapa. The sourced criticism in the article comes from right wing politicians and the IDF. Can we say that? And I'd prefer to leave out the word "intense." But certainly your formulation comes closer than the sentence it is meant to replace. Jd2718 (talk) 10:49, 2 January 2018 (UTC)

Judicious, as usual, Rav. Internationally, B'tselem is not some controversial body: by any objective criteria, it does a very thorough job of documenting problems afflicting Palestinians as a result of Israeli policies. In Israel B'tselem is, as you testify, subject to intense criticism, whereas the IDF has an almost sacred status, ironically being lambasted only when its leading generals criticize its shortcomings, and the idiocy of the policies they are obliged to carry out. When I see this material, I cast about for institutional comparisons, and the first that came to mind is the IDF, whose behaviour in the occupied territories is what B'tselem is basically critical of. That article has zero criticism, though if an editor like me edited in what other editors do to Israeli NGO articles, you'd have an 'intense' splash of material about its controversial character. To me it is extremely odd, encyclopedically, to highlight the 'intensely controversial' character of a human rights organization, and make out, by silence, that there is nothing 'intensely controversial' about the institution that human rights organizations criticize. All army articles, save those dealing with military institutions fighting an occupying power like Israel (Izz ad-Din al-Qassam Brigades,Fatah, Hezbollah -) appear to give a factual analysis of structure and operations (the contrast here underlines our WP:Systemic bias for official state actors), whereas nearly all human rights NGO articles are edited to highlight the ostensible 'controversial' nature of their work. It is one of the oddities of Wikipedia. In any case, your compromise solution seems more than sensible. Nishidani (talk) 12:41, 2 January 2018 (UTC)

I apologize for making my edit before I saw this discussion. However, since it restored the consensus version, I will not undo it. As I said in my edit summary: he criticism is more prominent in the article, which is probably because it is more noteworthy and in the news. As a result of that fact, this should be in the lead, and praise should not. Debresser (talk) 17:43, 2 January 2018 (UTC)

What a load of hooey. There's more criticism in the article than praise because this article has been under attack since Day One by POV-pushers (practically all of a single nationality) intent on smearing the human rights organization. And please read WP:LEAD: even if an objective analysis were undertaken and it did show that B'Tselem garbered more criticism than praise, that's no reason to exclude praise from the lead. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 01:57, 3 January 2018 (UTC)

@Debresser: If you want to make a suggestion, choosing one which is not in opposition to policy might help to get it accepted. Frankly this is one of the worse calls I have seen you make in years and there is a snowball's chance in hell of it sticking. Zero^talk 02:04, 3 January 2018 (UTC)

1. Please comment on content, not on editors. 2. The consensus version just happens to be the one I agree with, which ipse facto means that your argument is incorrect. Debresser (talk) 16:40, 3 January 2018 (UTC)

Consensus isn't fixed in stone, and I dispute that there was consensus before. There was just some blatant NPOV violation that went uncorrected for a time. It is difficult to find a more clearcut policy violation as this sentence in the lead of this article. Zero^talk 00:16, 4 January 2018 (UTC)

No NPOV violation: if sources predominantly show criticism, then our article should reflect this, and the lead should summarize the article. It is as simple as that. See WP:LEAD. Debresser (talk) 18:04, 4 January 2018 (UTC)

Your version of the lead is tantamount to attacking the organization in Wikipedia's voice. It is simply not permitted. Please stop your outrageous pushing of this severe policy violation. Zero^talk 01:28, 7 January 2018 (UTC)

oh, stop your ranting, please. "severe policy violation", "outrageous". This was the last stable version, and it is supported by the article's content. Debresser (talk) 20:01, 7 January 2018 (UTC)

I see no consensus for having the sentence "B'Tselem has come under intense fire for what its critics describe as misrepresenting and distorting facts" in the lead. That sentence looks as if it comes straight from the Israeli government. I am removing it. We could replace it with a more neutral sentence: that B'Tselem has both recieved strong praise and strong criticism. Huldra (talk) 22:09, 11 January 2018 (UTC)

The burden of proof is for the one trying to change the previous version. Which is you. Debresser (talk) 12:51, 12 January 2018 (UTC)

Debresser, it has been explained to you by multiple editors that you are mistaken in your understanding of WP:CONSENSUS and WP:SILENCE. Please stop using your errors as a rationale for your edit-warring. — MShabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 13:02, 12 January 2018 (UTC)

And I have explained that those editors are wrong. When a change is made to a standing version, and that change is contested and clearly lacks consensus, it can not be kept. Debresser (talk) 15:48, 13 January 2018 (UTC)

It looks like you are using a policy argument in a content dispute, in place of discussion of content. No matter how we interpret policy (and I disagree), I know it is wrong not to engage in discussion of the content. For starters, a quick read of the article makes it pretty clear that there are many views of B'Tselem, including hatred, praise, respect, and grudging respect. Jd2718 (talk) 16:03, 13 January 2018 (UTC)

---

There better be work done toward a compromise, because all this edit warring is not tenable. El_C 15:54, 13 January 2018 (UTC)

Compromise language

I think the compromise language added by Jd2718 here is very good. Thank you, Jd2718. — MShabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 16:55, 13 January 2018 (UTC)

Yeah, well done, I also think it is good...except perhaps for the word sharp in "sharp reaction"? Ok, I'm not a native English speaker...but is there not another word we could use here? "Contrary", perhaps? Or "conflicting"? It is not a big deal, it is just that the expression "sharp reaction" sounds a bit strange to me. (Again, that might be because I'm not a native speaker?), Huldra (talk) 23:25, 13 January 2018 (UTC)

Does "sharp" sound like it has a negative connotation? Perhaps "strong." Is "intense" better? I've got nothing in particular invested in the choice of word. Also, please note, Debresser has been blocked from editing the article for two weeks, but is not blocked on this talk page, and his comments would be welcome here. Jd2718 (talk) 23:44, 13 January 2018 (UTC)

Omit sharp, do state nature of criticism - "misrepresenting and distorting facts".Icewhiz (talk) 04:58, 14 January 2018 (UTC)

