Talk:B'Tselem

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

Archives (Index)

This page is archived by ClueBot III.

RfC: employee incidents and IDF spokesperson[edit]

Closing this RFC as per a request at Wikipedia:Requests for closure. The consensus here is quite difficult to ascertain; there are 5 contributors in favour of including the proposed text in the article, and there are 5 contributors who are in opposition to the proposed text being included in the article. Therefore it must boil down to assessing the strength of arguments made, rooted in Wikipedia policy. The arguments pretty much all boil down to whether or not the material flouts WP:DUE, a subsection of Wikipedia's Neutral Point of View policy, dealing with due and undue weight. So what does it say?

Is the material published by reliable sources? Yes it is. Ha'aretz, Channel 10 News, JPost and so on are all reliable, and I don't think anyone is disputing that. So the reliable sourcing requirement mentioned in WP:DUE is met.

The next major point is that information provided "must not represent content strictly from the perspective of the minority view". The first piece of proposed text, as noted by Zero0000 below, does not achieve this. It does not provide a countering statement from B'Tselem, and therefore as closer I agree with the arguments made that it is not in line with WP:DUE.

For the second piece of proposed text as both sides of the argument are again using WP:DUE to justify their stances, I am forced to look at what WP:DUE actually says. The text is proposed to be placed in the 'Incidents' section. WP:DUE states "Wikipedia aims to present competing views in proportion to their representation in reliable sources on the subject." I can only surmise that trebling the size of the 'Incidents' section with information solely around one incident is lending that one incident undue weight, and so it too is not in line with WP:DUE.

I therefore must conclude that the consensus, based on strength of argument in line with Wikipedia policy and guidelines, is the text as proposed should not be included in the article. However, it may be that a shorter, more balanced version is appropriate; that is outside the scope of this RFC. Fish+Karate 14:51, 19 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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,[1] 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".[2][1][3][4][5][6]

References

  1. ^ a b Israeli Army Says B'Tselem Created Incident for Video Posted on Haaretz, Ha'aretz, Gili Coehn, 11 May 2017
  2. ^ IDF defends soldier over B'Tselem video, YNET, 10 May 2017
  3. ^ IDF Spokesman Posts Personal Resopose to B'Tselem Video, JPost, 10 May 2017
  4. ^ IDF spokesman on B'Tselem video: "provocation disconnected from reality", Walla news, 10 May 2017
  5. ^ IDF vs. B'Tselem: "Libel directed against IDF", 10 May 2017, Channel 2 News
  6. ^ IDF vs. B'Tselem: "Decided a Video is More Important than the Truth, CHannel 10 News, 10 May 2017

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".[1][2][3] B'Tselem director Jessica Montell said that B'Tselem rejected these statement and that they do not represent B'Tselem,[3] 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".[4][5]

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".[6] B'Tselem said they rejected holocaust denial and that they would investigate the incident.[6] 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,[7] 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".[8][9] B'Tselem terminated the employment of the field researcher.[10]

References

  1. ^ Reaping What You Sow: A Comparative Examination of Torture Reform in the United States, France, Argentina, and Israel, Henry F. Carey, 2012, page 110
  2. ^ Making David into Goliath: How the World Turned Against Israel, Joshua Muravchik, 2015, page 149
  3. ^ a b Lizi Sagie, senior B'Tselem officer: Israel adheres to Nazi values, and turns its casualties into celebrities, Globes, 18 April 2010
  4. ^ Lizi Sagie, who called Memorial Day a "pornographic circus", resigns, Globes, 22 April 2010
  5. ^ As a result of her statements: senior B'Tselem figure resigns, Channel 2 News, 22 April 2010
  6. ^ a b The undercover journalist who revealed the hate to israel, Channel2 News, 29 August 2017
  7. ^ B'Tselem admits: Field researcher denied Holocaust, Channel 2 News, 6 October 2014
  8. ^ Israeli rights group admits employee denied Holocaust, Times of Israel, 7 October 2014
  9. ^ The troubling "truth" of B'Tselem, Maariv, 7 October 2014
  10. ^ Response to accusations regarding former B'Tselem's field Researcher 'Atef Abu a-Rub, B'Tselem, 7 October 2014

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)[reply]

Discussion[edit]

  • 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)[reply]
  • 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." Zerotalk 11:59, 8 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
  • No. Obvious smear attempt is obvious. — Malik Shabazz Talk/Stalk 02:04, 9 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
  • Yes As clearly well sourced material per WP:DUE and WP:NPOV--Shrike (talk) 14:21, 13 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yes As clearly well sourced material per WP:DUE and WP:NPOV. Debresser (talk) 18:18, 13 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose per WP:WEIGHT and WP:NPOV; minor incidents not suitable for inclusion. K.e.coffman (talk) 04:51, 17 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

  • (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)[reply]
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[edit]

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)[reply]

I removed the sentence, which was only an inconsequential mention of B'Tselem. Zerotalk 23:44, 28 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Board Members[edit]

The Board Members are no longer active, if the section refers to notable previous board members it might be of value to clarify 192.114.91.231 (talk) 13:03, 19 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

That's updated. Iskandar323 (talk) 14:37, 19 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 7 November 2023[edit]

I would like to add as an External Link a video interview I did with former B'Tselem Exec. Dir. Eitan Felner, on the topic of East Jerusalem. It is a 1996 interview, and is on my YouTube page. It can be viewed at https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NeNiWCrgmRg&t=80s. PalestineArchive (talk) 23:05, 7 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done for now: First, next time, please use {{Edit COI}}, since you have a conflict of interest in that you conducted the interview.

Second, if the content can be incorporated into the article's prose and cited, instead of linked separately, then it should be per ELNO #1. voorts (talk/contributions) 01:49, 15 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:B%27Tselem&oldid=1205571785"