@Icewhiz:, misrepresentation of facts is only one aspect of the criticism, and not the main one. Lieberman criticizes them because they "slander and incite against the state of Israel and against Israeli soldiers... Clearly these organizations are abetting terrorism and their only objective is to undermine Israel," The quoted IDF statement criticizes the organization because it "ignores the prevailing situation in the area, in which armed, hard-core terrorists, who do not adhere to any code of law, have engaged in terror attacks." In fact, the criticisms of misrepresenting and distorting facts deal with a very small percentage of the many reports Btselem produces, and are consistently in matters which are not central to the conclusion of the reports - for example, that some of the casualties identified in an incident were actually perpetrators, or that houses demolished were not inhabited at the time of the demolition. Because of the diverse nature of the criticisms of the organization, it would certainly be wrong to summarize the criticism as "misrepresenting and distorting facts" in the lead. Ravpapa (talk) 06:51, 14 January 2018 (UTC)

Then we should provide a short summary of the main points of criticism (and I don't agree that miss-classifying militants is a "small" issue - particularly when the alleged discrepancy is large percentage wise) - along side the positive reception.Icewhiz (talk) 07:00, 14 January 2018 (UTC)

I'm not sure what the right wording is, but a problem with the previous language was that the "misrepresentation" was written in Wikipedia's voice, rather than that of the critics. I'm also concerned that the main points would end up overwhelming the lede - perhaps the Reaction section should have the criticism separated out into one place, so that it is easier for the reader to find? Jd2718 (talk) 14:10, 14 January 2018 (UTC)

IDF statements regarding B'Tselem

@MShabazz: - you reverted [3] with the statement "personal spat doesn't get more prominence than official statement". The 2010 "praise" is overstated (I'll note, that the same individual also criticized B'Tselem) - it was limited to "voiced his gratitude to the human rights organization B’Tselem, thanking the organization for testimonies its activists passed on to the IDF and for assisting in coordinating the questioning of Palestinian eyewitnesses at the Erez crossing" (so helping with liaison work - nothing regarding the veracity of the organization, nor its publication), and was made by brigadier general who I believe doesn't have authority to speak for the IDF as whole. In contrast, we have a widely reported 2017 condemnation of B'Tselem by the official spokeperson of the army, who is a Major General, accusing them of manufacturing incidents - Israeli Army Says B'Tselem Created Incident for Video Posted on Haaretz, Haaret, IDF SPOKESMAN POSTS PERSONAL RESPONSE TO B'TSELEM VIDEO, JPost, IDF accuses B’Tselem of ‘manufacturing’ conflicts, Times of Israel (and obviously - quite a bit more coverage in Hebrew). Leaving in the 2010 limited praise, while ignoring subsequent more significant condemnation - is grossly misstating the IDF's position on B'Tselem.Icewhiz (talk) 15:30, 15 January 2018 (UTC)

I'll also note - I have been unable to find any reporting other than the Forward (not the best source on inner-Israeli dialogue, and in this case they are sourcing back to Ha'aretz) on Mendelblit's statement. In Hebrew, I have been able to find this interview in Ha'aretz in 2009 - [4] (repeated in 2013 - [5]) in which Mendelblit says (loose translation) - "(in relation to Human rights orgs) The cooperation with B'Tselem? The most significant. They help us talk to witnesses and get to the bottom of complaints. They do their part, and I do mine. The interests do not overlap, but with all the criticism of organizations on us, their goal is to reach the truth. On the other hand, I have a problem with Breaking the Silence, that do not help us to get to witnesses. That's a problematic path". Ha'aretz also notes that on the same week in 2009, the IDF official spokesperson criticized B'Tselem's casualty report on 2009 saying "it was contaminated by foreign interests".Icewhiz (talk) 15:58, 15 January 2018 (UTC)

@MShabazz: - care to discuss - this has been open for almost a week - why the official IDF stmt on B'Tselem is not in?Icewhiz (talk) 18:27, 21 January 2018 (UTC)

Would you care to explain in what universe it's appropriate for an encyclopedia article to cite criticism of B'Tselem's actions but not write about the actions themselves? You seem to think we're here to summarize whatever appears in Israel's newspapers, but you're mistaken. Please read WP:NOTEVERYTHING. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 21:05, 21 January 2018 (UTC)

We probably should expand on the video productions, which has become a big "thing". However we are grossly misrepresenting the IDF's stmts on B'Tselem when we include an out of date former MAG's position (who operates outside the chain of command) - while not stating the IDF position - this fails NPOV as well as being factually misleading. Considering B'Tselem primarily criticises the IDF, it is DUE to place the IDF's response.Icewhiz (talk) 21:22, 21 January 2018 (UTC)

You fundamentally misunderstand B'Tselem. It does not "primarily criticise the IDF"; it reports on human rights abuses. It cannot control the fact that the IDF is responsible for those abuses. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 21:37, 21 January 2018 (UTC)

B'Tselem used to be primarily a HR org. Back in the 90s they also covered Palestinian political violence towards Palestinians e.g. this 1994 report. They have shifted, in recent years, to anti occupation activism and besides weak condemnations when Hamas executed a few Gazans, mostly ignore inner Palestinian HR abuses. In any event, as the alleged HR abuses it covers are primarily attributed to the IDF (and B'Tselem only operates where the IDF has some alleged control), it is appropriate to include the IDF's response.Icewhiz (talk) 21:58, 21 January 2018 (UTC)

Are you intentionally obtuse? Do you think B'Tselem should report on human rights abuses that take place in the Motor Vehicles Department? It reports on the abuses where they take place—in the occupied territories—and says who is responsible—the IDF and armed settlers. If you think it's "appropriate to include the IDF's response", then we have to include what B'Tselem reported. It's common sense! How can we say "The IDF accused B'Tselem of lying" without saying what B'Tselem said and why the IDF said it was a lie? Yet you try to include only the IDF responses, which is absurd. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 22:18, 21 January 2018 (UTC)

The action was included - In 2017 following the publication of a video in which an IDF officer arrested a man who was filming him and refused to comply with warnings to leave the area. What should be expanded here?Icewhiz (talk) 22:29, 21 January 2018 (UTC)

General tone and content of article

I have been watching from afar the edit wars and other editing of this article. I'll probably get more time in the future, but I'll make some general comments.

First, as of right now, half of the article consists of criticisms of one sort or another, ranging from the broad to the extremely narrow (a communications director wrote something on her blog and there was outrage...who even remembers this now?). This is in contrast to the general coverage of B'Tselem in all news media. Outside of Israel, B'Tselem is routinely quoted on the same terms as Amnesty International, Human Rights Watch etc. In general scholarship, B'Tselem is routinely quoted (without any controversy) about various things like settlements, human rights in the occupied territories and conflicts. There was a big "cleanup" (perhaps fine in principle, but not well executed) done by Drmies, which removed most of the actual content of what B'Tselem does, and has reduced this article to "praised by this person, criticized by that person".

For instance, the overview section contains one paragraph: B'Tselem has published over a hundred reports on various issues such as torture, fatal shootings by security forces, restrictions on movement, expropriation of land and discrimination in planning and building in East Jerusalem, administrative detention, house demolitions, violence by Israeli settlers and Palestinians, and Israeli operations in the occupied territories. This is most of what B'Tselem does, and is widely quoted in those terms. This matter should get the most space in the article.

For comparison, the incident about the blog post mentioned above, gets about as much space as the entire above paragraph. Please have some sense of WP:UNDUE in writing articles. It is fine to include criticism, but it's not legitimate to simply overwhelm the article with such content. Kingsindian ♝ ♚ 11:28, 14 January 2018 (UTC)

B'Tselem is first and foremost an Israeli organization. It used to be highly regarded in Israel - even by those who opposed the underlying politics. An incident in which the chief of the Data Coordination Department (no, not the communication's director) which is in charge of collection information for research, official statements, and position papers - makes highly odious statements which received national attention and led to her resignation - have a significant impact on the organization's reputation. Likewise employing a field researcher who denied the holocaust, and then lied about it to B'Tselem, has an impact on the veracity attributed to the reports of B'Tselem ( whom said researcher signed his name to) - and lest I be accused of OR - [6] [7]. B'Tselem doesn't have many employees, you can see the current coutn here - B'Tselem Staff - 2 in the research department, 5 in the Data coordination deparment, and 12 in the field research department. When 10% of you research personnel in national level scandals - it is a "big deal". (and it is a bit more than 10% - there's the incident reported in Uvda with handing over land sellers to be tortured, and there are a few more incidents (that perhaps require more digging). If you look at coverage of the organization in the past decade - outside of one particular left leaning outlet - this is what is being covered.Icewhiz (talk) 12:06, 14 January 2018 (UTC)

So, you're seriously defending the proposition that the 100 reports which B'Tselem has put out over several decades are approximately equal in relevance and importance to a story of somebody who wrote something on their blog and then resigned over the outrage? I am not sure if you're trolling me, but I won't be responding to this absurd claim.

To repeat: nobody is asking for criticism to be scrubbed; just to be put in context. News outlets (or in general scholarship), do not spend half their article discussing B'Tselem's supposed biases and controversies. It's usually quoted straight up as a source for various things. Kingsindian ♝ ♚ 12:44, 14 January 2018 (UTC)

This "blog post" (which led to national coverage and wide condemnation) was more widely covered than the typical B'Tselem report (and I actually read each one that goes out - so I do have a clue) - it probably received more coverage than 10 such reports. B'Tselem writing 100 reports is all fine and dandy - the question is how this is covered - and in recent years the focus has been less on their reports, and more on:

1. Outright activism - e.g. appearing at the UN ([8] [9]), activism against the occupation.
2. Various statements and alleged misdeeds of the not so many staff at B'Tselem. (such as what we're talking about here).
3. Various "viral videos" and allegations of staging - e.g. [10].

It used to be, up until 10 years ago or so, that their "main thing" was cranking out serious in-depth HR reports. In recent years - this has shifted more to infographics and advocacy. In terms of actual coverage (which is what we're supposed to follow here) - their hard in-depth reports are receiving less coverage than the above.Icewhiz (talk) 13:00, 14 January 2018 (UTC)

I am well aware of how outrage porn works. You're making a basic mistake in argument: you cannot quote a few news sources (all Israeli, btw) and claim that this is how B'Tselem is covered in general. In this area, you can find coverage of everything. For a proper accounting, you'll have to look at a representative sample of sources quoting B'Tselem, and then see how it is covered in those sources.

Here's a very rough experiment: if you go to Google Scholar and type "B'Tselem" what comes up? Do half of the sources (or all of the sources spending half their space) discuss these incidents of outrage, and spend next to no space on B'Tselem's 100+ reports? And when you type "B'Tselem" in Google News what comes up? Are half of the articles about some outrage or the other? These questions answer themselves. Kingsindian ♝ ♚ 13:12, 14 January 2018 (UTC)

The first page of google-news (in English) contains - 3 B'Tselem website hits, A story about how the Tamimi family got cameras and instruction from B'Tselem, an art exhibit, a counter-B'Tselem documentation project (drones to document stone throwers), an academic signing a letter (on the Trump declaration) allegedly organized by B'Tselem, an Electronic Intifida piece (a blog) using some B'Tselem data, a mention in an attack piece, Citing their data for home demolitions. In Hebrew - it's even more focused on their activism and counter-activism - there actually isn't a single hit on their HR research (there are several hits on videos they took - both supportive and critical).Icewhiz (talk) 13:27, 14 January 2018 (UTC)

I got the same result (in English), with an extra four hits. One of them is critical of B'Tselem's behavior (the camera story), five are links to B'Tselem's website. Three cite B'Tselem as a source. Three are about B'Tselem's activism (art exhibit, protest letter) and two are about B'Tselem's statements that are likely to become part of reports. This very well may describe an organization that has become more activist, but that's hard to tell, and verges on OR. It is clearly an organization that issues reports, makes statements, and organizes activities. The article (and the lede) should better reflect the range of what they do. Jd2718 (talk) 14:30, 14 January 2018 (UTC)

I agree 100% with what Kingsindian and Jd2718 have written. Maybe Icewhiz can start a POV fork called Perception of B'Tselem in Israel, but this article should reflect the standing of the organization in the world, not just the right-wing Israeli echo chamber. — MShabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 14:57, 14 January 2018 (UTC)

I don't think Icewhiz is totally off-base; I get a sense that there is more activism than 15 years ago, but nor do I get a sense of a dramatic shift, and since this is just a sense, there's not really a way to work it in to the article. Maybe trying to rewrite from scratch, and not being afraid to be a bit longer, might give a better, fuller picture? Jd2718 (talk) 15:06, 14 January 2018 (UTC)

We currently list two alleged attacks on B'Tselem workers (as long as an opening OR sentence that is unsourced) that are totally self-reported and received close to no coverage - leaving these in is UNDUE. On the other hand - We have incidents passing WP:N, WP:V, WP:NOR - covered very widely (and lasting) in Israeli press (and beyond) - to the degree these were front page / prime-time TV news - of holocaust denial and other odious statements that led to B'Tselem itself both to issue statements and to terminate an employee in one case and in another to "mutually agree" that the employee would resign. In terms of activism - B'Tselem has moved to call itself a "The Israeli Information Center for Human Rights in the Occupied Territories" - and not a human rights organization - in recent years. Finally, B'Tselem is an Israeli organization - primarily covered in Israel - we should cover it as it is covered in WP:RS - in the same proportion. Opening up an parallel Incidents, staging, and bias in B'Tselem (which would meet notability guidelines and which would contain events receiving SIGCOV, passing N, V, and NOR) - would be simply silly. We could do that. Or we could agree on how to include these incident here - instead of reverting - how about suggesting better text for these incidents which have received wide coverage?Icewhiz (talk) 15:22, 14 January 2018 (UTC)

@Kingsindian:, I wholeheartedly agree with your assessment of the article. It lacks focus, is disorganized, and is poorly written. The reason for this is clear - it is not an encyclopedia article, it is a polemic conducted by two opposing camps, a kind of extension of the talk page with pretensions. This is the reason I thought an editing hiatus might be of help (see section above) - perhaps we could work out on the talk page what the article should say, what the focus or focuses should be, and how those should be presented. As it is, the heat of the discussion makes taking a step back and looking at the big picture almost impossible. Ravpapa (talk) 05:28, 15 January 2018 (UTC)

That's not the only problem - the article itself is woefully out of date. To a large extent - much of the content in the article was in there prior to 2012. Arguably - it was actually fair back in the day (I'm not sure that correct to 2012, but definitely reflecting the status of the organization circa 2009, say). The organization itself has changed - and coverage of it (which is what we should be following - what others are saying about B'Tselem, not what it says about itself, or editor opinions about B'Tselem or what B'Tselem should be) - has changed as well. From a human rights organization that produced long stodgy reports they have morphed into a "Information Center for Human Rights" - which apparantly means: public speaking [11], handing out cameras (+instructions) to Palestinians in the field so they can capture incidents (at times involving themselves) [12], film festivals [13], exhibits at photo galleries ([14]), photo blogs [15], infographics ([16] - which makes extracting info a pain - I recently want to use this for 2014 Israel–Gaza conflict - the infographic (requiring different filter application for combatants and non-combatants and other intersections) - makes using them a bit ORy TP diff as opposed to a straight up table with all the relevant numbers (and perhaps percentages)), a very active facebook page, and yes - also some in-depth reports in between all of this. The reception and perception of B'Tselem has changed significantly over the years.Icewhiz (talk) 09:03, 15 January 2018 (UTC)

Yes, the tenor of Israeli politics has grown uglier in the past decade, including the involvement of the government in attacking ideological foes as "enemies of the state" and the influx of billions of dollars, and the internet has evolved. Any more complaints? — MShabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 14:51, 15 January 2018 (UTC)

@Icewhiz:, I am surprised you consider these activities to be new. My acquaintance with this organization was about 10 years ago, when I did a systems analysis for them, and they were doing all those things then, as well. For example, one of the things they wanted me to develop was a database tracking the location of all the cameras they had lent out to field workers. Ravpapa (talk) 15:41, 15 January 2018 (UTC)

• Kingsindian, I think "from afar" is hyperbole, but by all means get a little closer and do what I did, only better. We cannot have an article like we had. Personally I don't care about the blog quote, and if you can summarize what they do better than the skeletal paragraph I left, power to you. But what that old version had was not acceptable, nor did it actually describe what the club does; rather, it simply listed things. Drmies (talk) 00:34, 16 January 2018 (UTC)

Documenting work of B'Tselem

I have started documenting some of the work of B'Tselem which has been cited elsewhere. I plan to look at B'Tselem's reports/publications/press releases in various areas (there's a list on their webpage) and see where they are cited, in scholarship, UN/EU reports, newspapers etc. One can then summarize them in a couple of paragraphs. Perhaps after this procedure, this article would be less of an embarrassment.

The first one I listed is B'Tselem's report Acting the Landlord, which describes Israeli land policies in Area C of the West Bank. Feel free to add relevant stuff to this or other sections as you like. Kingsindian ♝ ♚ 11:19, 22 January 2018 (UTC)

@Kingsindian I think that is way too much undue attention, to add a whole section for just one report. This article should not mention more than the outlines of their work, with a few details, and that's it. This is not an article about their reports, rather about the organization making those reports! Debresser (talk) 18:42, 22 January 2018 (UTC)

I plan to add more reports to that section as I get the time (soon). Two of their other reports on related matters (many of which are cited together) can be summarized in that section. They all have the same basic conclusions, so the section containing all three reports would be approximately of the same size as currently. If you are still unhappy after that edit, we can discuss more. Kingsindian ♝ ♚ 03:12, 24 January 2018 (UTC)

Perfectly fine with me. Debresser (talk) 17:50, 24 January 2018 (UTC)

Holocaust denial by employee

@Zero0000: - Regarding This diff, how is Holocaust denial by at least approx. 9% of their field researched staff ([17]) - and who appears on several reports as a contributor (e.g. [18][19] [20] [21] [22]) and to which the organization itself felt the need to respond (twice! Once denying the denial, then retracting their denial of the denial - Response to accusations regarding former B'Tselem's field Researcher 'Atef Abu a-Rub - and firing the researcher) - irrelevant in terms of the work of the organization? It is definitely more relevant than two alleged self-reported attacks (one of them by the guy - Nasser Nawaj'ah - who would be later filmed in Uvda discussing the handover of Palestinians landsellers to a venue in which they would be tortured and killed) reported in the same section. This is a significant question of credibility in regards to a fairly large proportion of their field researchers, who have signed off on several B'Tselem reports.Icewhiz (talk) 12:00, 10 January 2018 (UTC)

@Icewhiz: this looks like it is relevant to me - the section in the diff is very factual, cites a WP:RS, and the incident is confirmed by WP:SELFSOURCE as per guidance, hence WP:V is certainly satisfied. This is reflected in the edit ∰Bellezzasolo✡ Discuss 12:56, 10 January 2018 (UTC)

Note there are several additional sources available - I picked on in English which was neutral factual reporting, but there is no lack of reporting on this in English and in Hebrew. As the organization did "own up to" the Holocaust denial (terminating the employee) following the initial denial of the denial - it isn't particularly contentious. You can see the footage of the denial on B'Tselem facebook - [23] (linked to from their denial) or on Israeli Channel2's website - Original footage + reporting on Channel2 - it's all in English and fairly obvious.Icewhiz (talk) 13:10, 10 January 2018 (UTC)

Let me turn this around and ask you, Icewhiz: By what stretch of the imagination is the incident relevant to an encyclopedia article about B'Tselem? Did the organization deny that the Holocaust had occurred? No. Did its director or a member of its board? No. A researcher—one of how many?—said something outrageous. How does that have anything to do with B'Tselem? Please cite policies or guidelines in your response. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 02:28, 11 January 2018 (UTC)

PS: If you'd care to, please explain why this article should mention that a B'Tselem researcher denied that the Holocaust occurred but Israel shouldn't have a section about the prime minister's son (a) tweeting antisemitic images and (b) bragging at strip clubs about the nice deals his father made for his friends' fathers. It seems to be they're both equally (ir)relevant to the articles' respective subjects. Keep in mind that Wikipedia is supposed to be an encyclopedia, not a tabloid. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 02:33, 11 January 2018 (UTC)

This is just more smear. It was a private comment that B'tselem strongly dissociated itself from the moment it was convinced that it had actually happened. A smear in the guise of a report is still a smear and it doesn't belong here. The reason it got coverage is that supporters of the occupation miss no opportunities to smear organisations that oppose it. We are supposed to have higher standards. Zero^talk 03:02, 11 January 2018 (UTC)

B'Tselem in fact initially denied (for around 2 months - August to October) the Holocaust denial (as well as, looking at hewiki, other questionable stmts by the researcher)). They did admit to it in October and fired the researcher. B'Tselem did not retract reports said employee (whom by B'Tselem's stmt denied the Holocaust and lied to B'Tselem about the denial) - several reports with his name are still on their website - I linked to above. Finally this is a significant portion their research staff. Their 2014 staff may be seen at wayback on their website [24] (not very different from present staff). They had 11 field researchers - each one responsible for a wide area (in this case sole coverage of the area around Jenin). In addition they had 3 non-field researchers and 7 people in the data department - it is these 21 people who write reports, and typically a few are involved in each (typically involving a few field researchers - covering the areas in the report). So no, 1 out of 11 field researchers (or 21 total research related personnel) is not insignificant. Such fringe views held by a researcher have clear implications on the quality and public acceptability of his work.Icewhiz (talk) 05:16, 11 January 2018 (UTC)

Digging around a bit, seems there was a previous case involving a senior employee in 2010 (comparing Israel to the Nazi regime, and calling memorial day a "pornographic circus", though not holocaust denial) - [25] [26] [27] [28] ]http://www.mako.co.il/news-israel/education/Article-3be1eeed2401821004.htm] - seems she was denounced by B'Tselelm's chief at the time and resigned.Icewhiz (talk) 11:58, 11 January 2018 (UTC)

@MShabazz: relevant TP section. Why are you reverting well documented and widely covered incidents of the research staff?Icewhiz (talk) 18:25, 21 January 2018 (UTC)

I'm still waiting for you to explain how this nonsense is relevant to an encyclopedia article about B'Tselem. You seem to think we're here to summarize whatever appears in Israel's newspapers, but you're mistaken. I'll repeat what I asked you on 11 January, and which you ignored: How does [this] have anything to do with B'Tselem? Please cite policies or guidelines in your response. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 21:01, 21 January 2018 (UTC)

Malik, I don't like your tone: you call the information in an edit of a fellow editor "nonsense". You claim your question was ignored, while I see that Icewhiz answered on that same day. And your demand to cite policies or guidelines to show relevance, which is the way of the stonewaller: relevance is evident, and you would need a policy or guideline to only to remove relevant information. Debresser (talk) 21:23, 21 January 2018 (UTC)

You don't like my tone? Tough twinkies. Icewhiz reponded to himself, not to me or Zero0000. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 21:41, 21 January 2018 (UTC)

What do alleged self reported attacks on employees, which received little to no coverage, have to do with B'Tselem? Regarding the 2010 and 2014 incidient you removed, in both instances we have ongoing SIGCOV of these incidents, in RS, which treats B'Tselem as the subject. Your personal opinion may be that employing a holocaust denying researcher (since terminated), who was a sizeable fraction of the research work force, is irrelevant to the organization - it would seem that the RS covering this differ with your opinion. We follow what is written in RS, not editor opinion, and in this case B'Tselem is clearly the topic of coverage.Icewhiz (talk) 21:30, 21 January 2018 (UTC)

Once again, you seem to have no idea what you're talking about. Employees and volunteers being assaulted while performing their jobs is relevant to B'Tselem; what those employees and volunteers think about what happened in Europe 70 years ago is not. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 21:41, 21 January 2018 (UTC)

Clearly, RSes beg to differ. I'll further note that we'd typically note when an author or contributor to a reports is a supporter of fringe of conspiracy theories. With David Irving we lead off with this, as we do with Michel Chossudovsky. This individual has signed his name to many B'Tselem reports. Employing such individuals, in a research role, in an organization that purports to conduct serious research reflects on the perceived veracity of the reports issues by the organization - particularly when these fringe or conspiracy theories relate directly to a human rights issue. Furthermore, it is clearly a situation that is of interest to the public.Icewhiz (talk) 10:08, 22 January 2018 (UTC)

Of course this is relevant. We are not discussing the organization's custodian who is not involved with the content published by the NGO, but a member on whose information their reports are based on. I can't fathom how this wouldn't be relevant, especially given B'Tselem's initial statement, clarification, and subsequent termination of the employee. PasterofMuppets (talk) 11:57, 29 January 2018 (UTC)

Clarify

I think that Malik's tag to clarify the word "warfare" should be removed. First of all because it is a quote, and Wikipedia need not clarify quoted statements. But mostly because from the context it is absolutely clear that the reference is to the political campaign B'Tselem is wagging against official Israeli policy regarding.

I call on all editors to please refrain from soiling the article with bogus tags based more in editors' POVs than in good Wikipedia editing practices. Debresser (talk) 06:41, 18 January 2018 (UTC)

I believe Gerald Steinberg was probably referring to war waged by Lawfare (which is widely regarded as a form of warfare - ala "War is the continuation of politics by other means."(Clausewitz) - Lawfare would seem to be the continuation of war from the battlefield to the judicial dimension), however clarifying Steinberg's directly quoted statement would require me to engage in WP:OR. It is not for us, as editors, to clarify the intent of quoted statements. I fully agree this tag is completely spurious.Icewhiz (talk) 10:03, 18 January 2018 (UTC)

Do I understand you correctly that you are saying that you are not sure what the author was referring to ("probably Lawfare"), but you nonetheless contend that no clarification is needed? That sounds strange to me. Ravpapa (talk) 17:28, 18 January 2018 (UTC)

Steinberg's stmt was clear - "Gerald Steinberg, accuses B'Tselem and others of waging "a very dangerous form of warfare" against Israel".. It is also fairly clear what B'Tselem is doing (whether one agrees with them or not). It is not our place to provide possible meanings that are not specified by the source (though I guess we could summaarize NGO monitor's long research papers on B'Tselem).Icewhiz (talk) 18:48, 18 January 2018 (UTC)

Reuters did not think this needed clarification - [29].Icewhiz (talk) 18:52, 18 January 2018 (UTC)

Reuters is not an encyclopedia. If you can't explain what the drivel you're adding to the article means, then it should be removed. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 01:45, 19 January 2018 (UTC)

Steinberg accuses B'Tselem of waging war against Israel. He did not specify in that particular stmt the means (guns, tanks, human wave attacks, or lawfare). It is fairly obvious he is referring to lawfare (based on B-Tselem's activities and NGO Monitor's reports). It is also fairly obvious that Steinberg is not praising B'Tselem's research - our article grossly misrepresented his 2010 words to begin with (fixed), and since 2010 he has updated his "wait and see attitude" regarding the veracity of B'Tselem's report to a resounding negative view.Icewhiz (talk) 05:16, 19 January 2018 (UTC)

The truth is, Malik, that we are being picky about the clarity of the quote. Steinberg is pretty clear, The quote also makes clear that his objection to B'Tselem is basically political - the organization is waging war on the state of Israel. The problem with the whole paragraph is not lack of clarity but lack of context. Nowhere is there any indication that NGO Monitor's issue with B'Tselem is political, and that the whole raison d'etre of the organization is to combat other NGOs that criticize - rightly or wrongly - Israel. From their own brochure: "NGO Monitor was formed to [provide] actionable analyses that shed light on and stop funding to the NGOs active in BDS (boycott, divestment, and sanctions), lawfare, and other delegitmization [sic] campaigns against Israel." I think the addition of some context would solve the problem. Ravpapa (talk) 06:32, 19 January 2018 (UTC)

Very picky. My point precisely. Be my guest, but don't be surprised if all of a sudden other statements also get tagged. Debresser (talk) 11:27, 19 January 2018 (UTC)

Do I understand from the above, @Debresser:, that you would be amenable to the inclusion of the quote above as a description of NGO Monitor in the article? (NGO Monitor, an organization whose purpose is to provide "actionable analyses that shed light on and stop funding to the NGOs active in BDS (boycott, divestment, and sanctions), lawfare, and other delegitmization [sic] campaigns against Israel", expressed admiration for etc.)? Ravpapa (talk) 12:15, 19 January 2018 (UTC)

References

That's too much of a mouthful. Debresser (talk) 22:12, 20 January 2018 (UTC)

By "too much of a mouthful" I think you mean too long. I agree. How about NGO Monitor, an organization whose aim is to stop funding to NGOs "active in ... deligitimization campaigns against Israel", expressed ' and so on. Ravpapa (talk) 05:24, 21 January 2018 (UTC)

Three days later: @Debresser:, Since you have not responded, I assume you are okay with this addition. I will wait another day, and then, if there is no further comment, I will make the change. Thanks, Ravpapa (talk) 05:22, 23 January 2018 (UTC)

That's not NGO-Monitor's mission statement - I would place the full quote. NGO-monitor provides analysis of NGOs that may be used by others (e.g. donors and policy makers) to stop funding - but does not do anything regarding funding - NGO-monitor merely provides information.Icewhiz (talk) 07:02, 23 January 2018 (UTC)

@Icewhiz:, I could not find that quote anywhere. Can you point me to a reference? The quote I offered is taken verbatim from the "About" section of their brochure.

The main point is that NGO Monitor specifically targets certain organizations - B'Tselem among them - to convince donors not to give them money. That is their stated mission, and it is certainly relevant to anyone reading a criticism - however factual it may be - that they publish about those organizations. Ravpapa (talk) 14:56, 23 January 2018 (UTC)

It is a summary of their wall of text in the brochure (or of the fuller text you provided above). See their mission statement here: [30] "NGO Monitor provides information and analysis, promotes accountability, and supports discussion on the reports and activities of NGOs (non-governmental organizations) claiming to advance human rights and humanitarian agendas.", or their fuller about paragraph "NGO Monitor was founded in 2002, with the objectives of producing and distributing critical analysis and reports on the activities of the international and local NGO networks, for the benefit of government policy makers, journalists, philanthropic organizations and the general public. We document and publicize distortions of human rights and international law in the context of the Arab-Israeli conflict, as well as double standards and biased campaigns, and provide information and context on these issues and activities, in order to encourage informed public debate.". In these two concise versions they don't address countering funding at all. In the longer version in the brochure they do - however they do - "NGO Monitor was formed to fulfill this objective, providing actionable analyses that shed light on and stop funding..." - so the way they "stop funding" is by providng "actionable analyses".15:04, 23 January 2018 (UTC)

NGO Monitor has an article, so I would just link it and not add anything. Simply NGO Monitor expressed etc." Debresser (talk) 16:34, 23 January 2018 (UTC)

I await others' input before responding. Ravpapa (talk) 18:26, 23 January 2018 (UTC)

If a person or organization has a Wikipedia article, I generally support the approach Debresser described: just Wikilinking their name and letting the reader click through to learn more about them. It would be different if there were a specific incident or history between two organizations or people that readers might not pick up on without editorial help, but when it comes to run-of-the-mill praise and criticism, I'm not a fan of editorializing about the speaker. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 03:32, 24 January 2018 (UTC)

It is good to agree on something once in a while. :) Debresser (talk) 17:50, 24 January 2018 (UTC)

Well, outvoted. Let consensus prevail. Ravpapa (talk) 06:41, 26 January 2018 (UTC)

BLP violation ?!

@Malik Shabazz: - please specify the sepcific BLP concern in this [31] which you reverted with a "not this <redacted> WP:BLP-violating <redacted> again!" edit summary. All the information you reverted was sourced to well respected non-tabloid mainstream WP:RS and with an abundance of caution the individuals (despite being named in RSes and by B'Tselem (due to their public position in B'Tselem)) were not named - so WP:BLPNAME is not an issue.Icewhiz (talk) 06:57, 1 February 2018 (UTC)

I also am trying to figure out how this is a WP:BLPNAME issue... Waiting to hear from Shabazz PasterofMuppets (talk) 11:04, 5 February 2018 (UTC)

It is still a load of crap that should not be in the article. The first part, for example, comes straight out of NGO Monitor's attack on B'tselem, but the text presents it as an attack on B'tselem in Wikipedia's voice and avoids mentioning that Sagie wrote it when she was not even working for B'tselem. The mako source: "It is important to note that Sagi's statements were written prior to her appointment to her current position in B'Tselem and have nothing to do with the organization's positions." I looked in vain for this in your text, and I also looked in vain for Sagi's response (there is your BLP violation). If you guys are unable to write something that comes within a light-year of balanced, we can't have anything. This is the B'tselem page, not the Bash B'tselem page. (Besides that, Israelis call each other Nazis all the time even on the Knesset floor so that part is singularly unimpressive.) Zero^talk 12:08, 5 February 2018 (UTC)

So - if we per mako write that the statements in the blog were prior to her employment, and that the employee said that "she understands the positions she took are not acceptable to B'Tselem" and that "she understands that her statements were hurtful, and that she apologies" - we're good?Icewhiz (talk) 12:34, 5 February 2018 (UTC)

No, those things are about Sagi and not about B'tselem. If Sagi has an article, put it there. Zero^talk 12:54, 5 February 2018 (UTC)

They were covered in multiple RS, including subsequent book coverage, in relation B'Tselem as the primary topic, not Sagi.Icewhiz (talk) 13:04, 5 February 2018 (UTC)

So volunteer at one of those places. Wikipedia operates by its own policies and guidelines, not the ones that prevail among the tabloid press. — MShabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 13:06, 5 February 2018 (UTC)

This wasn't covered by tabloids. And we follow WP:DUE - which is Neutrality requires that each article or other page in the mainspace fairly represent all significant viewpoints that have been published by reliable sources, in proportion to the prominence of each viewpoint in the published, reliable sources.. This episode has received more coverage than other episodes currently in our article - should I remove every incident that received less?Icewhiz (talk) 13:12, 5 February 2018 (UTC)

Please, go right ahead... if you want to be blocked from editing. — MShabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 13:32, 5 February 2018 (UTC)

I suppose we could just run an RfC on whether the 2014 incident and the IDF's spokesperson's statement on B'Tselem should be in if we can't agree on wording here.Icewhiz (talk) 14:28, 5 February 2018 (UTC)

I still don't understand the objections to including this, seeing as we agreed that its not BLP and it has been quoted my a number of RS and it has received a substantially larger amount of RS coverage than other items in this article. It appears to me that the issue is more the wording, rather than an objection to including this. Is this incorrect? PasterofMuppets (talk) 08:26, 7 February 2018 (UTC)

Yes, it is incorrect. No consensus, no edit. Zero^talk 10:34, 7 February 2018 (UTC)

RfC: employee incidents and IDF spokesperson

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 the following appear in the "Reception" section?

In 2017 after Amira Hass in her Haaretz column posted a B'Tselem video and castigated the IDF officer who appeared in the video arresting a man who refused to comply with warnings to leave the area while filming the officer, IDF Spokesperson Major General Moti Almoz said B'Tselem videos are "are out of line with reality" and that "there is a substantial difference between filming an incident as it is happening and the creating of an incident by arriving at a place with a camera".

References

Should the follow appear under the "incidents" sub-section?

In 2010 media outlets published that B'Tselem's information director, prior to her employment in B'Tselem, wrote on her personal blog various statements such as "The IDF Memorial Day is a pornographic circus", "Israel is committing Humanity's worst atrocities... Israel is proving devotion to Nazi values". B'Tselem director Jessica Montell said that B'Tselem rejected these statement and that they do not represent B'Tselem, and the information director resigned shortly thereafter from her position saying that she apologizes for making hurtful statements and that "veracity and professionalism are B'Tselem's main assets and are essential, I hope that now attention will return to what is truly important: struggling for human rights in the occupied territories".

In August 2014, journalist Tuvia Tenenbom taped Palestinians and Israeli activists presenting the conflict to foreigners. One of those taped was a B'Tselem field researcher who denied the Holocaust saying "It’s a lie — I don’t believe it". B'Tselem said they rejected holocaust denial and that they would investigate the incident. B'Tselem investigation concluded that the field researcher merely translated what an off camera individual had said and said that the field researcher "said unequivocally that the Holocaust is a terrible crime against the Jewish people". However, in October 2014 after a longer segment of the exchange with the field worker was aired, B'Tselem said "we ask to amend our [original] response on this matter, which was given in good faith, and clarify that a B’Tselem worker did say those things, which we reject with contempt and disgust". B'Tselem terminated the employment of the field researcher.

References

Previous discussion may be seen in the talk page under "Holocaust denial by employee", "IDF statements regarding B'Tselem", and "BLP violation ?!".

Please indicate Yes for include, No for not including, and Partially or Modify (with an explanation of what to include and what to modify) - with an explanation of the !vote.Icewhiz (talk) 07:42, 8 February 2018 (UTC)

Discussion

• Yes. Per WP:DUE we should fairly represent all significant viewpoints that have been published by reliable sources - these 3 events have been covered extensively by RS and much more so than several other items currently in the article. Furthermore, regarding the IDF, we currently include extensive information on B'Tselem's activities against the military occupation and warfare by the IDF, and we include a former Military Advocate General's comments - who while formally in the IDF is independent of the IDF command (the chief of staff is not in charge of MAG) and is tasked with prosecuting IDF personnel (similar to Internal affairs (law enforcement)). An official IDF response is warranted - regardless of the wide coverage this particular response by the official spokesman himself received.Icewhiz (talk) 07:52, 8 February 2018 (UTC)
• No. The first text is a blatant NPOV violation (typical of you, Icewhiz) as it doesn't bother recording B'tselem's response. On the two other incidents, per WP:DUE we should only include material that is significant, relevant and balanced. Given the massive media coverage that B'tselem gets, the coverage of these minor incidents was quite small and mostly "me too" coverage. Multiple news outlets that just repeat what the original said do not add weight. What someone wrote when they weren't even a member is obviously undue and its inclusion would be a disgrace. The last incident at least involved the organization but it is a rather boring story that is presented in a negative way. It can be dealt with in one sentence: "In 2014, B'tselem dismissed a field researcher who had been filmed denying the Holocaust, expressing 'contempt and disgust' for such views." Zero^talk 11:59, 8 February 2018 (UTC)

  We could add B'Tselem's response to the response by the IDF spokesperson to the B'Tselem video that is described (a response to a response).Icewhiz (talk) 12:46, 8 February 2018 (UTC)

• No - Contrary to the RFC's creator, this text is vastly undue and an obvious attempt to push a POV. When dealing with a subject that garners press coverage, it is essential to review what from that said coverage is significant. Pushing a minor story tells me that step was ignored.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 18:01, 8 February 2018 (UTC)
• Yes this is not something that is undue or from just a minor employee. This is important information from a high level employee and should be included. Sir Joseph ^(talk) 18:10, 8 February 2018 (UTC)
• No. Obvious smear attempt is obvious. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 02:04, 9 February 2018 (UTC)
• Remaining Neutral Content is definitely well sourced, and seems WP:NPOV, in itself. However, WP:DUE is a concern. ∰Bellezzasolo✡ Discuss 04:06, 9 February 2018 (UTC)
• No. The truth is that, if the entire section on reception were rewritten, I would support inclusion - not, mind you, as a serious criticism of Bt'selem, but as part of a campaign to discredit the organization. The entire discussion of reception lacks context and lacks order. The criticisms themselves are helter-skelter, and it is unclear from the section that the whole nature of the dispute over Bt'selem is political. However, I believe that, given the belligerence of the camps of editors on both sides, it would be impossible to rewrite this section so it makes sense. Given that, I am afraid I must oppose inclusion of the material. Ravpapa (talk) 07:19, 9 February 2018 (UTC)

  I agree that quite a bit of the coverage of B'Tselem (as an organization) in the past decade or so appears to be aimed at discrediting them - however we would need a source stating this (and this does not mean that the coverage itself should be excluded). I disagree it is all political (much of it is, some is regarding the veracity of the organization, and much is directed at B'Tselem for taking (or its employees taking) a political stance rather than focusing on human rights). At present the article's existing employee incidents (from 2008) are from a self serving WP:SELFSOURCE - a clear violation of policy. All 3 events described in this RfC had national level coverage (addressed by every news outlet in Israel (for more than one cycle), some wider Jewish press coverage, and some lasting post event coverage (e.g. books, opinions columns years later). If these are to be excluded, the 2008 incidents currently in the article would definitely have to go (even if there is some non-selfsource - these received significantly less coverage if at all).Icewhiz (talk) 08:31, 9 February 2018 (UTC)

  Allow me to remind you once again that Wikipedia is not a newspaper, it doesn't respond to the news cycle, and how much coverage the tabloid media gives an incident or allegation is irrelevant. (Was the O.J. Simpson trial really the most important thing in the world in 1995? I doubt it, but looking at that year's news coverage, you might think it was.) See WP:PROPORTION. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 03:07, 10 February 2018 (UTC)

• Yes. These are are substantial criticisms about the organization's reliability with reliable sources, thus there is not reason that they should not be. PasterofMuppets (talk) 12:03, 13 February 2018 (UTC)
• Yes As clearly well sourced material per WP:DUE and WP:NPOV--Shrike (talk) 14:21, 13 February 2018 (UTC)
• Yes As clearly well sourced material per WP:DUE and WP:NPOV. Debresser (talk) 18:18, 13 February 2018 (UTC)
• Oppose per WP:WEIGHT and WP:NPOV; minor incidents not suitable for inclusion. K.e.coffman (talk) 04:51, 17 February 2018 (UTC)

Comment The first part Zero mentions, "The first text is a blatant NPOV violation as it doesn't bother recording B'tselem's response." Malik Shabazz follows up with pointing out that obvious smear attempts are obvious. In defense of both for inclusion a blanket statement of it's due and it's NPOV is echoed. If I was new to wikipedia I'd think that we are having a vote with such hollow responses to clear criticism. The first part needs to be fixed based on the legitimate commentary. The second part needs to be justified and hollow iVotes do not cover it in my opinion.-Serialjoepsycho- (talk) 18:56, 25 February 2018 (UTC)

• (Summoned by bot)No. The presence of reliable sources verifying a certain statement isn't sufficient in and of itself; I'm not seeing this as a significant narrative about this subject in reliable sources. Furthermore, the proposed text is bloody confusing. Vanamonde (talk) 09:43, 4 March 2018 (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.

Minor Error

Hi there, not sure if I am doing this right - just notices a minor grammatical error, but I have yet to make 10 edits to wikipedia, so I cannot edit the page - hope someone else can make the edit.

"Following the Oslo I Accord, Israeli prime minister Yitzhak Rabin assured television views that Yasser Arafat would be able to combat Islamic militant terrorists without being hampered by B'Tselem and or the Supreme Court of Israel.[30] " 'views' should be 'viewers'. Best, Can2016 (talk) 22:19, 28 January 2020 (UTC)

I removed the sentence, which was only an inconsequential mention of B'Tselem. Zero^talk 23:44, 28 January 2020 (UTC)